7th July 2005

Thursday 7th July 2005


© Frank Ellis 2005

My immediate reaction to the news that Islamic terrorists had carried out a series of atrocities in London was to hurl politically-incorrect abuse at the radio, followed by traditional Anglo-Saxon expletives and a period of sustained two-fingered gestures. Fortunately, the Home Office has not implemented recommendation 39(1) of the Macpherson Report, otherwise MI5 would have been bugging my house and yours truly would have been dragged off to prison as an “enemy of the people”. When I calmed down I realised that while my reaction towards the devils who had murdered some 55 people in London was entirely wholesome and normal, others deserve loathing and contempt as well.

The real culprits here are the multicultural extremists, who over the last thirty years or more have peddled their hatred of the West and white people, so preparing the way for acts of terrorism. These are the same people who have been responsible for the Soviet-style rewriting of our history, the corrupting effects of “anti-racism” and feminism on our language and the multiple failures to deal with the immigrant invasion. They have consistently sought to undermine our ability psychologically, morally and intellectually to resist the tyranny of multiculturalism.

It started with trifling things: banning golliwogs on jars; blackboards became chalkboards; teachers proscribed the singing of ba-ba black sheep; whites had to face up to their colonial past (I have, Africans should stop whining and be grateful). Our great heroes have been systematically and viciously denigrated; Third-World non-entities and gangsters are lauded. As a consequence, children and adults who know nothing of their own history - and ours is a very great one indeed - are ill-prepared to understand and to resist the ideologically-driven rewriting of history and what it means for the present. Looking to the past can be a great source of comfort, steeling our hearts in adversity and danger. Yet, today, too many adults can derive no succour from their past: it has been stolen from them or trampled underfoot.

The education establishment generally, and the universities particularly, have inspired and manipulated this Neo-Marxist pestilence. Consider that nearly all the repressive, anti-white racist measures we associate with political correctness and multiculturalism started life in a university. The most disturbing thing here is the extent to which academics whose very professional existence depends on the institution of free speech and challenging ideas have colluded with those who want to turn the university into a People’s Commissariat for Enlightenment. If the West does fall, future historians (will there be any historians?) may well regard the corruption of our universities, their willingness to embrace the revolution of anti-thought, as one of the decisive factors.

Our political classes have also lost the will to act. This lack of will and a steadfast denial about what has been happening in Britain can be seen in the way in which conservative politicians now queue up to spit at Enoch Powell. Just after the terrorist attacks Boris Johnson tried to persuade readers of The Daily Telegraph that Powell’s ‘catastrophic 1968 tirade’ made it impossible for politicians to talk about immigration and a multiracial society.(2) This is pure evasion. What stops politicians from talking about immigration and a multiracial society is that too many of them - perhaps these days all of them - lack the courage to stand up and be counted.

All three main parties are full of people who either want to impose the multicultural nightmare on Britain, or who harbour reservations, but keep their mouths shut for fear of damaging their careers. They have an obligation to speak out and they are not doing it. Johnson’s swipe at Powell is especially disgusting because when the out-going Tory MP, John Townend, attacked multiculturalism during the 2001 general election campaign, it was Boris Johnson, slavishly following the example of Hague, Dorrell and Maude who attacked Townend. The attacks on Britishness, the cause which Johnson now, belatedly, wishes to espouse, were well under way in 2001. Townend’s justified criticism of multiculturalism provided Johnson with the ideal opportunity to make his own opposition known and stand alongside Townend. Politically, Johnson found it more expedient to lay into Townend. Thus Johnson’s blaming Powell is despicable, and his call for reasserting Britishness utterly dishonest, given that he has made his own contribution to undermining Britishness by staying silent when he could have spoken out, and then attacked someone who did speak out. The time for highlighting the threat of multiculturalism to the integrity of the United Kingdom was not in the aftermath of terrorist attacks - that’s the easy jump-on-the-emotional-bandwagon option - but when the corrosive effects of multiculturalism were demonstrably obvious; and they there for all to see long before 7th July 2005. Far from being responsible for erecting any taboo on race, it was Enoch Powell who broke the cosy establishment conspiracy of silence regarding race and the consequences of immigrants flooding into this country. Powell warned what would happen and since the time when Powell issued his warning every attempt has been made to silence and to vilify any opposition to multiculturalism.

The Islamic terrorist atrocities in London are further evidence that beyond a certain threshold it is simply not possible to accommodate large numbers of immigrants and to preserve the British way of life. Yes, it can be done, after a fashion, but it means the systematic destruction of what we hold dear - our ancient freedoms and customs, monarchy, the-way-we-do-things - so as to compel the white indigenous majority population to accept something that most of us reject. The only people in Britain who tell you that “diversity is our strength” all live in Cornwall, the Somerset levels, Hay-on-Wye, Suffolk and Perthshire, a million miles away, in other words, from all that enriching “diversity”. Like we say, “Enoch was right” and that is why the left and a “Conservative” party, which increasingly resembles a social-democratic rabble, hate him and fear his memory and legacy so much. The turning point for getting utterly ruthless with the cult of multiculturalism should have been immediately after Tuesday 11th September 2001, not Thursday 7th July 2005. How many more people will have to die in Islamic terrorist atrocities, how many more generations of British schoolchildren are going to be denied access to their nation’s history, and how many more British institutions will have to be broken and maimed by the People’s Commissariat for Racial Equality before Johnson and his spineless party stop denying the ugly realities of multiculturalism and start fighting back, behaving, in other words, like a loyal opposition, and not frightened lemmings?

Denial regarding multiculturalism takes many forms. One approach, Niall Ferguson is an advocate, is to argue that the demographic shifts associated with multiculturalism are inevitable; that they are “the tides of history”. Now multiculturalism is not some immutable law of history to which the indigenous white populations of Northern Europe must submit. Let us recall that the ravings of Marx and Lenin about communism’s triumph were once accorded the same status of historical inevitability; that socialism was the wave of the future. This was precisely the Marxist planning fantasy that Friedrich Hayek dissected and exposed as incoherent and inherently totalitarian in The Road to Serfdom (1944). What, I wonder, would Ferguson, surveying Europe in the aftermath of Dunkirk, have told the readers of The Daily Telegraph; that Hitler and National Socialism were “the tides of history”; that we had better do a deal with the Führer whether we liked it or not? There were some who would have done a deal with Hitler, but the Great Man told them to go to hell. We fought a just war and we won. Churchill, like Powell after him, had a sense of history. We resisted Spain, Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin and Stalin’s successors. Resistance to multiculturalism requires the same determination. We must address the questions openly, fearlessly, honestly and rationally, and that means that we must refuse to allow ourselves to be intimidated by accusations of racism from white-hating multiculturalists - the real Neo-Nazis among us - and then we must act, not submit to the self-defeating fatalism articulated by Ferguson and other fainthearts. The response to the threat of multiculturalism is, in essence, one of political will and the belief that Britain, our great country, warts and all, is worth fighting for. Our political classes either support the cult of multiculturalism or derive benefits from supporting it. These people will never suffer from the policies they inflict on the rest of us. Moreover, I predict that the moment the joys of multiculturalism start to impinge on Ferguson’s life he will abandon his fatalism and start very actively to resist “the tides of history”. In America where Ferguson works this resistance to “the tides of history” is known, among other things, as white flight.

The Islamic terrorist attacks should also herald the formal and total rejection by the Home Office of the Soviet-style Macpherson Report. Macpherson’s recommendations have demonstrably hampered an aggressive pursuit of black and Asian criminals and severely damaged police morale. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks we heard Sir Ian Blair talking tough, yet what happened on 7th July 2005 has, for the time being, conveniently diverted attention from Blair’s persecution of three police officers. A race inquiry, which has dragged on for nearly six years, was initiated in the Metropolitan Police Service after a female police officer, a one Shabnam Chaudhri, complained that Detective Constable Tom Hassell mispronounced the word Shi’ites, as “Shitties”, and that he compared Muslim headgear to tea cosies. She then went on to complain about his remark that he would not want to be “that lot”, a reference to Muslims’ abstaining from sex and food during the month of Ramadan. In an echo of the Soviet crime of nedonositel’stvo (failing to denounce an “enemy of the people”) she accused the other two officers, who were present, Detective Sergeant Colin Lockwood and Detective Inspector Paul Whatmore of failing to intervene. Even the employment tribunal concluded that Blair’s main aim was to make an example of the three men so as to parade his anti-racist credentials. The effects of this internal persecution on police morale can only be deeply damaging. Nor is Blair the only senior police officer who bends the knee to the cult of multiculturalism. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick insists that ‘Islamic and terrorist are two words that do not go together’. Something is horribly wrong with the Macphersonised Metropolitan Police Service.

Enoch Powell was not the only one who sounded the alarm. In the 1980s, based on his own direct professional experience as a headmaster of an inner-city school in Bradford, another fine Englishman warned us what to expect. In a ground-breaking article first published in The Salisbury Review Ray Honeyford concluded with the following words: ‘And I am no longer convinced that the British genius for compromise, for muddling through, and for good-natured tolerance will be sufficient to resolve the inevitable tensions’. On 7th July 2005 we were handsomely rewarded for our tolerance and punished for our failure to keep out the hordes of immigrants who came to this country with murder in their ugly black hearts. Macpherson and his flunkeys in the Macphersonised Met, Trevor Phillips, Bhikhu Parekh and the lesser known race bureaucrats and well-meaning mediocrities owe the sage of Lancashire an unreserved and grovelling apology. Like we say, “Enoch was right, so was Ray”.

What further outrages and assaults await us? Here is a prediction. At some stage - I do not know when - the self-appointed leaders of what is referred to as the “Muslim community” will demand an independent Muslim state on the territory of the United Kingdom. They will justify this demand by arguing that Britain is so hostile to Islam, so riddled with “Islamophobia”; that only in their own self-governing territory will Muslims feel secure and be able to lead their lives according to the rules of Islam. This demand would be coupled with a barely-concealed threat of widespread terrorism, the use of suicide-homicide bombers, shootings, kidnappings, executions and murders, as we have seen in Gaza, Israel and Iraq. In the same way that the Israelis have had to trade land for peace so our politicians will be expected to make territorial concessions to buy peace in the United Kingdom. The fact that there may be a peace deal in the Middle East - eventually - would be the ideal time for Muslims in Britain to press these demands. Let us hope that this remains a far-fetched scenario, but if something like this happens, we should not bank on Blair’s successor, or whatever loser happens to be running the Tories, finding the resolve to reject any such demands out of hand, or pointing out the very obvious, that if these Muslims find life in Britain so utterly intolerable, they are free to return whence they came.

Perversely, terrorist attacks help this long-term aim. The more attacks we experience, the more resentment against Muslims in Britain in all its forms will come out into the open. The provisions of the Soviet-inspired Racial and Religious Hatred Bill will count for nothing, and Macpherson will be dumped. Given that very few Muslims will follow the sound advice of Lord Ahmed of Rotheram: “buy into what it means to be British or go”, then the temptation to grant political autonomy to specified regions would seem quite attractive. It would, of course, be an utterly disastrous concession: paying Danegeld never works. Moreover, any kind of self-governing status granted to Muslims in Britain, based on the main concentrations of the Muslim population, would spell the end of the United Kingdom forever. For that reason, the EU can be expected to encourage such measures. Inter-racial and inter-ethnic strife would increase dramatically.

And let’s be clear that this means much more than the riots that took place in Bradford, Burnley, Leeds and Oldham in 2001. If Islamic terror groups can organise carefully coordinated bomb attacks, there is no reason why they cannot organise large-scale attacks on the police, luring them into pre-planned killing zones, using small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. If some three quarters of a million illegals can get into this country, then smuggling in sufficient numbers of weapons presents no problem at all for determined groups. In any case Britain is already awash with illegal small arms. There is also the distinct possibility that not all members of the indigenous population will be content just to watch as the sceptred isle is turned into a war zone and torn to pieces. They will organise themselves, acquire weapons and learn how to use them and then they will fight back. If the security services fail to crush what has all the makings of a full-blown intifada, and thus prevent a violent counter reaction, things will be bleak indeed. For the time being the indigenous population of Britain is on the defensive, but it would be a grave error on the part of the government and the Islamic terror groups and their white Quisling apologists to believe that all Britons will just submit indefinitely to the cultural and physical terror engendered by multicultural extremists. At no stage were white Britons asked or consulted about whether they wished to see their country turned into another Yugoslavia. And that is where we are heading, maybe much faster than most of us realise.

__________________

(1) ‘That consideration should be given to amendment of the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proved to have taken place otherwise than in a public place’

(2) Boris Johnson, ‘This is a turning point: we have to fly the flag for Britishness again’, The Daily Telegraph, 14th July 2005, p.28.

___________________

Click here to return to the main Sarah: Maid of Albion blog

Click here to return to the British Resistance