Sunday, 29 August 2010

Standing on the Firm Ground of Ancestral Precedent

By Mister Fox

T
he mainstream parties have bad images - treason, war crimes, corruption, sleaze but are part of the same elites as the media and hold the power. The corrupt MS politicians when exposed are so as individuals but in the case of un-orthodox parties individual cases of bad behaviour are generalised to dehumanise all the members.

People are losing their trust in mainstream parties but they see BNP not as a saviour but a threat even while the country is being Balkanised! The elites call it ethnic cleansing when the wrong side like Serbs do it but when they do it to us they call it progress and dehumanise protesters as “racists” and “haters”.

Of course the mainstream are going to oppose us and of course they are going to use their political power and influence on us but there is no need for the wider population to hate us. Our opposition to “race replacement”was the normal, natural way of thinking until Hitler made it look evil and barbaric and were seemingly unaware that we have a British tradition. Before Hitler the Conservative party was the national party and many Socialists were patriotic.

Is nationalism facing the same difficulty which as after Thatchers comments that people were afraid of being swamped in 1979? Do people believe the Tories will address their concerns? In the late '70s and 1980s support which might otherwise have gone to nationalists certainly went to the Conservatives in particular areas like Essex and East London.

It is different now. Immigration directly affects people in areas from Southern England to the north of Scotland in a way that it never did thirty years ago. An indirect effect of the new Tory government will be to galvanise a nationalist movement. The middle-aged and older, comfortably-off, disproportionately concentrated in the Home Counties may have to face reality now gypsies have preferential treatment over land in their areas and realise that a Tory-led government will also be biased against them whatever they say; radical imams are too threatening or taxes too high.

In recent years the Tory party abandoned nationalism to promote Globalism. Its traditional supporters are still marooned. There is not a single Conservative councillor in Newcastle, Sheffield, Liverpool or Manchester and the party is hardly any better off in many other places while the working classes or most people in Scotland and Northern England will never be reconciled with them. Where the Liberal Democrats have become the main opposition to Labour they are likely to suffer a fall in popularity due to their coalition with the Tories at national level. Yet no organisation is capable of countering a proper critique of globalisation when we begin to offer a proper one.

The Establishment isn't strong, it's weak, and hated by vast sections of the population, possibly a majority as we see from the turn out figures for General Elections, and the results; it has virtually no presence at street level, it's ideas are manifestly bankrupt and it has nearly destroyed our society, our economy and our culture. They only look good by comparison to the inadequates who have led radical nationalism.

There is much call for a properly run party and even in its present ineptly run state the BNP got over half a million in the GE. For years polls have showed opposition to mass immigration. There was a poll that showed people agreed with our policies but when they found out which party had the policies would not support it. On the doorstep people tell activists they do not trust the leaders and they will not vote for Nazis. This is because they party was not positioned as the new Nationalist Conservative party, socially and culturally Conservative, but not economically. We should be the successors to the "Nationalist Conservatives" and develop to deal with contemporary issues. There are hard financial times coming because of the MS parties profligacy and we need economic policies to deal with this reality and give our people priority not immigrants.

Please be aware - I am not talking about Civic nationalism, but proper nationalism only the traditional British sort not a foreign import. People from all walks of life have expressed concern at the dangers of trying to mix different types of people and the destruction of our identity. All have suffered and some have been openly persecuted. This is not a left versus right issue but common sense versus utopian idealism.

I have prepared an overview of honourable politicians and mainstream people like academics, actors, popular entertainers who have voiced fears for the future. It is long and people do not have to plough through it but use it is a resource for research and examples. It shows that the way of thinking the state is bullying us into is perverse and that the instinct to conserve our homogeneity is the natural way for for all peoples.

Edmund Burke defined a nation which involves a shared identity, history and ancestry, and continuity: “… it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living and those who are dead, but between those who are living and those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” A racial world view is a traditional world view and goes back to Anglo-Saxon-Celtic tribal days.
The Myth of Racial Equality.

Scottish Philosopher David Hume’s essay ‘Of National Character’.had an original 1753 footnote which read:
"I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation."
Historical figures and leading intellectuals. Elizabeth.1 in 1601 had the “Blackamoors””voided from the realm.” Edward Gibbon, the great historian of the Collapse of Rome, warned of a time hence when minarets would sprout amongst the spires of Oxford. G.K.Chesterton predicted war with Muslims in England in his novel The Flying Inn (1912).

The myth of racial equality was also destroyed by Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in Chapter 24 of “Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography”(1852): “The Jews...are a living and the most striking evidence of the falsity of that pernicious doctrine of modern times, the natural equality of man. The particular equality of a particular race is a matter of municipal arrangement, and depends entirely on political considerations and circumstances; but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequences on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors.”

Putting your own people first was It was the normal, natural view until Hitler.

Three-times British Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, on 24 May 1929, said: “…that each one of us, so far as in him lies, will strive to keep these islands a fit nursery for our race.”

Sir Winston Churchill wanted the Conservative party to adopt the slogan “Keep England White.” Harold Macmillan entered in his diary for January 20th 1955: "More discussion about the West Indian immigrants. A Bill is being drafted - but it's not an easy problem. P.M. thinks 'Keep England White' a good slogan! The bill was not ready till June 1955, two months after Churchill had stood down. This is recorded in MacMillan's, “At the End of the Day.”

Documents at the Public Records Office record the fifth Marquess of Salisbury: “... we are faced with a problem which, though at present it may be only a cloud the size of a man’s hand, may easily come to fill the whole political horizon …With each year that passes, and with the general improvement with methods of transportation, the flow increases. Indeed, if something is not done to check it now, I should not be at all surprised if the problem became quite unmanageable in twenty or thirty years time.” Letter to Viscount Swinton March 1954.

The records also show Oliver Lyttleton (later Lord Chandos) trying to bring common sense to bear on the matter. In a letter to Swinton 31/3/1954 wanting deposits of £500 to be put down by immigrants, “ if there is to be means of controlling the increasing flow of coloured people who come here largely to enjoy the benefits of the Welfare State.”He had a list of all restrictions imposed on Britons by other Commonwealth countries who refused to accept “persons who are likely to become a public charge,” illiterates”, those deemed “undesirable” had “unsuitable standards or habits of life” many had quota systems and even dictation tests. Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependants as he shall bring with him to the island”.Thirty–nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission. Britain alone allowed anyone in!

Enoch Powell refined his views in a speech to the Southall Chamber of Commerce on 4th November 1971, “Yet it is more truly when he looks into the eyes of Asia that the Englishman comes face to face with those who will dispute with him possession of his native land.”

Cyril Osborne Conservative(Louth) began his campaign against immigration in 1954. The open entry to anyone was not brought under any control until the Commonwealth Immigration bill (1961).At the second reading Osborne warned “that the world’s poor would swarm to Britain’s welfare honey pot. We have neither the room nor the resources to take all who would like to come.” We are seeing this now with boats leaving Africa for Europe. In March 1965 he told the House,”Our children and grandchildren will curse us for our moral cowardice.”

Norman Pannell (C) Liverpool,proposed a motion at the 1958 Tory conference for reciprocal rights of entry with other Commonwealth countries,. Only the U.K. let anyone in: “When I visited Nigeria two years ago as a Member of Parliament without ultimate responsibility for the affairs of that country, I was given an entry permit valid for 14 days and renewable subject to good behaviour.” He also addressed the 1961 conference and stated that Home Secretary Butler had agreed with his suggestion of deporting immigrants who commit crimes, but no action had been taken.

Harold Gurden(c) wrote to the Times of 13th December 1960: “On the health question we find the middle ring of the city (Birmingham), where immigrants are mainly concentrated, heavily peppered with dots of tuberculosis incidence.” In 2005 we were told that we now have a record number of TB cases and there are more in London than the usual breeding grounds of the disease abroad.

In The Unarmed Invasion (1965) Lord Elton wrote, “We seem to be re-enacting the story of the Roman Empire, which in its decadence imported subject races to do the menial tasks.” In his autobiography, rock guitarist Eric Clapton tells of adverts that he saw in Jamaica for immigrants to come here and it was clear that they were being brought here as cheap labour.

Peter Griffiths(c) Smethwick called for health checks on immigrants when he responded to a question in the local paper the “Smethwick Telephone”, “Immigration should be limited to those of sound health who have jobs and living accommodation arranged before they enter.” This was prescient as there was an outbreak of Typhoid in Smethwick in April 1965. In 1964 there had been uproar over the general election at Smethwick which Griffiths won against the trend on anti-immigration . A bomb was planted outside Griffith’s home on 26th October 1965 because of the way he had been de-humanised by press and politicians.

In the debate on the 1968 Race Relations Bill Ronald Bell (c)(later knighted) argued that the bill was “very deep and damaging encroachments into the proper sphere of persons decisions.” (Hansard, 23/3/1968). In a speech “This Sceptred Isle” to W.I.S.E. at the National Liberal Club in 1981. We are well on the road back to “presentment of Englishry”, when in the days after the Norman Conquest that it was a defence to show that the injured person was only an Englishman.”

In 1981 K.Harvey Proctor(c) announced the Conservative party Monday Club's official policy - to repatriate 50,000 immigrants a year. The forward to the document was by Sir Ronald Bell.

Tony Marlowe MP in Northampton told the Oxford University Conservative Association in 1981, “Hordes of exotic invaders have flooded the continent (Europe) wishing to help themselves to the luxuries of Western living. Nowhere has the pressure been greater than in the United Kingdom. No country has been less prepared to stem the flow than our own. In this land which proclaims free speech free discussion has been stifled by humbug and by the censorship of an establishment unwilling to contemplate the radical cures which alone can reverse the tide.” “What would be unacceptable and should not under any circumstances be tolerated is a policy of suppression and inaction for no policy can be more calculated to bring about the racial holocaust which we should all so earnestly strive to avoid.”

In 1993 the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill, also called Winston, warned that in the north of England half the population was now Muslim and If our prime minister(Major) believes that 50 years hence “spinsters will still be cycling to Communion on Sunday morning” he had best think again. Rather, "the muezzin will be calling Allah's faithful to the High Street mosque" for Friday prayers. The Times (London) attacked him for a 'tasteless outburst.'" Mr. Churchill was viscously shouted down on BBC Radio Four’s Today programme by presenter John Humphrey’s in what was a despicable attack on an elected politician.

John Townend(C) who wrote in 1991, that Government “ministers wanted to turn the British into a "mongrel" race and the Commission for Racial Equality should be abolished.” In 1989, he suggested deportation of Muslims who opposed Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, "England must be reconquered for the English".

Another of Sir Winston’s grandsons, Nicholas Soames commented in the Commons. On July 17th 2007 he said, “foreign immigration is now 25 times higher than it has ever been in the past, … The sharp increase in immigration is no accident. To suggest, as Ministers do, that it is all a result of the fall of communism or of globalisation is, frankly, bizarre. The numbers point clearly to a massive increase since the present Government came to power in 1997. Part of the increase is due to their failure during their first five years in office to get a grip on asylum claims, of which more than 60 per cent. were eventually judged to be unfounded. Another part is due to their decision to allow a massive increase in work permits, which have trebled since 1997. At the same time, their decision in June 1997 to abolish the primary purpose rule has led to the number of spouses admitted to Britain doubling from 20,000 to 40,000 a year.” He was accused hysterically of getting his information from the BNP!

In 2005 Lord Tebbit former chairman of the Conservative party told e-politix website , “Islam is so unreformed there have been no real advances in art, literature, science or technology in the Muslim world in 500 years, and multiculturalism was in danger of undermining UK society. In the 1980s he disputed the loyalty of immigrants who backed cricket teams from their countries of origin. He claimed if he had been heeded it might have stopped the London bombings. After which he declared that Enoch’s prophecies of racial civil war were right.

Labour politicians have also spoken out for their people.

Two days after the Empire Windrush docked on the 22 July 1948 with 790 west Indians, J.D.Murray and ten other Labour MP’s wrote to Labour Prime Minister Clement Atlee, asking for legislation to prevent an influx. Atlee replied, that he thought they would “make a genuine contribution to our labour difficulties at the present.” There had been racial battles in 1948 between 31 July and 2 August in Liverpool, in Deptford on the 18th July; and Birmingham between the 6th and 8th of August 1949 but the idealists ignored them as they had in 1919 when after the racial battles in Liverpool and Cardiff.

The first actual debate on immigration was in the House of Commons on the 5th of November 1954 in a thirty-minute adjournment debate called by John Hynd Labour M.P. for Sheffield (Attercliffe). “One day recently 700 embarked from Jamaica without any prospect of work, housing or anything else.” He also said the colour bar in Sheffield dance halls because of knife fights was justified. Both Hynd and another Labour M.P. James Johnson called for a committee of enquiry to be set up. Henry Hopkinson(c), Minister of State at the Colonial Office admitted that he had received many letters from worried M.P.’s on both sides.

In the Commons in December 1958 Labour’s Frank Tomney, remarked on elected representatives ignoring their constituents. “We have been sent here by the electorate to give expression to issues which concern them.” Fellow Notting Hill MP George Rogers (L) told the Daily Sketch of 2/9/58,” Overcrowding has fostered vice, drugs, prostitution and the use of knives.” James Harrison (L) from Nottingham also supported controls. Mr Tomney was a practical man of humble origins and understood his people, "I have come directly from the benches of a factory to the benches of the Commons". Tomney's defence of his young constituents in the House of Commons debate on the 1958 Notting Hill Race Battles, who were inaccurately represented by their lawyers, stitched up by the police and given excessive sentences by evil Judge Salmon. This was the most noble and heroic speech in the history of the House of Commons.

In May 1976 with an influx of Malawi Asians into his Bermondsey constituency, Bob. Mellish, then Labours’ chief whip, told the Commons, “With 53 million of us we cannot go on without strict immigration control.”

Prominent journalists.

Charles Moore, former editor of the Daily Telegraph, produced Salisbury Paper 9 in 1981,”The Old People of Lambeth”. It was an empirical research into the real living conditions of “whites” rather than another abstract academic study. One elderly man told him, “…its our Queen and our country, why should we be afraid to go out?”

Former Sunday Telegraph editor Sir Peregrine Worsthorne has written “even Hitler would not have treated ordinary people with such cruelty.”

In a book review for the Salisbury Review of Spring 2003 Sir Alfred Sherman, former senior advisor to Mrs Thatcher and leader writer on the Jewish Chronicle, recalled a friend in race relations had asked him to take a look at the reception areas of Deptford and Southall in the mid 60’s, “ I was horrified. My natural vague sympathies for the immigrants, strangers in a foreign land, was replaced by strong but hopeless sympathy for the British victims of mass immigration, whose home areas were being occupied. I was made aware of a disquieting evolution in “Establishment” attitudes towards what they called immigration or race relations and I dubbed “colonialisation.” The well-being and rights of immigrants and ethnic minorities had become paramount. The British working classes, hitherto the object of demonstrative solicitude by particularly the New Establishment on the left, but the working classes had acquired new status as the enemy, damned by the all-purpose pejorative “racists.”
Eminent legal minds.

Viscount Radcliffe, former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary was concerned about the preferential treatment being accorded to immigrants above that given to the natives, “ I cannot for myself, imagine how juridical notions can be founded on such vague conceptions. The conduct of human life consists of choices, and it is a very large undertaking indeed to outlaw some particular grounds of choice, unless you can confine yourself to such blatant combinations of circumstances as are unlikely to have any typical embodiment in this country. I try to distinguish in my mind between an act of discrimination and an act of preference, and each time the attempt breaks down.”(Immigration and Settlement: some general considerations”.(Race, vol.11, no.1, pp 35-51.) Incidentally, it was Radcliffe who coined the term often attributed to Enoch: “The alien wedge.”

In a case against squatters, Judge Harold Brown commented,” It seems curious that if a landlord closes the door on a coloured applicant merely because of his colour he might well get into serious trouble. But if he closes his door on white people with children merely because they have children, he is under no penalty at all.” (Guardian, 2 August 1969.)

In 1982 Lord Denning, widely regarded as the twentieth century’s greatest judge, published “What Next In The Law”: "The English ....no longer share the same standards of conduct. Some of them come from countries where bribery and graft are accepted as an integral part of life: and where stealing is a virtue so long as you are not found out."

In 1995 retired judge, James Pickles, told a literary luncheon in Leeds, "Black and Asian people are like a spreading cancer... There are no-go areas in Halifax, where I have lived all my life, where white people dare not go even with their cars... All immigration must stop... The country is full up. We don't want people like that here. They have a different attitude to life. They are not wanting to adopt our ways of life" (India Mail 02.03.95).Liaqat Hussain of the Bradford Council for Mosques called for Judge Pickles to be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act.
There have also been scholars.

Dr. John Casey who read a paper to the Conservative Philosophy Group which was also printed in the first issue of The Salisbury Review in Autumn 1982. “There is no way of understanding British and English history that does not take seriously the sentiments of patriotism that go with a continuity of institutions, shared experience, language, customs, kinship. There is no way of understanding English patriotism that averts its eyes from the fact that it has at its centre a feeling for persons of ones own kind.” Dr.Casey was persecuted. Marxist professor Terry Eagleton held rival English lectures, campus rent-a-mobs demonstrated and refused to attend his lectures and the Sunday Times of 1st December 1991 printed a photograph that made him look like a wizened crow!

Professor Bob Rowbotham in the London Sunday Telegraph of 2 July 2006, referred to the motives of the elites, who were creating what Marx called “A reserve army of labour.”
The transformation of Southall was brought about by Wolf’s rubber factory encouraging workers from India.

The Socialist intellectual David Goodhart in Prospects (March 1998), quoted Conservative M.P. David Willetts on the Welfare State: "The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties which they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask, 'Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn't do? … Progressives want diversity but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests... The traditional conservative Burkean view is that our affinities ripple out from our families and localities, to the nation and not very far beyond. That view is pitted against a liberal universalist one which sees us in some sense equally obligated to all human beings from Bolton to Burundi … .”

Economist Professor Ezra Mishan exposed immigration as being about cheap labour in the Salibury Review in 1988: “Frequent claims that the new immigrants have in fact reduced the labour shortage in particular sectors of the economy – in particular, the apparent shortages of labour in transport, in nursing, and in what are popularly to be the more menial and less attractive occupations- are naïve. Managers of public services in Britain who, along with some private firms, sent agents to the West Indies in the 1950’s in order to recruit labour were only acting as good capitalists would in such circumstances – attracting lower-paid labour from outside their area in order to prevent wages from rising within it. If it was not for that wages would have risen.”

Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, complained to a committee of MPs that it was hard to manage the economy when nobody knew how many people were in the country. .. Less privileged folk of his generation, for whose fears about the future he clearly has a patrician contempt, will pay a heavy price if our unprecedented experiment of mass immigration goes wrong.”

Popular entertainers

Morrisey complained that immigration had led to the loss of our identity in November 2007: “ British identity has disappeared because the country has been “flooded” by immigrants. He suggested to music magazine NME that immigration was one of the reasons he would not move back to Britain from America .

Dame Shirley Bassey was quoted on The Voice of Reason blog as saying: “It's sad that they just let it (Britain) go to rack and ruin, Labour. How? Well, it's violent, isn't it? That's all we read in the papers and see on television”. Why does she think this has happened? "We're letting in too many people. We're an island, for God's sake. And the Britishness seems to have gawwwnnne."
Television and film personalities.

The veteran Liberal broadcaster Ludovic Kennedy wrote in a book review for “The Oldie”, in January 2004, that there ”are too many black faces on TV, political correctness has got completely out of hand.” Sir Patrick Moore, the world renowned astronomer to remark “The more asylum seekers get the less there is for us.”

Early in 2005, Welsh film star John Rhys-Davies who played Gimli in Lord of the Rings told “World magazine ”the Muslim birthrate is a demographic catastrophe, I think that Tolkein says that some generations will be challenged. And if they do not rise to meet that challenge, they will lose their civilisation.” Film star John Hurt praised Enoch: “I think he was just saying: We can’t afford to have any more.”

The Sunday Times(London) June 11, 2006 reported that Rear Admiral Chris Parry, one of Britain’s most senior military strategists has warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire. He said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while north African “Barbary” pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years. Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries—a “reverse colonisation” as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the internet and cheap flight. … “Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned … the process acts as a sort of reverse colonisation, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communication on phones and the internet.”

The selfish middle classes wanting cheap labour and low restaurant bills are blighting their own children's prospects. Frank Field (L) told the panel on the Moral Maze In August 2006: “The sheer numbers and the attempt to close down the issue. He took the side of the poor natives and talked about this influx pushing down wages and people having to compete for homes. He commented that the panel are well-heeled and the ones who are getting cheap labour.

Former MP George Walden (C ) told of how we are being replaced. Writing in the Times of 5th November 2006 Walden noted that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) had announced some startling new figures: Britain was taking in 1,500 immigrants a day, while 1,000 Brits left.”

In Time to Emigrate(Gibson square Books). Walden was writing advice to his son, who'd just said that he and his wife were thinking of emigrating. Their young son had been viciously beaten by a thug just yards from their front door. As the boy emerged from his coma, his thankful parents started to wonder just how safe their "safe" part of North London truly was.

The book is criticism of immigration, not the immigrants themselves but the long term effect immigration is having on our people. It's not the immigrants he objects to bur the elites who are letting them in in such enormous numbers.

We have a moral duty to ensure that our children and descendents receive their inheritance that was passed down from our ancestors not distribute it amongst immigrants and the rest of the world. The natural society is organic and evolves naturally among people who belong together. The living honour the dead by passing on what they have inherited to their children, but now we are perversely having our inheritance dissipated by the elites and shared with outsiders and the homes and jobs our children should have are taken by the people brought in as cheap labour.

Wednesday, 14 July 2010

How Should We View the Jews?


By Dr.D


One of the questions that arises repeatedly among those of us in the West is “how should we view the Jews?” Within ourselves, this is one of our most divisive questions, causing much internal strife within Western civilization today. There are so many ways to look at the Jews, that it becomes at times a bewildering task to sort them all out. For example, we can say, “the Jews are, taken all together, only a handful of people, scattered across the face of the earth, and persecuted in many places. How can we have anything but pity for the Jews?” At the other extreme, there are many (besides the muzlims) who say, “the Jews are the source of all of the problems of mankind; get rid of the Jews, and the world will be a better place.” In this latter camp are the proponents of the famous publication known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, purporting to be the evil plans of the Jews. In the first group, we find most evangelical Christians, who say things like, “Jesus was a Jew, so how can we possibly think evil of the Jews?”

All of us who live in Western society enjoy the benefits of a Judeo–Christian heritage, the direct result of the development of Christendom in Europe over the past two millennia. This is true for non–Christians as well as for Christians in Western society, because this is the basis for our civil law, our customs, every aspect of our culture is grown out of this background. In order to have a basis for an opinion about how we should view the Jews, we should first know something about them.

Who are the Jews?
We read in Holy Scripture that at the time the Lord God made the Covenant with Abram, giving him his new name Abraham, he also said in Genesis 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. By the term, “the Jews,” we mean the “many nations,” the descendants of Abraham as promised by God through his son, Isaac. We might note, however, that in verse 20, God also promises to make of Abraham’s other son, Ishmael, a great nation which is where we get the Arabs. Thus the enmity and jealousy between the Jews and Arabs goes all the way back to this time.

God gave the land of Palestine to Abraham and his descendants after him as their dwelling place, but if you know Bible history, it was not a smooth, simple occupation of their new home. Before too long, they suffered a 400 year captivity in Egypt as slaves of Pharaoh, King of the Egyptians. This ended when they were led out of captivity by Moses, who led them into the desert of Sinai, where he received the Law, the 10 Commandments directly from God on Mount Sinai as recorded in Exodus 20. Thus to be a Jew came to be one who followed the Law of Moses.

Without going into any details, let it suffice to say that by about the 8th century BC, the once strong kingdom that had been created under the great king David at approximately 1000 BC, was by that time divided into the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The nation had split right after the death of Solomon, son of David, and existed as two separate kingdoms for about 200 years. The Northern Kingdom consisted of ten out of the twelve tribes of Israel, while the Southern Kingdom had only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. In 721 BC, the Assyrians swept down from the north and annihilated the Northern Kingdom, This disbursed the peoples of the Northern Kingdom, the so–called 10 Lost Tribes of Israel, up into Assyria, Asia Minor, and some say on into Europe, the first diaspora of the Jews. But this does not mean that they left Judaism behind, only that it began to spread beyond the limits of Palestine.

What was left, of course, was the now isolated Southern Kingdom of Judah that lasted another 133 years until 588 BC when it was defeated and the people were marched into exile in Babylon, another dispersion of the Jewish people. In 536 BC, Cyrus, King of Babylon, issued a command to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, and this began the repatriation of many Jews. But as with any exile, not all returned, so once again, Judaism was spread outside the borders of Palestine.

By the first century AD, there are estimated to have been 2 million Jews in Palestine, and some 5 million Jews living outside of Palestine throughout the Greco–Roman world.[1] The Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, along with Masada and other Jewish strongholds will only change these figures by a few hundred thousand at most, probably much less. Thus we may conclude that by the time of Christ, we are talking about a rather large number of people scattered throughout the then known world, but all still practicing Judaism. Judaism is what makes a Jew, at least historically.

By the time of Christ, Judaism had evolved into a considerably more complex affair than simply being a descendant of Abraham and a keeper of the 10 Commandments, although these were sort of the minimum requirements. By that time, a multitude of additional “laws” had been added to Judaism, giving it a very legalistic structure. Judaism at this time split into four identifiable parts:

1. The party of the Sadducees who were primarily from the upper classes, very focused on the priestly activities associated with Temple worship, and located exclusively in Jerusalem.[2] They tended to have a fairly conservative outlook on Judaism itself, holding to the books of Moses while not acknowledging the Prophets, Wisdom or History books. On the other hand, they were very concerned that Temple worship not be interrupted, and thus were willing to accommodate the Roman government readily.

2. The party of the Pharisees are well known to us through the Gospels for their intense focus on keeping all 613 points of the Jewish Law in every detail. The text of the Torah was the thing of central importance to the Pharisees, just as the Sadducees had been focused on the Temple.

3. The Essene community was focused on religious purity, particularly purity of the land. They felt that the land was defiled by the presence of gentiles, the Romans, and they withdrew to the Qumran community and other similar sites to seek purification.

4. The Zealots were very politically oriented, with kingship as their central symbol. They tended to plot revolution, overthrow of the Roman government, etc. because their focus was on the return of the worldly Davidic kingdom.

While these several divisions are primarily associated with Judaism in Palestine, they extend to some extent outside there as well. With the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, only one of these segments of Judaism had any real possibility of survival and that was the party of the Pharisees. The Sadducees were tied to the Temple in Jerusalem which had all been destroyed, the Essenes communities were wiped out and the land was even more “polluted” in their eyes by this massive new gentile force, and the hopes of the Zealots were completely dashed. It was only the Pharisees, who were tied only to the written word of the Law and could thus move and bend, who were able to survive. For this reason, most of Judaism as we have it today has its roots in the party of the Pharisees.

It has been remarked that Judaism is what makes a Jew, but that requires a bit of qualification at this point. Historically the bare statement was unquestionably true as it stands, but today we have something new. We have two kinds of Jews; there are religious Jews (as you might expect), but there are also cultural, or secular Jews. The first are Jews who continue to follow the classic Jewish religion, in somewhat evolved forms, but still recognizable and traceable from the earlier forms.

The modern secular or cultural Jews are people who claim a Jewish heritage, but follow little, or in some cases none, of the the actual Jewish religion. They still see themselves as Jews, they still cluster together and have all of the group characteristics, and they often will bring out some aspect of the Jewish religion at special times, such as for a wedding or a funeral. Otherwise, the actual religion means very little to them and they frequently eat pork and violate all of the other dogma of Judaism. Despite the lack of religious faith, they exhibit practically all of the other characteristic of all Jews.

Why Do We Tend To Distrust The Jews?
One of the questions we ought to consider is just why do we distrust the Jews? On the face of it, it does not make much sense. Very few Jews are violent, very few Jews are known to steal, very few Jews engage in property damage or vandalism. So why do we distrust the Jews?

Well, if we look just a little bit deeper, we find that Jews are well known for sharp business dealings, for taking advantage of the unsuspecting, for being “hard hearted” business men. Of course, there are countless many Gentile business men who could be accused of the same things, but somehow, the Jews have been particularly stigmatized in this regard. It is in the area of money and banking that the Jews are particularly frowned upon, since they are often associated with having financed many wars fought by nominally Christian countries. The banking organization associated with the Jewish family Rothschild is particularly blamed for this, many people saying that if the bankers had refused the finances, the wars would not have happened. The correctness of that assertion is debatable all day long. But it definitely causes people to look at this particularly very wealthy Jewish family and say, “they are just in it for the money; they do not care how many die.”

But there is a much more significant cause for distrust than simply Jewish financial interests. As observed above, Judaism is what makes a Jew. This means that every Jew, no matter where he lives or what his citizenship may be, feels a strong bond with every other Jew. This is true to some extent with the members of every group, whether it be medical doctors, Roman Catholics, Freemasons, or Boy Scouts, ... or the Jews. But it has shown itself to be uniquely powerful through the ages in the case of the Jews. The Jews in every nation have maintained contacts with Jews in other nations, even in conflict with the interests of their host nations.

Except in their own nation state of Israel, Jews have always been in the minority wherever they have lived. Thus they have always thought in terms of survival tactics. On the one hand, that is understandable, but when we as Gentiles look at that, we realize that they are talking about the survival of Jews, not the survival of our nations. The two may be quite different, and that causes us a lot of concern. What is good for the individual Jew, or for a group of Jews, may be deadly for our nation. And we must remember that Jews always see themselves as Jews first, and only secondarily as citizens of whatever nation they may belong to. Thus the Jews are seen as always being potential fifth columnists within our society. It is inherent in who they are. How can you trust someone like that?

But Are Jews Really Like That?
Many Jews seem like fine people, people that you can trust and have fair, open honest dealings with every day. How can we suspect a whole people?

As a boy, many long years ago, I lived down the street from the family of an Orthodox Rabbi. I often played with one of their sons. On several occasions, on Friday evenings, Mrs. Geller asked me to come into her kitchen to light the gas cook stove for her so she could warm the evening meal for the family. It was a simple matter of striking a match, turning on the gas, and waiting a moment for the flame to catch, but she could not do this because the Sabbath had begun and she could do no work on the Sabbath. She could not do it, but she saw no problem with asking a goy child to do it. She, a member of the Chosen People, could not do this because it violated one of the 613 points of the Pharisaic Law, but she saw no harm in asking me, one of the non–chosen and therefore expendable people, to do this because she was sure I was of no concern anyway. Thus reasons my friend the orthodox Jewish housewife! In the eyes of the Jews, they alone are the elect of God, they alone will be saved, and the rest of us really do not matter at all.

One of the most prominent Jews in modern American life is Dr. Henry Kissinger. He has held important positions within the US government, most particularly Secretary of State as well as advisor to several Presidents, etc. He is seen by many as a true public servant, but how well has he really served American national interests?

In January, 1973, in the effort to bring the Viet Nam war to an end, Kissinger was the principal peace negotiator for the US in Paris leading to the Paris Peace Accords. One of the several terms of those accords was this:

As soon as the ceasefire is in effect, U.S. troops (along with other foreign soldiers) would begin to withdraw, with withdrawal to be complete within sixty days. Simultaneously, U.S. prisoners of war would be released and allowed to return home. The parties to the agreement agreed to assist in repatriating the remains of the dead.
While it is certainly true that some American POWs were released and returned home under this agreement, it appears fairly certain that not all were.
http://tinyurl.com/24dyajb

It appears that a substantial number of the POWs, perhaps a third or more of the total, were kept behind by the Communists for some unknown purpose, perhaps as an intended bargaining chip for some future purpose. That purpose seems to have never materialized, but these men have been simply abandoned by the American government, even though their existence is definitely known. While it would be wrong to try to pin this exclusively on Henry Kissinger, it seems that he would surely be one of those involved in the decision to abandon these men. He negotiated the treaty, and he was the premier Presidential advisor at the time. This is truly shameful in the extreme.

In September, 1976, Kissinger played a major role in the downfall of Rhodesia by employing the international political influence of the United States to bring about the end of White minority rule there. He soon thereafter applied similar influence to pressure South Africa in the same way. In both of these countries, the result has led to the genocide of White people and the destruction of those nations as functioning societies. It is very difficult to argue that this served American interests in the world.

As a final comment on Henry Kissinger, let me remark that he is a regular participant in the Bilderberg Group which is known to support world government (even though they say that is not their primary goal). Kissinger has thrived personally in America (he was born in Germany), but has he served America well? I think there is reason to question this. His concerns seem to be much more international than American. That comes close to treason.

Let me discuss one other specific Jew who has been somewhat visible in American life recently. This is Sholom Rubashkin, a late middle aged rabbi from New York City who served as CEO for a family owned slaughter house in Postville, IA. Around 2003, this plant and one in Nebraska were monitored by undercover agents for the USDA and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The result was a finding that the slaughter houses were in gross violation in the way that they were killing the animals. This is described in stomach churning detail at the following site:
http://tinyurl.com/2hmjrk

More recently, in May of 2008, the Postville plant was raided in a search for illegal aliens. It was a highly successful raid and quite a large group were rounded up for deportation. Many more likely escaped but are thought to have self–deported to avoid being caught. It develops that Rubashkin was apparently fully aware of the illegal status of many of his employees. He did not pay them all of their wages, and they had to continue to work in the hope to collect in dribbles what they were owed. He was charged and convicted and is now in jail. This is described at the following URL:
http://tinyurl.com/2bopq73

One of the very interesting aspects of Sholom Rubashkin, and the reason I bring him up, is to show something about Jewish thought in such situations. Here is a highly educated man, a rabbi, an American citizen from New York City, essentially in exile in the sticks in small town Iowa where he is compelled to run the family business. But when things get sticky, when it looks like the law is going to come down hard on him, where does he plan to go? Well, when he was taken into custody, he was carrying a large amount of money in cash in a suitcase with his passport, and it appears that he was headed to Israel. By the Jewish state’s Law of Return, any Jew can come to Israel at any time, so he would have had a nice, secure place to hang out and watch the sun set over the Mediterranean and forget about the corn fields of Iowa and all of those wetbacks. Gentiles don’t have that option, but Jews do.

Rather than talk about individual Jews, what about Jews at large, specifically the modern nation state of Israel? How have they acted towards the US? Are they not considered one of our best long term allies? Well, yes, but ...

On the afternoon of 8 June 1967, the USS Liberty was attacked and severely damaged by Israeli jet aircraft while operating in the Mediterranean Sea in international waters off the Sinai. The Liberty was an intelligence gathering ship, covered with antennas, very lightly armed. The attack occurred during the Six Day War between Israel and her Arab neighbors, but it was definitely not a case of mistaken identity. Intercepted radio signals between the pilots and their ground controllers show the pilots reporting that the Liberty was an American ship, clearly flying the US flag, and the ground controllers saying to attack anyway.

The heat seeking missiles used by the Israelis went straight for the radio antennas, and quickly knocked them all out, except for one antenna that had not been in use. The Liberty was able to put that one antenna back into service and get out a distress call to the carrier USS America that was operating elsewhere in the Med, and fighters were scrambled to come to the aid of the Liberty. Word got back to Washington where LBJ and his Cabinet quickly met and called back the fighters, leaving the Liberty defenseless, an act of great treachery, the sort of thing one might expect from Lyndon B. Johnson.

After the air attack ended, the Israelis sent torpedo boats to the area and fired several torpedoes into the Liberty. They also sent helicopters to shoot up life rafts to try to assure that there were no survivors, a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. The USS Liberty did not sink. There were 34 crewmen killed and 173 were wounded, but the ship sailed away to a safe harbor.
http://tinyurl.com/louzdo

The full story on the Liberty has only come out within the past few months. The cover–up in the US was massive, involving many government officials and top military brass, all of which is utterly shameful. But the original aggressive action here, the case of this great loss of life, was the Israelis who wanted that ship sunk. We don’t know to this day what the USS Liberty had that was of such value to the Israelis. We can speculate that the Liberty may have monitored some Israeli activity during the Six Day War that they did not want known. But they did not hesitate to kill our seamen and try to sink our ship in order to achieve their goals, whatever they were. They are that sort of friends.

One other comment about how the nation of Israel has acted will probably be sufficient. It is well established that Israel has done spying on the US in just exactly the same manner as have the Russians, the Red Chinese, etc. We know also, that even though we give them massive amounts of money as foreign aid, significant amounts of that money come right back to the US as bribes to try to influence particular members of Congress to secure particular actions. These do not seem like the actions of a true friend, the sort of person one can really trust.

So, How Should We View The Jews?
As the Judeo–Christian West, I think that there are several things we can say about how we have to look at the Jews.

1. We should see the Jews in some ways like we see the Muzlims; they are always different from us.
There is an “otherness” about both Jews and Muzlims that makes them eternally different from us as Western people. We are very foolish if we fail to recognize it. They both have a heritage that takes them both back thousands of years, all the way back to the Patriarch Abraham, and sets them apart from all of the other peoples of the world. They are conscious of this, aware of this, and we must be also.

2. We should see the Jews as people we can often deal with productively, unlike the Muzlims.
The “otherness” of the Muzlims shows itself largely in a completely perverse nature making it impossible to have any enduring productive relation with them. This is assured by their own Koran that enjoins them not to form friendships with non-muzlims. With Jews on the other hand, there are no fundamental barriers to good working relations, although sometimes things are strained. In most cases, however, Jews and Gentiles have been able to work together in the world of work without conflict.

3.We should remember that the Jews do not see the world through Western eyes.
This comment requires some qualification in that, many modern Jews do see the world to some extent through Western eyes. Many of them have been educated in the West, in Europe and the US, so they have Western cultural values to a large extent. On the other hand, many of the Jews in Israel have come from Poland, Ukraine, and Russia and do not have very Western views at all.

4. We should generally be supportive of the Jews, in an arms–length sort of way, realizing that they are not, and never will be, us.

It is delusional to think that Jews will ever be one with us, so while we should wish to be supportive, we have to realize that their interests are not entirely aligned with our own and they will always act in their own interests, not ours; remember the USS Liberty. It is foolhardy to let Jews into our key leadership positions for this very reason. They will always act as Jews first, and as citizens second.

Conclusion
Our view of the Jews needs to one of cautious, somewhat distant, friendship. It needs to be always conscious of their otherness and their own awareness of that fact. We need to be supportive, but not too trusting. It is very important for the Jews to have a homeland of their own, because truly they do not really belong in ours. By this I do not propose the expulsion of the Jews, but I do mean that they should not be trusted with the essential elements of Western society. They are not us.

References

1. Early Christianity: The Experience of the Divine, Prof. L.T. Johnson, lecture transcript, vol. 1, p. 103

2. ibid, p. 120.

COMMENTS ON THIS THREAD ARE NOW CLOSED

Monday, 12 April 2010

Conservative Party Cowardice - An analysis by Frank Ellis

Treacherous, Cowardly, Dishonest
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

U
ntil 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.