In the Line of Tradition
by The Editor
The mainstream parties have bad images - treason, war crimes, corruption, sleaze- are normal behaviour of the elites and the media but they hold the power and present themselves as moral. When exposed corrupt MS politicians are as individuals but in the case of un-orthodox politicians, bad behaviour is generalised to dehumanise the whole party. Multi-racialists are happy to preach the benefits to those who have no choice but to live in it, but as soon as they have the money, move as far away from it as possible.
By David Hamilton
"Have you ever wondered, perhaps, why opinions which the majority of people quite naturally hold are, if anyone dares express them publicly, denounced as 'controversial, 'extremist', 'explosive', 'disgraceful', and overwhelmed with a violence and venom quite unknown to debate on mere political issues? It is because the whole power of the aggressor depends upon preventing people from seeing what is happening and from saying what they see." Enoch Powell
The mainstream parties have bad images - treason, war crimes, corruption, sleaze- are normal behaviour of the elites and the media but they hold the power and present themselves as moral. When exposed, corrupt mainstream politicians are as individuals, but in the case of un-orthodox politicians, bad behaviour is generalised to dehumanise the whole party. An article entitled “Working For Paxo is Pants” exposes Jeremy Paxman for underpaying au pair girls. Its easy to see why he supports immigration.
Multi-racialists are happy to preach the benefits to those who have no choice but to live in it, but as soon as they have the money, move as far away from it as possible! Billy Bragg moved from Barking to a mansion in Dorset, one of the least mixed areas in Britain. Lily Savage now lives in the Cotswolds. Politicians like John Cruddas promote multi-racialism but live in areas that are "hideously white".
Roy Hattersley, who did so much to dispossess working people from Sparkbrook, Birmingham, lives near Hathersage in the Peak District. (1)
People have lost their trust in mainstream parties as the country is Balkanised. The elites call it ethnic cleansing when the wrong side like Serbia does it but when they do it to us they call it progress and dehumanise protesters as “racists” and “haters”.
Our opposition to “race replacement” was once the normal, natural way of thinking. Many are unaware that we have a British tradition. Before Hitler the Conservative party was the national party and most Socialists were patriotic. (2)
Immigration has not brought equality; the elites give immigrants preferential treatment over the natives. It now affects people in areas from southern England to the north of Scotland in a way that it never did previously, and it is still spreading. 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 Muslims are taking over our communities but the elites can not face it while others encourage it for cheap labour. (3)
The Tory party abandoned nationalism to promote Globalism and its traditional supporters are marooned or joining UKIP. There is not one Conservative councillor in Newcastle, Sheffield, Liverpool or Manchester and they are no better off in other places, and the working-classes have no representation and will never be reconciled with them until they adopt the One Nation approach and defend their interests. No party is offering a critique of globalisation..
The Establishment is not strong, but weak, and hated by most of the population as low levels of voters show. The non-conservative party has barely any presence at street level, its ideas are manifestly bankrupt and it has nearly destroyed our society, our economy and our culture. It has but one MP in Scotland.
For fifty-years polls have showed opposition to mass immigration but the elites have imposed it on the population without democratic consent. There are hard financial times coming because of the mainstream parties profligacy and we need economic policies to deal with this reality and give our people priority, not immigrants.
This is not a Left versus Right issue but common sense versus utopian idealism and importing cheap labour. Idealists do not take account of reality but apply the orthodox ideology to every situation. Left and Right are meaningless labels now. All three big parties share similar economic policies (but exaggerate the differences), all three parties are Globalist (certainly their leaders), all three discriminate against indigenous people and treat newcomers with more favour than natives and all three wish to weaken traditions, all three political parties are people who see the world as a 'global village', and don't like nation states (particularly their own) and they may be either right wing or left wing in terms of economics, they share similar goals of wanting to destroy the traditional order and the concept of nation states, and show a lack of respect for democracy, believing that their 'vision' should trump that of others.
The disregard for popular objection to EU domination is another example of this. Their views are as contradictory as in the conflict they have created between Muslims and homosexuals. (3) As I mentioned in my last essay they have also brought about a new persecution of European Jews.
This overview of mainstream politicians and academics, actors, popular entertainers who have voiced fears for the future, 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.
Historical figures and leading intellectuals
Elizabeth I 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 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.”
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 Peter Cattall's, Macmillan Diaries: The Cabinet Years 1950-57: Cabinet Years, 1950-57.
Churchill's views, which would have been widely supported by most 19th century English, could not be upheld by 1955. There had been a major shift in thinking from the rise of Progressivism in the Enlightenment and again the effects of WW I and WW II on a weak people, that changed attitudes and destroyed the confidence of English people and Europeans in general. The wars shook European confidence and strengthened the enemies within.
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 show Oliver Lyttleton (later Lord Chandos) trying to bring common sense to bear on the matter. In a letter to Viscount 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. 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 UK 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 biography, he tells of adverts that he saw in Jamaica for immigrants to come here and it was clear that they were being encouraged 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 Griffiths' Birmingham home on 26th October 1965 as a result of his de-humanisation by press and politicians. (4)
In the debate on the 1968 Race Relations, Bill Ronald Bell (C) (later Knighted) argued that the bill had “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 an 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.”
John Townend (C) 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 The Satanic Verses: "England must be reconquered for the English".
In 1993 the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill (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 viciously shouted down on BBC Radio Four’s Today programme by presenter John Humphreys in what was a despicable attack on an elected politician.
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.
A few Labour politicians have spoken for the working classes
Two days after the Empire Windrush docked on the 22 July 1948 with 790 west Indians, J.D.Murray and ten other Labour MPs 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 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 MPs on both sides of the House.
In the Commons in December 1958 Frank Tomney (L) 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, Labour's chief whip, told the Commons, “With 53 million of us we cannot go on without strict immigration control.”
Charles Moore, former editor of The Daily Telegraph, produced in 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, “…it's 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, recalled a friend in race relations had asked him to take a look at the reception areas of Deptford and Southall in the mid-60s, “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
In the nascent totalitarian state the Lord Chief Justice ordered an investigation into political comments by High Court judge, Ian Trigger (The Daily Telegraph 5/8/2009), for an attack on Britain's immigration system. He remarked that "hundreds and hundreds of thousands" of illegal immigrants were abusing the benefits system when he was sentencing a drugs dealer to jail”. To a judiciary who encourage asylum seeking these remarks opposed their political ideology.
Many tried accuse Enoch of inventing his famous example in the Rivers of Blood speech of the elderly lady who was being driven from her home by immigrants. Driving natives from their homes has been going on for years. The News Chronicle of 7th December 1954 reported on a case where a white woman asked for an injunction to stop her coloured landlord abusing or molesting her. Judge Wilfred Clothier in giving judgement in the case of a 62 year-old white woman living alone in a house full of coloured men, said that she was “hounded by these coloured men. This is another case of black people entering half a house and never resting until they have turned the white people out. I hope there will be a remedy found quickly. One could be to turn back to Jamaica anyone found guilty of this practice. Another would be a prohibition by law to stop any black people buying a house containing white tenants.” Conrad Fairclough wanted Miss Matilda McLaren out of where she had lived for 40 years yet he only came here in 1948. In 1962, another judge called for immigrants to be sent back.
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.) Radcliffe coined the term: “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.” (The 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 2/3/1995.) Liaqat Hussain of the Bradford Council for Mosques called for Judge Pickles to be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act.
Since the rise of the New Left in the 1960s Judges routinely make political decisions not just political statements. This is why the Establishment is called an “Ideological Caste.” It is united by central ideas like anti-White racism, Internationalism and abstract beliefs like social justice and progress where prejudice, discrimination are transcended. Their fantasy is flawed because these qualities are ineluctably part of human nature; far from transcending prejudice and discrimination, they have changed the objects of their prejudice and discrimination from aliens to their own people who they see as needing re-educating and social engineering!
Lord Bingham expressed support for the totalitarian concept of group rights when he described the Human Rights Convention as existing to protect minorities and is “intrinsically counter-majoritarian...should provoke howls of criticism by politicians and the mass media. They generally reflect majority opinion”.
There have 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 MP 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 Salisbury 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 1950s 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.”
John Cleese has lamented the effects of immigration in changing London from an English city. Roger Daltry castigated the Labour Party for betraying the working-classes.
In 1976, Rock guitarist Eric Clapton advised his audience that Enoch was right and that Britain was overcrowded. This raised a profoundly important point about culture and multi-racialism. Those of us who were brought up on Black music as I was, have a great respect and admiration for those blues and soul singers who developed a deep, expressive music. Clapton had black musicians in his band but understood a human truth - that enjoying different cultures and having friends from other ethnic groups is good: but that does not mean that we should try to force them together and destroy both.
Morrissey 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. 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 remarked, “The more asylum seekers get, the less there is for us”.
Early in 2005, Welsh film star John Rhys-Davies who played Gimli in "The 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.”(5)
The Sunday Times (London) of 11/6/2006 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.” (2)
Those 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 critical of immigration - not immigrants - and 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.
The elites can not face the consequences and play down the truth to deceive the population that multi-racial immigration is a success. Things get mentioned but not stressed and the whole picture is never presented.
We have a moral duty to ensure that our children and descendants receive their inheritance 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 being given to the people brought in as cheap labour. (6)
After the war, and around Churchill, was the era of Butskillism until Mrs. Thatcher. It is named after R.A.B. Butler and Hugh Gaitskill because the dominant politicians of the two parties were indistinguishable and acted like a one-party state.
It is worth noting that the unrealistic views of MacMillan have led to the genocide of White South African farmers(Boers)
(3) Photo of Gay Man Who Walked Through Muslim Suburb of Paris With Boyfriend Causes Shock
Paul Joseph Watson | Battered and bruised picture prompts questions about rise of extremism in western cities.
(4) A Question of Colour 1964 Peter Griffiths (Leslie Frewin).