TBG Conference 2013: Gregory Lauder-Frost on Immigration and the Threat to the Nation
by The Editor
Gregory Lauder Frost's address on Immigration and the Threat to the Nation at the Traditional Britain Group's 2013 conference. Video and Transcript
I want to consider here the impact upon the nation state by alien immigration. The word alien, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, means several things: i.e: “not one’s own, foreign, differing in nature, or owing allegiance to another country; or belonging to another.” It is a standard description in the USA where the State Department use it as a description for immigrants. In Britain we had an Aliens Act as far back as 1705, and in 1905 a new Aliens Act was enacted by the UK parliament to control immigration, one of its main objectives being to control Jewish immigration from eastern Europe.
The Royal Institute of International Affairs, described “the ideal nation [as being] one which (a) possesses characteristics distinguishing it clearly from others; (b) is free from external control, and sufficiently strong to maintain that freedom. One of the chief objects for which this freedom is required is the unrestrained enjoyment of the characteristics mentioned in (a); (c) acts as a single entity possessing interests and pursuing policies designed to promote those interests. 
Our main concerns today are our European nation states including, of course, Britain. In 1971 one of the few notable things Ted Heath ever uttered was in conversation with President Pompidou when he said: “The countries of Europe represent the most important civilisation in the world.”
The Liberal-Left, who are constantly attempting to rewrite history as they wish it to be seen, regularly tell us that “we are all immigrants” in order to justify post-1945 alien mass immigration. Let’s look at that assertion.
Caucasian Europe is a common homeland for us. Yes, there are today different nation states with different languages and local customs. But genetically we are largely a common people. We see this in known histories. In Russia and the Ukraine much of it was dominated early on by Vikings, who, for instance, founded Novgorod and Kyiv, and provided their Princes. The Scandinavians in particular spread themselves around, and DNA evidence has shown them in Iceland, Newfoundland, and along the European coast as far south as Frisia and Flanders up to 3000 years ago. They have been in what we today call the Baltic States, and more recently the Danes and Swedes engaged in a series of military adventures in mainland Europe that ended with the Swedish defeat at Poltava in Russia. The Danes also invaded large parts of England and ruled us for some time, a great many settling here. It is estimated that over a third of Yorkshiremen have Danish antecedents.
In Scotland, wars with the Norwegians continued for centuries, and Caithness, Orkney etc., was Norwegian until the middle of the 15th century. The Teutonic races too have spread themselves around. The Saxon invasions of England are important to us. Our present-day language is based upon theirs.  The German peoples have historically expanded eastwards, so that by the time of The Great War the Austro-Hungarian Empire extended as far into Ukraine as Lemberg (L’viv), as far north as Krakau and as far south as the Adriatic and Trieste.  Prussia too extended as far north as Memel  and west as far as the Low Countries in the same period. In earlier centuries the various invasions and conquests, first by Scandinavians and then notably the Teutonic Knights, meant they held Estonia, Livonia, Courland (modern Latvia), East Prussia, Danzig, etc. Knights from all over Europe, including England and Scotland, regularly crusaded in Prussia & Lithuania.  It is estimated that over 100,000 Scots emigrated to East & West Prussia , Poland, and even Russia. 
German Knights were prominent in Denmark during the reign of Valdeman Atterdag 1340-1375. Into all these adjacent countries came Teutonic settlers and merchants etc., laws, religion etc.,  the Hanseatic League too playing an important part. 
Britain too has engaged fully on the continent from the earliest times. Our Anglo-Saxon Royal House intermarried with continentals  and this continued after the Norman invasion of 1066 and their Royal House. Our military have been constantly at war across Europe, as far west as Blenheim, in Bohemia & down to the Iberian Peninsula. The Scots were engaged with the Swedes  and the Dutch in numerous military campaigns and naturally many settled away from Britannia. The Slavs too moved about all over Europe, settling as far away from their natural homelands of the great east European central plains into Russia, Ukraine, Serbia and Croatia.  The peoples of all the countries in Europe fought, traded and settled with each other.
Our uniting bond has been firstly our race , and then culture. This was led in the last 1500 years at least by our universal Christian faith. Our eating habits (the great Irish potato famine actually began in Silesia), agriculture and countless other things often have remarkably similarities. Our architecture is a variation on a theme wherever in Europe we travel. Our art, music, literature, etc. follow patterns of similarity, which are unmistakable. It is surely no coincidence that we have shared authors, composers and music with one another for at least 1000 years if not longer. Our wonderful literature is translated into each other’s languages constantly. When we hear Russian composers such as Tchaikovsky we feel at home with the beauty of the great European heritage , just as the Germans felt when Elgar went there to study and first made his name; as when Wagner first read the English folk-story of Tristan and Isolde, based in Cornwall, and composed his opera upon it. Donizetti loved Scotland and composed two successful operas based on that country  and Mendelsohn was also in love with the spirit of Britain. Mozart, an Austrian, composed his first symphony in his father’s house in Ebury Street, London. Europe’s love affair with Italian music is well known.
So we see here the constant flow of our people’s into our adjoining lands. We have all settled down with each other and adopted local customs and languages and characteristics.  This was easy for us to do as we have a common genetic and cultural heritage and history going back to the Roman period . Our European nation-states have developed from this foundation, the basis of commonality, demonstrated by DNA results which shows Europe as almost exclusively in Haplogroup R1 a and b which extends back over 3000 years. 
When we Europeans travelled and indeed conquered foreign lands as far away as the China coast, Malaya, Indo-China, Africa, the Americas, not only were we totally alien to those peoples and their countries (which have with the passage of time also developed into nation-states) but they were totally alien to us in virtually every respect. We had nothing in common with them at all. Tens of thousands of years of separate development had given them an entirely alien psyche to ours.
In a letter published in “The Observer” on 28th July 1991, the Conservative Monday Club Executive Council stated: “It is entirely legitimate to identify Europe and the British Isles as a distinctive cultural area, and unrestricted Third World immigration as a challenge to its existence.”
The 20th century has arrived, and with it modern means of transportation. Europe, and its nation states, responsible for civilisation as we know it, and with an accompanying high standard of living has become a magnet for those outside its borders. For aliens, “not one’s own”.
The Liberalism of the USA “the land of the free”, which played a major political role in the destruction of the Old Europe in 1919 and post-1945 , has had some considerable & detrimental effect upon Europe’s nation states,  and is itself now in self-destruct mode, outlined in Peter Brimelow’s new book entitled: “Alien Nation: America’s Immigration Disaster.” Even Harold Macmillan said, in November 1961, “We need to maintain European civilisation, under pressure from, among others, ‘our Atlantic friends’.” 
International Socialism  also opposed the nation state, is opposed to national “characteristics”, and has been a destructive cancer against our peoples and their countries by encouraging alien immigration and changing laws permitting them to remain in our countries, and laws to oppress any opposition. They have preached that this is good for our countries, and by default, for us. They have preached the benefits, the glories of multiculturalism and assimilation, assisted by the liberal-left media.
These have all been shown to be fallacies. Numerous leading politicians, whether Chancellor Merkel, former President Sarkozy of France, David Cameron and other British MPs have all publicly accepted that multiculturalism is a failure. 
Assimilation is a myth. It has been seriously criticised for three decades. In all nation states in Europe we see ghettos of every description of the Third World’s various races and religions who prefer to live together.
They cannot make a cultural contribution because their culture is alien and, ultimately, because we don’t require it. They cannot connect with our culture because it is alien to them, particularly our Christian faith and heritage.
What of course is not alien to them are government benefits of every description.
Across Europe, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Holland, Belgium, Austria, France, Italy, aliens who have been permitted into these countries have on the whole caused discord, race riots, and made unhealthy and unreasonable demands upon their host nations as though it was their right. There have been continuous protests and unrest in Germany for decades, especially with the Turkish community who only held the status of “guest-workers”. France has had terrible alien immigration problems for decades  which has in turn led to the creation of a new nationalist & conservative party, the Front National, which pledges to address this issue with urgency. In Sweden in 2011 their 5% Muslim population committed 77.6% of all rapes, the victims being almost universally indigenous Europeans. One report places the figure at 85%. Disproportionate crime statistics in all European nation-states with high numbers of immigrants are one thing they all have in common. In London alone 46,588 foreign nationals were prosecuted in 2012. Obviously this does not include those people of immigrant stock born in the UK and holding “British” citizenship.
A variety of left-wing agencies have also fuelled racial tensions. For instance, in Britain as far back as 1983, the British Council of Churches gave more than £10,000 – a substantial sum at that time - to the ‘Race Today Collective’ in Brixton, whose then declared objective was to incite West Indians in Britain to revolution. Darcus Howe, its leader, (today a media luvvie) had publicly supported the IRA, a ruthless terrorist group and enemy of the United Kingdom. More money went to groups ‘offering active resistance to society’s oppression of black people’ including Rastafarians, and the communist “anti-fascist” magazine, Searchlight.
We in the UK have suffered terrorist attacks on the innocents such as the July 7 murders on the Tube and buses in London. But as if to reinforce what I have already said, virtually all of the perpetrators had been born and brought up in Britain. Like Ralph Miliband  they hate us. Their parents bring them up speaking their foreign language as their first language , and like the non-Conservative Party’s ‘Baroness’ Warsi, send them to their own alien faith schools; further they send them abroad for selective schooling and for wives (includes Warsi who is on record as defending arranged marriages ), in, for instance, Pakistan, where last month a girl was sentenced and stoned to death for possessing a mobile phone. In Britain they generally fail Norman Tebbit’s “cricket test”. Across the Islamic world we have seen vast instances of suicidal violence utterly alien to our peoples.
In 1989 Britain witnessed the establishment of the Islamic Party of Britain, who said they would fight for a change in blasphemy laws to cover Islam, would promote Islamic State schools, and campaign against profit-sharing and interest rates. The party’s new leader said that none of the existing political parties in Britain adequately represented Muslims.
What has happened to our peoples, whose ancestors fought for 1500 years against the Muslim world; whose combined Christian armies went on crusades to the Holy Land , expelled the Islamic world from France , Spain , Portugal (completely by 1249), Italy , Austria , Hungary , Russia , Bulgaria , Romania and the Balkans  and who finally, less than a century ago, defeated the last Muslim Empire in The Great War. Our governments are now permitting Muslims and other total aliens entry and habitation rights in our unique European nation-states.
In the United Kingdom the position has become astute: On 10th January 2013 it was reported that “White Britons are now a minority in Leicester, Luton & Slough, and Birmingham is set to follow by end of decade.“ 
Our British politicians rely upon the apparently dismal memories of the populace. You may (or may not?) recall David Cameron’s ridiculous comment when he said: “We want to get back to the levels of immigration we had in the 1980s and 90s, when we had it under control…………In the 80s & 90s it was not something we debated….”. Just a huge lie on both counts. Alien immigration was out of control by 1970 and British politicians had expressed anxiety over alien immigration since the 1950s. Let’s look at this while keeping Cameron’s utterance in mind:
Stanley Baldwin, thrice Tory Prime Minister, said, even before mass immigration, “Let us keep this thought ever in our mind: that each one of us, so far as in him lies, will strive to keep these islands a fit nursery for Our Race”. Doubtless he would today be labelled a “racist” by the Liberal-Left Westminster mafia.
Harold Macmillan (a liberal posing as a Tory ), wrote caustically in his diary on 20th Jan 1955 after a Cabinet meeting: “More discussion about the West Indian immigrants. A Bill is being drafted – but it’s not an easy problem. The Prime Minister (Churchill) thinks ‘Keep England White!’ a good slogan!! “ Ian Gilmour, then owner and editor of “The Spectator”, related that just before standing down because of his health in April 1955, Churchill told him “Immigration is the most important subject facing this country, but I cannot get any of my ministers to take any notice.”
Following huge pressure, including Enoch Powell’s famous 1968 speech, the Conservative Party included in their 1970 General Election Manifesto a pledge that “there will be no further large scale permanent immigration. We will give assistance to Commonwealth immigrants [the only ones then immigrating] who wish to return to their countries of origin.” It was enough to swing the election for them.
Some Tories actually believed the Party would be true to their word. In 1972 The Hon. Jonathan Guinness (now Lord Moyne), then and twice a Conservative Party Parliamentary Candidate, wrote “Nobody in this country wanted a multi-racial state……the Race Relations Acts are a tyrannical impertinence; the cost of housing the majority of immigrants would be better used in generous repatriation grants in accordance with (Conservative) party policy.” He was followed in July that year by Tory M.P., Ronald Bell, Q.C., who wrote: “Britain is being colonised and the day will come when the White population will become a minority. We must have an immediate cessation of immigration and an effective policy of repatriation.”
In October that great English High Tory John Stokes, M.P., stated at a packed anti-immigration meeting in Westminster Central Hall: “We are gathered here to demonstrate our love of our country….how can any of us face the future with confidence, still less our children’s future, unless the tide of immigration is halted – and halted now?”
One response to the publicity surrounding this meeting came from the delightful Chris Mullard in his book that year, “Black Britain”, in which he said: “No longer is it possible to apply logic and reason to a disease which has infected the whole of white society. How can you argue with racists? Black American and African campaigns have shown that the only argument which white society understands is force, violence and power.”
Between 1973 and 1978 the replacement population, alien births and immigration, amounted to a staggering 400,000. In July 1978 Tory M.P. Jill Knight, M.B.E., wrote an article entitled: “Immigration – It Cannot Continue Indefinitely”. Even Margaret Thatcher said that same year: “People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture.”
On the 25th February 1980 the House of Commons debated a Motion: “That the House reaffirms the view of successive leaders of the Conservative and Unionist Party that repatriation has a role to play; and urges Her Majesty’s Government to pursue a well-publicised and well-financed programme of repatriation for all those who wish to avail themselves of it.”
And “throughout the 1980s the Conservative Monday Club attacked the idea of a multicultural society, calling for the abolition of the Commission for Racial Equality, a ban on further immigration, and generous resettlement provisions for those prepared to leave the country.”
At the Conservative Party Conference in October 1980 Sam Swerling chaired a Club meeting where Sir Ronald Bell, Q.C., M.P., cited the Registrar General’s statistics for 1978 for Greater London where births to mothers not born in the UK came to 35% of the total. His closing comment was “My opinion is that the rate of change being inflicted on our country is not compatible with the survival of our national identity.”
July 1981 there were serious race riots in Britain, and the Monday Club issued two Policy Papers in October in response. The first had two sub-headings: Immigration – An Untenable Situation and Monday Club Ten Point Resettlement Scheme, describing the latter as an “imaginative” scheme, which would contribute towards a lessening of racial tension in Britain. The second had with three sub-headings: Race Relations, The Commission for Racial Equality, and Immigration and Repatriation, co-authored by Harvey Proctor, M.P., and John R. Pinniger . This Policy Paper had seven recommendations:
(1) An improved repatriation scheme with generous resettlement grants for all those from the New Commonwealth & Pakistan countries who wish to take advantage of them.
(2) The re-designation of the Ministry of Overseas Aid as a Ministry for Overseas Resettlement.
(3) The scrapping of the CRE and the CRC’s at the earliest opportunity.
(4) The repeal of the race relations laws.
(5) The end to the use of race or colour as the criteria for the distribution of State grants and loans.
(6) An end to positive discrimination and all special treatment based on race or colour. There should be no special cases.
(7) An end to all further large-scale permanent immigration from the New Commonwealth & Pakistan.
Every Conservative & Unionist Member of Parliament received a copy of these papers.
In the summer of 1983 the Club held a huge St. George’s Day meeting on Immigration at Westminster Central Hall addressed by guest speakers Warren Hawksley, M.P., (Wrekin) and John Farr, M.P. (Harborough), and others, and chaired by Harvey Proctor, M.P. Mr Hawksley told the meeting that Asians were “highly concerned” about future large-scale immigration, and one had said to him that the only thing wrong with the Tory party was that “Mr Powell ought to be its leader!”
Mr Farr related how local immigrant leaders had urged him to vote against new immigration rules and wanted “no more job-seekers”. Both speakers drew attention to the fact that the Commission for Racial Equality had a vested interest in racial disharmony in the UK. Mr Farr gave details of the new CRE draft “Code of Practice” which would add further oppressive legislation to those already in place. It was also revealed that an opinion poll published in the News of the World indicated that no less than 47% of the immigrant community favoured a well-financed resettlement programme and would be likely to take advantage of it.
October 1983 saw the Conservative Party Conference at Blackpool. The Monday Club, represented by Harvey Proctor, renewed the case for State-assisted voluntary repatriation. In a television interview for BBC’s Newsnight on 11th October, he argued on the grounds of ‘good sense’; in the Conference debate on the repatriation motion on the 13th he argued, “It’s not racism, it’s realism!” The Party’s hierarchy argued against the motion and it was narrowly lost. 
Enter the EU, the new Soviet Bloc, which was quick to start enquiries into Britain’s “racism”. Professor Bikhu Parekh (Hull) stated in his submission to a European Parliament Committee of Enquiry into the rise of racism and fascism, that 90% of Conservative candidates in the 1983 General Election favoured repatriation of immigrants. If only that had been true!
Monday Club Vice-President and eminent Professor Antony Flew, author of the Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet Education, Race, and Revolution, added to the debates on this issue by saying that “Those who want to remain Bangladeshi ought to be planning to be returning to Bangladesh”.
In 1985 Enoch Powell renewed his challenge to Mrs Thatcher to accept or disprove his forecast that more than one-third of the population of inner-London and other major cities would before long be of immigrant stock. His speech was reported extensively by all the national newspapers.
Then following a call by the Adam Smith Institute for ethnic Chinese from Hong Kong to be allowed into Britain to establish a ‘colony’ in Scotland (of all places!) the Monday Club publicly announced that, “We cannot go on destroying our national identity as a European nation in this way. We simply do not see a future in this country for people other than those who are ethnically British or European. It is completely crazy to suggest that we have some sort of moral responsibility to let all those people who lived in former colonies come to our tiny overcrowded island, should things go wrong once we have departed the colonies.”
In August 1989 political commentator and author David Lovibond wrote a damning indictment of immigration headlined “Will this be the death of England?” He said: “Bullied and constrained to silence by the law, the English people know what the appeasement of Afro-Caribbean nationalism has meant: drug-trafficking, vicious muggings, rapes, ‘steaming’ gangs raging through London’s tube stations like Zulu Impis, and terrifyingly loud music used to cause as much misery as possible. By slow and shameful stages out country has been taken away from us………but there is still time to find a new, unapologetic patriotism to rekindle the spirit of the English race.” Like Baldwin 50 years previously, he too refers to the English race. Nothing had changed by 18th October 2013 when the London “Evening Standard” reported on a campaign to combat the Negro gangs which plague parts of London. (Further report in the same newspaper on the 21st Oct.)
This was quickly followed on the 29th August 1989 by Conservative MP John Townend who said: “England must be re-conquered for the English. Muslim immigrants should go back from whence they came”, and the next day, 30th, a major poll showed that “Blacks and Asians should be given government cash to return to their country of origin, say a majority of Britons.”
The Sun on 9th October 1989 headlined “Send us back, say Britain’s Blacks”, where a poll by ICM Research showed that seven out of ten black & Asian people in Britain were in favour of repatriating immigrants who want to go home. In fact, the research showed that fewer blacks (13%) were opposed to such an idea than Whites (22%). The poll shattered many of the myths perpetuated by the race relations industry.
Yet, a report by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys stated that more than a quarter of a million people migrated to the UK in 1990, the highest since 1964 when statistics on international migration were first collected in their present form. The number arriving was 7% higher than in 1989. Things were clearly out of hand.
On 11th February 1991 the famous astronomer, Patrick Moore, C.B.E., (1923-2012) who had also made a study of immigration, addressed a packed Monday Club meeting in Westminster Palace on this topic where he declared, “we are being swamped by parasites. Call me a racist, but I would send them all back to where they came from.” He received a standing ovation. In March Club M.P. Teddy Taylor wrote to the Executive suggesting adoption of a range of measures one of which said “we will oppose those who seek to remove immigration control to Brussels through the alleged removal of national boundaries.” The Club had a large ad in the glossy A4 journal of the National Association of Conservative Graduates, “Commentary”, the special Party Conference edition, in which it called for a halt to immigration, including ‘refugees’.
Surprisingly, in June 1991 Prime Minister John Major, at the Luxembourg Summit, stated that he opposed mass-immigration into EU states.
In December Charles Moore, then Deputy Editor of “The Spectator”, was cited as saying “Britain is basically English-speaking, Christian and White […] Muslims and Blacks should be kept out as strictly as at present.” Except they were not being “kept out”! At the same time the press reported my comment that “people who can’t fit into the British way of life shouldn’t live here!”
In his book “On England”, Baldwin spoke of the distinctive characteristics of our people: “We are a people of character…….we are all right as long as they are content to be what God has made them – British! – but they get into trouble when they try to be something else. We should be content to be ourselves……..Let us see to it that we never allow our individuality as Britons to be steam-rollered. The preservation of the individuality of the British is essential to the preservation of the type of race; and if our differences are removed and we lose that great gift, we shall lose at the same time our power.” What Baldwin speaks of here is the extermination of characteristics distinguishing us clearly from others, the characteristics of a nation and its state.
Let’s hear again from Chris Mullard’s “Black Britain”: The battle will be a bloody one. Black and white will have no choice. The liberals . . . will be caught in the middle. In the end they too will have no choice—they will have to side with either black or white […] Blacks will fight with pressure, leaflets, campaigns, demonstrations, fists and a scorching resentment which […] will explode into street fighting, urban guerrilla warfare, looting, burning and rioting...” (p.176-7).
Lord Reay was roundly condemned by the Liberal-Left Westminster political establishment, as well as the media, for his address on 10th March 1989 on immigration crime statistics in the House of Lords, amongst which it was revealed that Blacks commit 72% of all rapes in Brixton and 43% of them in Islington, according to Metropolitan Police Statistics.
In December 1991 Sam Swerling, of the Monday Club’s Executive, stated “the immigration issue has led to a sense of cultural disinheritance among Europeans.”
Our governments have placed their heads firmly in the sand and refuse to address the immigrant situation. So much for M.P. John Stokes’ speech 16 years previously when he said “the Tory Party must be seen as the defender and preserver of our way of life.” The departure of traditional national Toryism from our political arena has permitted this. Correli Barnett predicted that “Moralising internationalism, born out of liberalism…is an unsuitable guide to British policy…” and Robert Nisbet spoke of “the ethos of Conservatism being tradition, defence of social traditions, and emphasis on community, kinship, religion, hierarchy and authority” and predicted “social chaos” once we depart from them before “the forces of liberalism.”
In September 1996 the Viscount Massereene and Ferrard authored a booklet on “Immigration” in which he called for “a generous scheme for voluntary repatriation.” It basically reiterated what had been Conservative Monday Club policy for 30 years.
There are countless other media reports on immigration issues throughout the 1990s too numerous to list here. But looking at the above alone, it is clear that David Cameron’s assertion that during the last three decades of the last century no-one was concerned or debated immigration is simply a blatant lie. Moreover, from the early 1990s the non-Conservative Party adopted the same tack as Labour and the Lib Dems on discussion of the subject and have expelled (or demanded their resignation) good members who have even remotely mentioned it. In the 1991 Conservative Party Conference Handbook there are 14 Notices of Motions from constituencies on immigration issues. Party officials would not permit any to be debated.
Yet it is worth pointing out that the current Speaker of the House of Commons was reported (in 2009) as having previously called for assisted repatriation of immigrants. Daily Telegraph 26th June 2009.
The Muslim population today undoubtedly poses the greatest threat to European nation-states. Shreela Flather, a Muslim and Conservative Party politically correct placement in the House of Lords, said on 13th Sept 2011 that Pakistanis and other Muslims were flouting British laws on every front and having polygamous families. As a result there were vast families with armies of children.
We have seen the recent riots in Bradford, and as I mentioned, the July 7th bombings in London by home-grown Muslims, and we have credible reports from numerous other nation states also of their home-grown Muslims joining terrorist groups across the world, notably in Somalia and Syria. The delightful Anjem Choudary said on his website that “Britain will one day be governed by Shariah Law” and democracy destroyed.”
In 2010 the United Kingdom Independence Party produced a thorough and fairly well-researched 50 page booklet entitled “Immigration: Action Overdue”, by Gerard Batten, M.E.P., (who was the TBG Annual Dinner Guest-of-Honour in 2011) with further assistance by Professor Stephen Bush (a speaker at the TBG Annual Conference in 2012) and others, in which it clearly states: “It is simply not true that Britain has always been a ‘nation of migrants’……..the purported economic benefits of mass immigration are demonstrably untrue……UKIP calls for an end to mass and uncontrolled immigration. Any future immigration must be strictly controlled and limited and only where it can be clearly shown to be in the interests of the British people………..there should be an end to the active promotion and support of the doctrine of multiculturalism.” But does this booklet go far enough? How would the UKIP deal with the fantastic birth rates of the immigrant community? Even if immigration was halted in its tracks today, the British nation would still be extinguished in this century.
Radical measures will need to be faced up to if we are, as the former Conservative M.P. John Townend said, to reclaim our country. I was attacked maliciously and in a defamatory manner by the BBC and press in August this year for promoting the Conservative Party’s 1970 General Election Manifesto pledge, saying we needed it far more today than then. Yet I was the last in a very long queue of Tories to say this.
“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.”
Here and there is light. Some recognize the danger. President Putin said last month “Without the values at the core of Christianity, without moral norms that have been shaped over milennia, a people will inevitably lose their dignity. Euro-Atlantic countries where any traditional identity is rejected is a policy equating belief in god with belief in Satan………..the right of the majority must not be questioned…… ……….society cannot accommodate so many immigrants.”
Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban has attacked “artificial sociological language and social engineering”. He has said that “it is not obvious that the EU can do better than independent nations…..National sovereignty is more and more important.” He added that there were certain things which should be upheld in the interests of civilization, not jettisoned. “It would be a sad story to get rid of our national identity and even sexual identity. That’s not freedom…..patriotism is a good thing.” He continued: “There is a family tree passing from Communism through the ’68 generation (such as the former revolutionary, now MEP, Daniel Cohn Bendit) to Brussels bureaucrats, and the media (See Peter Whittle’s excellent article in “Standpoint” magazine where he states that “the BBC has for too long ignored public opinion on multiculturalism, sticking instead to liberal orthodoxies”). The Communist heritage has a marriage with the radical liberals today in the doctrine of European human rights – includes immigration - and the attempts by the EU to impose uniformity on member states.”
Alien immigration is a clear threat. On 2nd May Oxford University’s Professor David Coleman announced that the majority indigenous population of the UK will become a minority before 2070 and long before that in major urban areas. If this level of immigration and reproduction is not a clear threat to our nation and also to European nation-states , I don’t know what is.
“Drastic action” is required according to 71% of those interviewed in a poll conducted by Sky News as part of a week-long examination of the issue of immigration published on 14th October 2013. 
 “Nationalism”, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Oxford University Press, 1939, p.261 – ‘The Nature of Nations’.
 Ted Heath speaking to President Pompidou, 20th May 1971.
 “The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.”
 “Austria-Hungary, including Dalmatia & Bosnia” by Karl Baedeker, Leipzig and London, 1905.
 Memel was in 1945 given by the Soviets to Lithuania who today call it Klaipeda. It was founded by the Teutonic Knights and settled largely by Germans and, later, an influx of Scots.
 “The Northern Crusades” – The Baltic and the Catholic Frontier 1100-1525 by Professor Eric Christiansen, London, 1980; and “The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia” c1180-1226, translated by James Brundage, Columbia University Press, NY, 2003 edition.
 “The Scots in Eastern and Western Prussia” by Th. A. Fischer, Edinburgh, 1903.
 “Scottish Influences in Russian History” by Francis Steuart, Glasgow, 1913; and “Scotsmen in the Service of the Czars” by Ian G. Anderson, Haddington, 1990.
 “Medieval Germany and its Neighbours 900 – 1250” by K.J.Leyser, London, 1982.
 “The Hansa Towns” by Helen Zimmern, London, 1889.
 Emma of Normandy, sister of William the Conqueror’s grandfather, was married to both Ethelred The Unready and also to King Canute. Her son was Edward the Confessor. Many Normans were living in England prior to the Conquest. See "The Feudal Kingdom of England 1012 - 1216" by Professor Frank Barlow, London, 1955.
 “Ruthven’s Army in Sweden and Estonia” by James B. A. Dow, Historiskt Arkiv, Sweden, 1965. One Scot, Colonel William Borthwick of Soutra, was in the service of King Gustavus Adolphus at the battle of Lutzen in 1632. Many never returned to Scotland but settled in Sweden. See also: "The Scots in Sweden" by Thomas A. Fischer, Edinburgh, 1907.
 “The Slavs” by Roger Portal, London, 1969.
 “The Races of Europe” by Professor Dr. William Z. Ripley, London, 1899.
 One of Tchaikovsky’s earliest musical inspirations was an Italian tenor. When the Russian Musical Society was established in 1859 its driving force was the Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, an aunt of Tsar Alexander II and a daughter of the Duke of Wurttemberg. See: “Tchaikovsky” by Alan Kendall, London, 1988.
 Donizetti’s “Mary Queen of Scots” and “Lucia di Lammermuir”.
 “The Frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe” by Leon Dominian, New York, 1917.
 “The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History” – ‘The Later Roman Empire to the Twelfth Century’, by C.W.Previté-Orton, vol.1, Cambridge University press, 1952.
 See http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
 Woodrow Wilson’s diktats; Versailles in 1919, Yalta, and finally Potsdam in 1945.
 “A History of U.S. Foreign Policy” by Julius W.Pratt, 2nd edition, 1965, New Jersey; “The Uncertain Ally” by John Biggs-Davison, M.P., London, 1957; “Over There – How America Sees The World” in “Granta” Magazine, no.84, Winter 2003, New York; “Why Do People Hate America” by M.W.Davies and Z.Sardar, Cambridge, U.K.,2002.
 “The Conservatives” – a history, by Robin Harris, 2011, p.433.
 Possibly better recognised as the Comintern organisation, an organ of the Communist International, which specified that the world was indivisible. They were opposed to geographical-political boundaries and nation-states.
 “Immigrants are attracted here by the Welfare State”: Winston Churchill, 3rd February 1954. Cabinet Minutes. Plus: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10271855/Number-of-fo...
 “Immigration in Post-War France” edited by Alec G. Hargreaves, Methuen London, 1987.
 “The Right in France” by Nicholas Atkin and Frank Tallett, London, 2003.
 Metropolitan Police Statistics for 2012.
 “The British Churches – A Spiritual Fifth Column” by Bernard Smith, Monday Club, London, 1983.
 “The Sun” newspaper, 14 Sept 1989.
 “The Crusade” by Hilare Belloc, London, 1937; “Soldiers of The Faith” – Crusaders and Moslems at War, by Ronald C. Finucane, UK 1983.
 “Daily Mail” 10th January 2013.
 BBC Radio 4, 19th April 2011.
 Stanley Baldwin at the Hyde Park Empire Day Demonstration, 24th May 1929 - cited in his book “This Torch of Freedom” London, 1935.
 In a speech to the National Conference of Young Conservatives on the 15th February 1961, Macmillan said “some of us had traditional Liberal connexions, but we found the Liberal Party shattered and split. Some of us felt an instinctive sympathy with the new emerging Labour Party.”
 Harold Macmillan, 20th January 1955, in “The Macmillan Diaries: The Cabinet Years 1950-57” (2003), p.382.
 “Monday World” magazine, Spring 1972.
 “Monday News” July 1972.
 16th Sept 1972; reported in “Monday News” October 1972, p.4.
 “Black Britain” by Chris Mullard, Allen and Unwin, London, 1973, p.176-7.
 “Tory Challenge” magazine, July 1978.
 Margaret Thatcher, ITV’s “World in Action”, 1978.
 “Contemprary British Politics” W.N. Coxall & N. Robins, 1993, p.239.
 “Yorkshire Post”, 8th October 1980.
 John Pinniger stood as the Conservative Party candidate in the European Parliamentary elections for the former constituency of Greater Manchester East (now part of the North West England EU constituency), a very safe Labour Party seat. He polled less than a third of the Labour candidate’s vote, (see; “Results from British constituencies”, The Independent , 13th June 1994).
 “Monday News”, June-July 1983.
 ‘Culture, Nation and Race in the British and French New Right’ by Gill Seidel, in “The Ideology of the New Right” edited by Ruth Levitas, Oxford, 1986, p.111.
 European Parliament Socialist Group, Committee of Inquiry into the Rise of Racism and Fascism, 12th February 1985, ref: Gtt/jc, PE/GS/52/85, p.10.
 Seidel, 1986, p.119.
 “The Daily Telegraph”, 2nd November, 1985.
 Monday Club Press Release, 20th June 1989.
 “Sunday Telegraph”, ‘Sunday Comment’ page, 13th August 1989.
 “The Guardian”, 29th August 1989.
 “Daily Express”, 30th August 1989.
 “International Migration 1990” (HMSO)
 “The Guardian”, 6th December 1991.
 “Hammersmith Post” 19th December 1991.
 “On England” by the Rt.Hon. Stanley Baldwin, M.P., Prime Minister, London, 1926, pps: 5-9.
 “The Guardian” 6th December 1991.
 John Stokes, M.P., 8th March 1975, reported in “Monday News” May/June 1975 p.2.
 Robert Nisbet (1966) reprinted in “Monday Club News” 12th April 1991.
 “Immigration” by the Rt. Hon. The Viscount Massereene & Ferrard, published by the Conservative Monday Club, U.K., September 1996.
 “Immigration: Action Overdue!” by Gerard Batten, M.E.P., et al UKIP, March 2010.
 Enoch Powell, 1970.
Content on the Traditional Britain Blog and Journal does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Traditional Britain Group