Saturday, 18 December 2010

Political Judges at War with Britain

The Lord Chief Justice ordered an investigation into political comments by High Court judge, Ian Trigger (Telegraph 05 Aug 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.

Yet 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.

Viscount Radcliffe, former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, spoke up 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.)

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 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 daren’t 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).

Bradford M.P., Max Madden, described Judge Pickles as a "repulsive old buffer" who had "plumbed the depths by his remarks which will cause widespread offence to people of all races and nationalities"/ Liaqat Hussain of the Bradford Council for Mosques called for Judge Pickles to be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act.

Through the 60s and 70s, the New Left and its ideology were taking over and silencing those with the wrong opinions. In 1982 Lord Denning, widely regarded as the twentieth century’s greatest judge, published — “What Next In the Law.” The publishers withdrew 10,000 copies because of some inaccuracies. He wrote: "The English are no longer a homogenous race. They are white and black, coloured and brown. They 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." Lord Denning had been a benefactor to young people from the Commonwealth and was expressing sound common sense.

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 outsiders to their own people!

The attack on our people and way of life by the judiciary has two main planks: promoting Muslim extremism and undermining our way of life through law.

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”.

Many people seem to mistakenly believe that our judges are simply out-of-touch, semi-senile old people. However, there are clearly far more sinister forces at work here. Judges who make political comments counter to our traditional British values are showing that they have a subversive agenda which is clearly not in the interests of the majority. The judiciary are supposed to be independent from Parliament but some of them have shown themselves to be highly politicised with a clear anti- British agenda. This cannot be tolerated any longer. They have forfeited their right to be judges, in my opinion. During the Nuremberg trials the German judiciary who had enacted Nazi laws were prosecuted and in some cases executed for their crimes. Others were given very long prison sentences. In June 2000, Sir David Calvert-Smith, former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, but now a judge, described nearly all white people as racist. He was head of the CPS from 1988 till 3rd November 2003 and is heavily responsible for turning the police into a totalitarian force policing opinions instead of crime. In 2005 he led an inquiry for the Commission for Racial Equality into how the police forces of England and Wales dealt with racism within their ranks. At a press conference Calvert-Smith said they would not be investigating “racism” because it was a “given.”

The judge who turned the police into institutionally anti-white racist was Sir William Macpherson of Cluny. This introduced Soviet techniques to oppress White people in the Recommendations -
12. That the definition should be: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."
13. That the term "racist incident" must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment.
14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the police, local government and other relevant agencies.
This makes crime subjective and gives other ethnic groups legal power over “White” people. Further, guilt is determined a priori and not in court.

Recommendation 13 is even more mendacious: investigate “non-crimes”!!! This totalitarian device criminalises everything and allows the politicised police to investigate any aspect of our lives they choose. Multi-racialism and totalitarianism are indivisible. As in Yugoslavia under Tito, a multi-racial society can only work totalitarian methods.

Recommendation 38 which requests the” power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented” and the citizen loses legal safeguards and the state can prosecute repeatedly until it gets the right verdict.

Recommendation 39 is similar to the extensions to paragraph 10, Article 58 of the 1926 Soviet Criminal Code which ordered “face-to-face conversations between friends or between husband and wife and in a private letter” to be investigated for anti-Soviet thoughts.

The Recommendation states:”That consideration should be given to amendment of the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour, and of offences involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proved to have taken place otherwise than in a public place.”

All seventy recommendations were presented by BBC News in “Lawrence: Key Recommendations.”

Judges can pick the cases they hear. Judge Collins likes asylum cases and repeatedly makes decisions prejudiced in favour of asylum seekers – he discriminates in their favour! The Daily Mail once ran a front page headline asking why does he hate this country? In February 2003 The Telegraph exposed him in “Damning verdict on judge.”

The judiciary attack our society by undermining the family. Lady Hale, Britain’s first female law lord announced at a press conference that she supported gay adoption , legally recognised gay partnerships, improved legal rights for heterosexuals who cohabit and the idea of fault removed from divorce law. This is an ideological statement and shows there will be no impartiality towards this aspect of “the Culture Wars,” as she was announcing beforehand that she is prejudiced against traditional values.

In 1999, the law lords ruled that homosexual tenants should have the same rights under the Rent Acts as married couples and blood relatives. Promoter of Sharia, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss had remarked that it was acceptable for homosexual couples to adopt. She was a leading family(anti?) judge.

Lord Slynn attacked the traditional family: “family need not mean either marriage or blood relationship."

The Gender Recognition Act brought Britain into line with a ruling by the European Court of Rights which legitimises the preposterous idea that a transsexual can retrospectively say that their gender at birth was what they now say it is. What this contortion of logic means is that they were not born what they were born but what they now say they were born.

The feminist/communist hate campaign against the traditional heterosexual nuclear family has been an ongoing thing since the 1960's. The family law courts have been enabling this hate campaign since the introduction of the 1969 Divorce Reform Act and subsequent anti-family legislation, by interpreting the law the way the media led feminist movement wish to and not in the way that Parliament originally intended.

Children and fathers are routinely treated as sub-humans, both inside the divorce courts and after the pre-determined anti-father ruling. Grandparents are also treated like dirt when it comes to accessing their loved ones.

Ironic that the same feminazis and treacherous anti-British judges fully endorse the very pro-father Sharia courts, given that if Muslims take over this country, the 'British' judiciary will be among the promoters.

They support outside groups against people with property. The Court of Appeal ruled that Gypsy families who had encamped on land they bought in Chichester against planning laws they were allowed to stay because human rights law conferred “the right to family life.” This put Gypsy camps throughout the country above the law we are supposed obey. That was a court legally encouraging law breaking. This was later reversed but the bias of the judiciary had been signalled to interested parties.

As part of the elites Islamification programme, many Judges are campaigning for the introduction of Shari law. In December 2008 the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, told the London Muslim Council he was willing to see Sharia law operate in the country, so long as it did not conflict with the laws of England and Wales, or lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments.
He also suggested Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements.

In December 2008 Lady Butler-Sloss, England's first female Appeal Court judge, called for ministers to change the law for Muslims, so that a decree absolute could not be issued by a civil court until evidence had been obtained of a Sharia divorce.

Under Islam, a woman cannot issue the talaq to end a marriage except in rare circumstances. She can ask a Sharia council to dissolve the marriage but in doing so she would forfeit part of her financial rights

In November 2008, Stephen Hockman QC, a former chairman of the Bar Council reportedly suggested that a group of MPs and legal figures should be convened to plan how elements of the Muslim religious-legal code could be introduced. But: “The position of women is one area where the emphasis is, to the say the least, rather different.”

Sharia law will be allowed as long as it doesn't 'lead to the imposition of severe physical punishments'. Who is going to decide on the principal of 'severe'. It is against the law to smack a naughty child so by that definition there should not be any Muslim law that would not 'come into conflict' with current law. 'Sharia principles should be applied to marriage arrangements'. This would then create two systems of divorce. Any 'white' Christian male who was divorcing, would, presumably, be able to choose a sharia court for his divorce. Equally a muslim woman being divorced can choose a 'Western style' court. Who then would decide which court has superiority? Again we see the appeasement to islam leading to conflict with Western values. The two are diametrically opposed and cannot be run with unity as much as the liberals would like to think it would.

Just as the Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed by the Prime Minister. I remember Tony Benn at some point enquiring what criteria were used when judges were selected. The whole process was then apparently secret - and I'm sure it's as bad or worse now. As you say, saxonian, it's no surprise we have such useless rubbish in charge of "justice". Maybe there is something to be said for the US system of elected judges (except then there would be financed campaigns by vested interest groups in favour of the 'correct' judges).

The European Court of Human Rights widened the parameters of the European Convention on Human Rights to universal legal principles that subsumed national laws and even though Strasbourg is independent of the EU it was seen as helping political union in Europe and a move to one world government. They acted ideologically and challenged governments in many policy decisions. They became a political force. When NuLab who shared the ideology came to power they incorporated the Human Rights Convention into British law.

In the sixties Liberalism changed from individual rights to group rights which is what is known as Cultural Marxism but as we became the object of prejudice and discrimination while the groups Hitler disliked became privileged and treated as superior. I think it’s more accurate to call it Cultural Nazism against White heterosexual males.

Our nation was our extended family and the embodiment of our cultural hierarchy that had treated other races as less than us, but this is our country. The nation had protected individuals as part of a bigger community, was replaced by interest groups defined by group identities - race, gender and orientation and religion other than Christianity which was replaced by multi-racialism.
One of the most evil things the judiciary has done is to turn once pleasant Britain into a world centre for terrorists. They use Britain as a base to attack other countries from. Human Rights laws prohibit torture or degrading treatment so they stopped removing illegal immigrants, even suspected terrorists, to countries where judges thought or pretended such treatment was practised. In 2008 at least two terrorists were released early from prison!

They also began to interpret the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees more “tolerantly” (prejudice) than other countries and altered the definition of a refugee from one persecuted by the state to anyone threatened by a group. Considering the terror attacks and the number of Muslim terrorists the judges have encouraged it is clear that White Britons are threatened by this group!
International law is neither based in national habits and conventions nor even democratic jurisdictions, but current political ideology. Many judges in the supranational courts are not even proper judges but diplomats and often former Eastern bloc Communist officials. Through the Human Rights Act they gave asylum to countless people who are a military threat to us as long as they claimed they would be in danger if returned to their destination countries.

The judges use this legislation to grant rights to people refused asylum, who then hide in their ethnic communities here. As they could not be sent back too their countries of origin they were not even sent back to their countries of transit like France under the excuse that France might deport them to a country of danger. To see the moral corruption - a Taliban soldier who had fought our troops was granted asylum because he feared persecution.

Home Office figures in December 2005 recorded that a quarter of terrorist suspects admitted since the terror attempt of 21 July were asylum seekers shows that the judiciary have breached national security; two of those failed bombers of the 21st July attempts in London are said to have got asylum with false passports, names and nationalities.

Some terrorists were protected by the judiciary - Algerian Rachid Ramda was wanted by the French for financing an attack on Saint Michel station in Paris in 1995, when 8 died and 150 were wounded. He had been granted asylum in 1992 and was kept here for ten years despite three requests for his extradition!

In 1995, the Home Secretary tried to extradite Saudi Mohammed al-Massari to Yemen but after the judges thwarted this. He lived in North London and was allowed to constantly post videos of civilian contractors being beheaded in Iraq and encourage Muslims to join the Jihad.

In 2004, judges wrecked the governments’ attempt to control terrorists by detaining suspects without trial, which was introduced after 9/11, in “The Belmarsh Judgement.” This is customary in war but the judiciary pretend we are not at war. Lord Hoffman, made the ludicrous statement that Muslim extremism does not imperil the nation: “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes from laws such as these.”

Lord Phillips' speech, at the University of Hertfordshire, in support of the Human Rights Act, is a classic of sloppy, illogical thinking. “Control orders” were an attempt by the government to contain foreign terror suspects after the Law Lords ruled detention without trial was illegal under the Human Rights Act.

Phillips acknowledged that the act has limited actions in “response to the outbreak of global terrorism that we have seen over the last decade," but, he said: "It is essential that (immigrants) and their children and grandchildren should be confident that their adopted country treats them without discrimination and with due respect for their human rights. If they feel that they are not being fairly treated, their consequent resentment will inevitably result in the growth of those who, actively or passively, are prepared to support the terrorists who are bent on destroying the fabric of our society." There we have it: the law prevents the authorities combating terrorism and so reduces the risk of terrorism!

The alliance between Western elites and Islam is so strong that as well as changing our culture by Islamification, the judiciary are now breaking down the Jewish community. They promote Sharia Law while making Judaism illegal under the totalitarian Race Relations Act of 1976.

The Jewish Free School school in Brent, is an Orthodox Jewish school and because it was oversubscribed gave priority to children deemed Jewish by birth. The boy was refused entry because his mother had converted to Judaism rather than being born into the faith. The admission of a boy “M” was rejected because “M”'s mother became Jewish by conversion, after M was born. According to Orthodox rules, Jewishness passes through the female line. M, therefore, was not Jewish, and so did not have the right of admission to the JFS.

The Supreme Court decided by a majority of five to four that the decision to exclude M was in contravention of section one of the Race Relations Act. Supreme Court president Lord Phillips and Supreme Court Justices Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr and Lord Clarke found that the school directly discriminated on racial grounds against child M and others like him. Judge Lord Rodger, said the decision "… produces such manifest discrimination against Jewish schools in comparison with other faith schools…"

The judges have undermined our way of life, protected terrorists and are now attacking Jewish people to Islamify Britain. This is the nexus of Western elites and Muslims against White and Jewish communities known as Eurabia.

Sunday, 5 December 2010

The Right Standpoint

By There is an ideological muddle which impedes the protection of our people and we must find the right standpoint. Some influenced by university conditioning think it is is a rationalist formula written down in a book like Das Kapital or Mein Kampf but our patriotic way of thinking grows out of emotion and the need for numinous things in life rather than universal abstractions. The way to develop a new world view is to gather examples from the world around us, of what is really happening as a result of, say, immigration, then collate it and our version of reality begins to form.

We must link to our patriotic traditions and develop from there, but with a more suitable economic system to give our people priority in their own country. Many patriotic Conservatives, social and cultural, fought against mass immigration throughout the 50s and 60s. M.P.s like Cyril Osborne who began his campaign against open - door immigration in 1954 and Norman Pannell in 1956. Even Churchill prepared a Bill to control immigration but it was dropped when he had to relinquish the premiership because of deteriorating health. He also wanted the Tories to fight the General Election with the slogan ”Keep England White.” We have the famous example of Enoch Powell.(1)

The Conservative party was a “National” Conservative party which put the national interest first, not the Global economy. We are their natural successors and must position ourselves as such. This would give supporters a secure base to argue from with abundant role models and quotes from our history and that would strengthen their conviction which would impress their hearers more. People follow the dominant elites. Even those who agree with us vote for one of the dominant parties and a renewed conviction on our part would counter that. It is a mistake to lament they have not woken up when we are not putting our case with enough confidence. This is a starting point and would be adapted to deal with contemporary circumstances.
I have written before that we need to make an accommodation with Jewish communities and other groups who are in danger like Hindus and Sikhs but we must make it clear that this is our country and our people take priority. We are being invaded by a common enemy and the elites have adopted anti-Semitism as part of their surrender. Jewish people tend to regard “White Christians as a danger to them but must transcend the Ghetto Mentality and understand that the Muslims hate them first and they are under attack in France and Malmo, Sweden and when emasculated pricks like Cameron and Milliband get Turkey in the EU Jews will be openly persecuted! Mass immigration has changed everything and old enmities are no longer feasible. About 1 in 8 of the population of Southern Ireland are asylum seekers so the internecine wars in the North are not appropriate during an invasion. (2)

Do not think everyone in the media or the Conservative Party is an implacable enemy. Many agree with us and even have useful information about what the elites in politics and the media have planned but they stay away because of the Holocaust denying leaders.
The elites use the media and Equalities Commission to makes us like them or destroy us and we have to allow ethnics in but not adopt civic nationalism. There is a tendency for those who lament our lack of progress to think the situation hopeless and think conforming to the ideology of the elites but you do not win by capitulation. This shows they misunderstand the aims of the elites which is to replace Whites with immigrants. (3)

Simple or self-loathing people say “So what?”. “It doesn't matter if different people take over!” This shows a failure to understand how people behave. They think it will be painless like handing the baton on in a relay race.
It was common to hear liberals say:” We did it to them, now they can do it to us” though they did not themselves live in it. That submissive attitude still dominates the elites.”(4)
We must convey the urgency of this situation not try to be nice. We must respond in kind to the anti British propagandists in the media and be more urgent in our defending our children.

The vile abuse and the police and media cover-up of the murder of Charlene Downes shows how the elites are surrendering our young people to Muslims. She was a 14 year-old Blackpool schoolgirl who went missing in 2003. It is thought that older Muslim men who were illegally having sex with her murdered her, chopped her up and sold her to Blackpool people in kebabs!A trial in 2007 collapsed. The Independent Police Complaint Commissions decided covert surveillance was "handled poorly and unprofessionally", and police were forced to apologise.(5)
In Rochdale Nine men were jailed after a 14-year-old White girl was preyed upon and forced into prostitution. The child was fed vodka after she was found wandering the streets and repeatedly raped by gangs of Muslim men. The convictions for various offences, including sexual activity with a child, controlling a child prostitute, facilitating child prostitution and paying for sexual services with a child. She had to testify in separate trials involving the men and was eventually excused further evidence after a third hearing when psychologists ruled there were fears for her mental and physical well-being.

The submissive attitude of children to Muslim predators is inculcated by the state at school. Harrop Fold High School in Worsley, Greater Manchester, persecuted Jodie Stott, a 14-year old schoolgirl, who was arrested by police for “racism.” She had wisely refused to sit with a group of Asian students because three, who had recently immigrated here, could not speak English. She was kept in a police cell for three-and-a-half hours after being reported by her teachers: "They told me to take my laces out of my shoes and remove my jewellery, and I had my fingerprints and photograph taken," said Codie.
Totalitarian headteacher Dr Antony Edkins: "An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark by one student towards a group of Asian students new to the school and new to the country." We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude towards people and pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and will not stand for racism in any form." Edkins and the other teachers are persecuting this young girl in her own country for wanting to be able to understand her school companions.

The same Education Authority had a ten-year-old boy prosecuted for allegedly calling an 11-year-old mixed race pupil a 'Paki' and 'Bin Laden' in a playground argument at a primary school in Irlam.
District Judge Jonathan Finestein said the decision to prosecute showed "how stupid the whole system is getting" and was himself attacked by teaching union leaders for "feeding a pernicious agenda" that aided the BNP.
In 1965 Peter Griffiths Conservative MP for Smethwick showed great wisdom when he called for special classes to teach immigrants English and was accused by progressives of wanting to start apartheid in schools!

The Daily Mail reported that a Catholic schoolgirl was labelled ‘truant’ by her teachers for refusing to dress as a Muslim for a school field trip to a mosque. Staff the 14-year-old pupils to dress in headscarf, wear trousers or leggings and keep her arms covered for the compulsory visit to the mosque after it was arranged to promote ‘community cohesion.’ Amy Owen refused.
Totalitarian headmaster Peter Lee wrote the visit was “as compulsory as a geography field trip. There are two reasons for these visits. One is that the scheme of work in religious studies REQUIRES children to have knowledge and understanding of other world religions.”
‘The second is that the school is REQUIRED to promote tolerance respect and understanding. This is known as community cohesion. A failure to do this could result in an unwelcome inspection judgement”. Around ten others in year 9 classes refused to dress as Muslims and were marked down in the truanting register. It is clear from this how the word tolerance is used in an ideological rather than grammatical sense.: the state through its institutions is trying to enforce submission to Islam.

We must start highlighting the religious apartheids enshrined in Islamic Sharia law and what would happen to British women if decadent elites like Dame Butler-Sloss and Prince Charles succeed in introducing it and, especially, the legalised sexual abuse of children; the cruelty to animals.
The surrender to Islam and the new anti-Semitism is taught in schools. A Government funded study in April 2007 found that Schools are abandoning teaching the Holocaust in history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils whose do not believe the Holocaust happened and are frightened to teach the 11th century Crusades when Christians armies fought Muslim armies for Jerusalem because a different version is taught in mosques. They also teach a version of the development of slavery, which omits the much longer and harsher Muslim slave trade.

MPs also want children given relationship advice 'in context' to make informed decisions about when to have sex. Many Muslims will opt out of this as it will be teaching homosexuality as equal to heterosexual relations. This ignores the essential human duty to re-produce. Propagandising homosexuality is a threat to our demographics.
The State collects DNA records of children as young as five, and has been secretly taking their fingerprints since 2001. Schools take their fingerprints which is replacing library cards. When working on a crime police have access to the children’s fingerprints but parents are not told. To remove the prints takes professional cleansing. The schools, education authorities and the Government say it is difficult to convert this code back though not impossible and a computer technie could re- create the original fingerprints for identity theft.

In July 2006 The Observer reported that British children, possibly as young as six, will be subjected to compulsory fingerprinting under European Union rules being drawn up in secret. The prints will be stored on a database which could be shared with countries around the world. Under proposed laws being drawn up secretly by the European Commission’s ‘Article Six’ committee, which is composed of representatives of the European Union’s 25 member states, all children will have to attend a finger-printing centre to obtain an EU passport. The Home Office wants to include children in its biometric passport scheme and automatically transfer their details and fingerprints to the new national identity database when they are 16. The Government is underhandedly building a genetic database. Data has been used for genetic research without consent, including attempts to predict "ethnic appearance" from DNA profiles.

A nation's manners, morals, religions, political institutions and social structure, are inherited from ancestors and develop from the character of the people at that time.
Government from Brussels, economic control by global corporations and Afro-Asian colonization is part of the progressives' new dream for an ideal future, but in practice it disinherits our children of community and association with their own kind which we are duty bound to preserve for them.

Throughout history wars have been fought for territory and by allowing newcomers to stake claims, our emasculated ‘elite’ are encouraging them to fight for yet more. In The Territorial Imperative Robert Ardry explains how much having a country of their own has boosted the confidence of Israelis, but our rulers are handing our ancestral homeland to invaders and protecting their welfare over and above that of our own people.
Our views derive from an emotional and instinctive relationship with our people and our territory. It is more profound than rationalising or adopting an artificial blueprint for a Utopian world because it grows from natural, human instinct and emotion.
To give favourable treatment to aliens over our own people, as the fifth Marquess of Salisbury described them “our kith and kin,” is morally evil.
Look at data from the Office of National Statistics (which doesn’t take into account the births to mothers born here) then look at your sons and daughters and ask, ”Am I betraying my own children? Where will they live and work?”

We have natural bonds with our families, a responsibility for them and a duty to them. We also have a duty to pass on what we have inherited to our children, as they, in turn, will have a duty to their children. We owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeathed to us our nation and culture, and we must honour that.
Our loyalties begin with affection within families and this emanates outward to neighbourhood and nation. Men and women are distinctive sexual beings within their inherited collective identity. We belong to our kin, above strangers, and this affects the type of community we create.

Edmund Burke’s famous definition of society is that it is a continuous community of the living, the dead and those who are yet to be born. Each man and woman is part of a larger body. The individual dies, but descendants live on. 
We have positive benefits to offer our people: preferential treatment in their own country, better education, priority in housing and employment for our children and protection from child-rape by older members of a rival community. You only need look at the names of graduates from medical and law schools to see how our young are being dispossessed. We would offer British children more opportunities and a better future without unfair competition from outsiders.


Monday, 29 November 2010

Colin Mitchell-Role Model For A New Generation

Colin Campbell Mitchell born 17 November 1925 died 20 July 1996, is a modern British hero who found the best way to serve his country was to rebel against the anti-British and emasculated politicians who are betraying their country. This is a story of one who rebelled against the wet, defeatist elites who rule and became a national hero only to be victimised by corrupt and vindictive elites.
He served as as a lieutenant Colonel in the British Army and became a national hero in July 1967 when he led the his regiment the Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders in the re-occupation of the Crater district of British colony Aden. On 5 July 1967, Lieutenant-colonel Colin Mitchell, was CO of the 1st Battalion in Aden and led his men the reoccupation with 15 regimental bagpipers playing “Scotland the Brave” and their regimental charge "Monymusk".

Mitchell became famous as “Mad Mitch” and the re-occupation of Crater became known as "the Last Battle of the British Empire". It was not Colonel Mitchell's last battle, though. He fought hard and sincerely to save the his beloved and legendary Argyle and Sutherland Regiment from Socialist Prime Minister Harold Wilson's anti-British manoeuvres to disband or amalgamate regiments loyal to Britain with long and noble fighting traditions. The regiment was not disbanded, it was reduced in strength and many of the soldiers were placed with other Scottish regiments for a time but there was a massive public appeal which was extensively covered by the media at the time.

It was a very successful campaign to fight-back but the regiment was probably saved because of the troubles in Northern Ireland. The British army needed to be at full strength to cope with the situation in Ireland and to fulfil its commitments throughout the world. This same defeatist mentality governs the present Conservative leaders and they are taking the opportunity of the economic crisis to amalgamate our forces with European forces. Our new aircraft carriers will have French aircraft on them. They are out of touch with global realities and seem to think there is no longer any danger in the world. It is a utopian and foolish attitude.
The retaking of Crater became a symbol of the true British spirit. This is an example of when righteous rebellion is heroic. Mitchell is a role model for a new generation who are having their inheritance dissipated by the elites.

On June 20 British forces had been driven from the district with the loss of 22 lives. Mitchell knew that 500 well-armed police mutineers and terrorists had taken up positions there and were prepared to fight. He recalled: "It is the most thrilling sound in the world to go into action with the pipes playing. It stirs the blood and reminds one of the heritage of Scotland and the Regiment. Best of all it frightens the enemy to death."
The Treasury building which held the currency reserve for southern Arabia was retrieved from the police mutineers. By the end of the night it was clear to Mitchell that the push into Crater had utterly demoralised the enemy. Mitchell later said "To me that single moment in Crater was worth all my quarter century of soldiering".

The reoccupation and subsequent control of the Crater district were condemned by The Brass. The GOC Middle East Land Forces, Major-General Phillip Tower, feared that reoccupation of the Crater would provoke more disturbances. Tower, a veteran of the North African campaigns and Arnhem, also thought a full reoccupation of Crater was pointless as British withdrawal from Aden was already decided by politicians. Tower authorized a probe into the Crater to be led by Mitchell using the Argylls and other units but Mitchell took the initiative and reoccupied it. Tower instructed Mitchell to "throttle back" on his operations within the Crater. Mitchell stated that he thought Tower’s to be “wet hen tactics”. The situation was described in The Times:
"Mitchell frequently appeared on television: a small, handsome man with a direct, pugnacious manner, speaking the robust, unminced words that the British had not heard from their army officers since the acceleration of the Imperial decline had begun nearly two decades before. Newspapers took him up as a popular hero, proudly bestowing upon him the sobriquet of 'Mad Mitch'.”

Some MPs asked questions about the re-occupation in Parliament. They didn't want heroes countering their defeatism. Tam Dyell asked: “If "Mitchell had disobeyed operational and administrative orders of his senior officers during the recapture of the Crater". Mitchell himself later stated that he had been rebuked by General Tower. This was explained by Defence Minister and Bilderburger, Denis Healey:
“… the brigade commander thought it necessary to emphasize to Colonel Mitchell that the maintenance of law and order with minimum force leading to an orderly withdrawal from Aden with minimum casualties was the policy that had to be followed.”

The final British withdrawal from Aden took place in November 1967 and Colonel Mitchell and the Argylls arrived back at their Plymouth garrison on 27 November. All other battalion commanders from Aden were decorated but not Mitchell. He received only a Mention in Dispatches not the expected DSO. An OBE even would not have been unexpected but politicians bore him a grudge for his heroic attitude and by the time the British withdrew completely from Aden in November 1967, Mitchell was a marked man by the elites. It was made clear there was no room in the military for Mad Mitch.
In July 1968, he gave notice that he intended to resign from the Army at the end of the year. This was not the customary 7 months’ notice required of senior officers, but was accepted accepted with effect 1 October 1968.

Characteristically certain types made allegations of abuse and mistreatment. However, top Yemeni lawyer Sheik Tariq Abdullah recalled: "They were very rough. They tried to show as much restraint as possible but in general during that period you would find most of the people complaining."
Mitchell knew what they called Argyll Law was the only way of tackling the insurgents who killed 200 British soldiers in Aden. In 1996, he explained: explained why his methods were right:
"A great many Arabs are alive today because we used these methods and a great many Argylls are alive today because we used them. This to me is the complete exoneration of anything, if we needed exonerating, which we don't and never have done."

Maj Alastair Howman, who served with Colonel Mitchell in Aden, said the Argylls had nothing to apologise for on the 40th anniversary of their withdrawal. The end of British rule left a power vacuum which resulted in the deaths of thousands of people in the decades of civil war that resulted.
Maj Howman saw the same spineless weakness as in today's politicians and accused them of failing to learn the lessons of the Aden Emergency: "Crater was run on Argyll Law and that is perfectly sensible because there wasn't any other law. Once somebody declares what date they are going leave a situation it is fraught with danger for the people who are there. "That happened in Aden and it seems to certainly be happening in Iraq. I don't think politicians ever really learn this lesson. I don't think they read their history books."
Colonel Mitchell wrote his memoirs Having Been a Soldier, did some freelance journalism and worked briefly as management trainee with Beaverbrook Newspapers. However, he was a national hero to the people and serving military if not the elites. He became Conservative MP for Aberdeenshire West which he won from the Liberals by a 5,000 vote majority in 1970.
Mitchell was an excellent constituency MP whose main political interest was the British Army. He was critical of the Army’s leadership. For example, in August 1970 he was quoted: ”… those bastards in Whitehall”. He was on the patriotic or traditional wing of the Conservative party and opposed British membership of the European Community(now the EU), sanctions against Rhodesia and the arms embargo on Israel. He was prominent in the Monday Club and the Anglo-Rhodesian Society. Mitchell was one of 39 Conservative rebels who defied the Party whip to vote against British entry to the EEC(EU) in the Commons vote on 28 October 1971.

The Times diary reported on a Monday Club fringe-meeting he addressed at the 1976 Conservative Party conference on the subject of white-ruled Rhodesia:
“I went to mock, but came away with much sympathy for Mitchell personally rather than for the lost cause he espouses. He is quite at odds with the world in which he finds himself.”
Now, however, from our deteriorated condition he stands forth like a beacon to inspire us in our darkest hour.

Further reading:

Having Been A Soldier
It has been of print for some time but you can still pick it up from specialist booksellers. There are copies on Amazon and a search on Abebooks you should find someone selling a copy.

Saturday, 20 November 2010

Alfred the Great-Role Model For A New Generation

BThe concern that children educated in state schools are taught an anti-British propaganda that makes them ashamed of themselves and their history is something that needs countering. This potted history of Alfred the Great (1)is a small attempt to correct this great evil and it also draws some parallels with our contemporary plight. A significant difference is that we have been conquered by our own elected representatives and pacified to submit to the encouraged invasion by Race Laws and the ideological use of terms like “Racism” which is stop us defending our women, children and territory from colonisation. (2)

Alfred was born into chaotic and dangerous times as we are today. Invaders from Denmark and Norway called Vikings, had sailed from their homelands in longships and were plundering England. Although these invaders were racially similar they had developed separately and were not Christians but Odinists. Like today the invaders coveted our territory and they also won repeated battles against the indigenous people. The three kingdoms of Mercia, Northumbria and Wessex were under sustained attack from Viking raids. The Viking incursions culminated with a "Great Army" landing in East Anglia in 865 AD. This army made widespread territorial gains, and by 875 the kingdoms of Mercia and Northumbria had succumbed with only Wessex remaining Anglo Saxon. Wessex was attacked in 878 and Alfred fled to the Somerset marshes were he regrouped to counter attack.

The Viking invasion of England began by raids in 793. They attacked London in 842 and colonised East Anglia in 865 followed by the colonisation of Northumberland in 870 and Mercia in 874.
When Alfred was born in 849 fifty years into the colonisation. England comprised the four kingdoms of East Anglia, Mercia, Northumberland and Wessex.
In Alfred's 21st year his brother King Aethelred led the Saxon army to Ashdown to engage the invaders in battle. However, when the Vikings sallied at them Aethelred was too busy praying to fight so Alfred took command. He led the charge. This surprised the Vikings and Alfred won. This was unusual as he Vikings won all the other many battles of the time. Then, fortuitously, Aethelred fell ill and died and Alfred became King in 871.

Alfred led his men at the Battle of Wilton but they lost. They had to make peace and buy the Vikings off with gold. They won a promise from the Vikings of no more raids. In 877, his 28th year, Alfred went to his fort at Chippenham to celebrate Christmas. Then, twelve days later, a large Viking army arrived to take them while they were feasting and not prepared for battle. The Vikings slaughtered many, burnt their homes and captured the fort. However, Alfred had fled with some of his men. They were indigent and had to wander begging food and billeting from his people. After much suffering they arrived at Athelney an island in the Somerset marshes. There was a building there that they used as a redoubt or stronghold. They hid there from the Vikings to recoup their strength and make plans.

A legend grew up at this time. It is said that he sheltered for a while with a farmer and his wife. She apparently went out to milk the cows leaving him to watch some oat cakes she was baking. Alfred being engrossed in planning his tactics to overcome the invaders, let them burn.

That spring Alfred contacted the English Earls telling them of his whereabouts. Then came the turning point – the Earl of Devon beat a Viking army in battle. Alfred knew the time had come to emerge from hiding and rally his forces. They mustered at Egbert's Stone. Alfred's Saxons cheered when they saw him as they thought he was dead and hope replaced despair in their hearts.
The Viking army, led by Guthrum, was camped at Edington. Alfred and his Earls decided their tactics, prayed all night to God and the next morning marched on Edington. The Saxon army stood close together forming the famous “Shieldwall”. The battle was fought all day with arrows falling like hail and at last the Vikings turned and fled the battlefield. Alfred pursued the foe to the fort at Chippenham and camped around to besiege them. The Vikings surrendered after two weeks. Alfred made peace and gave them North and East England. This became known as the Danelaw because Danish law held sway there, with Wessex and the South belonging to the Saxons. This was not satisfactory as the Vikings were still hostile and now with a claim on the land and battles continued until 937!
Finally, they took the English throne. In the summer of 1015, Cnut's fleet set sail for England with a Danish army of c 10,000 in 200 longships. Cnut was the head of Vikings from all over Scandanavia. The invasion force was to be in close and brutal combat with the English for fourteen months until the invaders took the country and Cnut was crowned.(3)

Alfred did not make many mistakes, though. He turned the towns into fortified communities with large, strong walls around them. He built a fine navy that later became the base of English power. This defeated the Vikings at sea in 875. People had previously thought the Vikings were invincible at sea. In 892 Alfred again beat the Vikings at sea. Then after four years of war Alfred drives the Danes out. Like most “Clashes of Culture” the conflict is permanent and when a nation has weak leaders thy surrender to the stronger power as Ethelred the Unready (4)and like the traitors in power today. A feature is trying to bribe those the weak rulers fear.

In 991, when Æthelred the Unready was about 24 years old after the Battle of Maldon, the English began paying money to the Vikings to leave them alone - a gafol of 10,000 pounds was paid for their peace. Yet the Danish fleet continued to ravage the English coast from 991 to 993. In 994, the Danish fleet sailed up the Thames towards London. The battle was not conclusive so Æthelred met with Olaf Tryggvason their leader, and signed a treaty with agreeing with the settled Danish companies and the English government to regulate settlement disputes and trade. The treaty stipulated that the pillaging and slaughter of the previous year would be forgotten, and stated that 22,000 pounds of gold and silver had been paid to the raiders as the price of peace. The parallel with decadent, spineless,contemporary elites like the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Phillips trying to introduce Sharia Law is striking. (5)

Alfred removed to London in 886 and built many new buildings setting it on course to become the Capitol city. Like today, the country faced colonisation and had to be brought out of chaos and decline. He made new laws and very importantly translated books out of the Latin into the vernacular English. This enabled more people to learn and also helped bind the communities with a common identity. Alfred encouraged writing, reading music and art among his people which originating in a national religious outlook give rise to civilisation. He died in 899 at fifty years of age. Alfred was the youngest son of the King of Wessex who took him to Rome where he met the Pope when he was four. He must have been impressed by the famous grandeur of Rome and seen the comparative barrenness of his homeland of the time.
His mother encouraged her children to learn and offered a beautiful book to her child who first learned to read. Wily Alfred could not yet read so he asked his teacher to read it to him till he had it by heart and won it as a prize from his mother!

I am very grateful to Peter Mullins for suggesting the idea for this educational piece to me






Sunday, 14 November 2010

Churchill – Role Model For a new Generation

There is a great and evil slander laid upon those who call for control and common sense in open-door immigration. They are demonised as “Nazis” and “Racists", and accused of following Hitler when really we follow Winston Churchill. The slur shows the deep hatred for the British people of the media, political, intellectual and cultural elites have - we fought Nazism and many lost family in that war.

The important thing to keep in mind while reading this is that the elites were beginning to favour immigrants over their own people. I have cited some sources in the hope that young historians will follow in developing an honest history of open-door immigration: it is virgin soil: no one else is doing it. Establishment historians are writing multi-racial propaganda for the global elites. They pretend we are a nation of immigrants with no core people or culture which is false.
Churchill was aware that religions compete with one another for power and territory and he knew the truth of slavery. In !The River War:” The stronger race soon began to prey upon the simple aboriginals... But all, without exception were hunters of men. To the great slave-market at Jeddah a continual stream of Negro captives has flowed for hundreds of years ... The dominant race of Arab invaders was unceasingly spreading its blood, religion, customs, and language among the black aboriginal population, and at the same time it harried and enslaved them” and, "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. (1)

In his St. George’s Day address of 1933 Churchill warned of the types who were then taking over our political and intellectual life: “The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage earners. They come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country who, if they add something to the culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large portion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible utopias?" A tribute to the Royal Marines in 1936 showed his piety to our history: “Those who do not think of the future are unworthy of their ancestors” .
His admiration for Jewish people - “the most formidable and the most remarkable race in the world” - was part of his belief in superior and inferior races and offers us an example of co-operation in our plight in Europe now.

Sir Winston Churchill tried to introduce a Bill to control immigration in 1955. He also wanted the Conservative Party to adopt the slogan “Keep England White” to fight the 1955 General Election. These are important details of our modern history which are ignored by dishonest historians who write propaganda for the elites. (2)

There had been racial battles in 1870s and 1911 in Cardiff with the Chinese community but those of 1919 caused five deaths and serious injuries. Whole areas were cordoned off by the police and hundreds taken into protective custody. The Times reported the Cardiff battle: “Racial riots of a grave character occurred at Cardiff during the early hours of yesterday morning. The trouble seems to have broken out simultaneously in several adjacent parts of the city about midnight. A young man named Harold Smart walked up to a constable and complained that a coloured man had cut his throat”
The constable took him to hospital but he died on arrival. This culminated in crowds of whites and blacks facing and baiting each one another. Revolver shots rang out. Six Arabs faced charges including firing a revolver. It appears the riot grew out of white mens’objections to coloured men consorting with white women.
There were Race battles in 1919 in Glasgow in January, in South Shields in January and February, in London in April, and in Liverpool, Cardiff, Barry and Newport in June!

The type of attitude Churchill had to endure with his colleagues was growing even then. The early Globalist, One-Worlder, Lord Milner, wrote a Memorandum of June 23rd On the Repatriation of Coloured Men which explained why they could do nothing about it: ”I have every reason to fear, that when we get these men back to their own colonies they might be tempted to revenge themselves on the white minorities there…” This emasculated attitude grew until Churchill was nearly isolated in his own government. Oliver Lyttleton (later Lord Chandos) and the fifth Marquess of Salisbury are two other notable opponents of open-door immigration.

Even while Windrush carried immigrants here in 1948 there was racial conflict: Liverpool again, between 31 July and 2 August, in Deptford on the 18th July; and Birmingham between the 6th and 8th of August 1949 involving immigrants from seafaring backgrounds but the Progressives ignored them. The Times reported the Liverpool battle as about 50 persons ”mostly coloured appeared in court after. ..”a gang of negroes' stoned several white men who were walking peacefully. They were armed with bottles, swords, daggers, iron bars, coshes and axes. The white men hopelessly outnumbered ran away. A Negro club appeared to have been the headquarters of the coloured men, and police officers were stoned and had bottles thrown at them from club windows as they tried to disperse the crowd.”(3)
Despite this they continued with the policy of free entry for immigrants but gave no practical support to local councils and voluntary organizations. Throughout the 50.s many delegations from local councils of areas effected went to 10, Downing Street, to ask for practical help and funds. On the 21st of November 1952 the Town Clerk of Brixton asked for regulation of immigration because they could hardly cope and MP Marcus Lipton led several delegations to appeal to Downing Street as did several local councils. The programme of slum clearance was held back.

Churchill’s Cabinet discussed immigration thirteen times. The first on 25th November 1952 when he asked in Cabinet if the Post Office employed large numbers of “coloured workers”. “If so, there was some risk social problems would be created.” They were from India, Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Mauritius, West Indies, Ceylon, British Guiana and Malaya. In all Churchill's Cabinet discussed immigration on thirteen occasions.
Churchill asked his staff to find out about problems in Lambeth, Brixton and Cardiff. B.G.Smallman, PS, to the Colonial Secretary, produced a paper on “The Coloured Population of the UK". This estimated the numbers to be 40-50,000 which included about 6,000 students. (4).

In his final ministry of 1951-55, Churchill was surrounded by effette decadent people and set the tone of weakness and emasculated leadership we have had ever since. There were no records kept of numbers entering, apparently because the immigrants were, as Commonwealth citizens, British subjects, but I believe they could not face it and wanted it to go away. Though they kept records of emigrants to Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Historian Andrew Roberts wrote that The Commonwealth Relations Office worried that with restrictions “ there might well be a chance of the governments of India and Pakistan introducing retaliatory restrictions against the entry or residence of members of the British business community.” Commonwealth Secretary Earl Home, worried that they should not give the impression that Commonwealth citizens from India, Pakistan and Ceylon would be less favourably treated than those from the Dominions otherwise there could be retaliation.
In private interviews Roberts shows the decadence of those around Churchill: “A Minister closely involved in the decision-making process, ‘ In fact…we were just stalling and hoping for the best’… One of Mr. Churchill’s private secretaries, ‘at that time it seemed a very good idea to get bus conductors and stuff’ … a junior minister, ‘it was becoming hard to find somebody to carry your bags at the station’.’’(5)

Iain Macleod who became Colonial Secretary, who is infamous for rushing de-colonisation through and causing many problems had a booklet “One World” published by Conservative Central Office in1960 the same year Prime Minister Harold MacMillan made his Winds of Change speech to the South African Parliament in Pretoria. The present Utopia is the coffee coloured, Multi-Racial society with the free movement of peoples as cheap labour. Norman Pannell, patriotic Liverpool Conservative MP, urged a practical approach to immigration at the 1958 and 1961 Conservative conferences suggesting immigrants have health checks and those who are criminal be deported. In 1958 Home Secretary RAB Butler agreed with him but did nothing. At the 1961 conference Colonial Secretary Iain Macleod countered Pannell at a fringe meeting declaring his utopian belief in the brotherhood of man.

On the 27th of June 1953 Sir Winston suffered a stroke that left him paralysed down the left side. After, he told RAB Butler, “I feel like an aeroplane at the end of its flight , in the dusk, with the petrol running out, in search of a safe landing.”(6)
Interviewed by Andrew Roberts his Foreign Affairs Personal Secretary Anthony Montague- Brown recalled that he was “simply too tired to deal with the immigration problem. He could concentrate on a few big issues at a time- like the Russians -and the rest of the time he could only give a steer and not see it through.” (7)
In November 1952 His Private Secretary, Sir John Colville noted, "He is getting tired and visibly ageing. He finds it hard to compose a speech and ideas no longer flow. (8)

Cabinet set up an Inter Departmental Committee to look into preventing an increase in the number of immigrants. It reported its findings in December 1953. This Inter Departmental Committee comprised Ministry of Labour and National Service, the National Assistance Board, the Colonial Office and Chief Constables from areas where immigrants were settling.
The Home Secretary was to ask the Committee to look into preventing an increase in the number coming for employment. There is a note to R.J.Guppy of the Home Office in The Prime Ministers papers notifying him that Churchill had seen the report in that day's Daily Telegraph "about what is termed an influx of West Indians. He is considering bringing the matter before the Cabinet and would like to have a report from the Home Secretary about it." (9)
January 1954 Home Secretary Maxwell Fyfe reported on the findings of the “Working party on the Social and Economic Problems Arising from the Growing Influx into the United Kingdom of Coloured Workers”. He stated “the unskilled workers who form the majority are difficult to place because on the whole they are physically unsuited to heavy manual work…”

The prime minister's papers show Private Secretary Montague-Brown to Civil Servant Johnston 2/11/1954 on an article in the Telegraph of 19 Oct in which the Jamaican Minister of Labour said he would not attempt to stop mass immigration. The P.M. thinks this should be brought up in Cabinet.
It is important to note that Commonwealth citizens were classed as British citizens and had the same rights as British people here. This was known as civic britannicus sum, or “equal rights for all British subjects.” The British Nationality Act of 1948 did not give them that right but codified it.

This point is made in the following example from the Cabinet Secretaries Notebooks released to the public in August 2007. These are the handwritten notes of Cabinet Meetings. They record that on 3 February 1954 under the item 'Coloured Workers', Sir Winston stated ‘Problems which will arise if many coloured people settle here. Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in the UK? Attracted by Welfare State. Public opinion in UK won't tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits.' Even he did not forsee the malicious propaganda that would be used to destroy the British people by their own elites!

In March 1954 Maxwell Fyfe told Cabinet: “ large numbers of coloured people are living on National Assistance” and that “coloured landlords by their conduct are making life difficult for white people living in the same building or area…the result is that white people leave and the accommodation is then converted to furnished lettings for coloured people, with serious overcrowding and exploitation”.
Maxwell-Fyfe typifies the weak rulers. In a Cabinet memorandum of 8 March Maxwell Fyfe feared “serious difficulties involved in contemplating action which would undoubtedly land the Government in some political controversy.” Lets keep it quiet?
In cabinet in October 1954 Mr. Churchill warned Maxwell Fyfe, “that the problems arising from the immigration of coloured people required urgent and serious consideration.” Maxwell-Fyfe emphasised that there is “no power to prevent these people entering no matter how much the number may increase.” This was finally tackled by the 1961 immigration Bill.

The Cabinet Notebooks of this period show Churchill’s attempt to get a Bill to control immigration introduced. It also refers to Cyril Osborne’s 1955 attempt to introduce a Bill to control immigration. NB: The Marquess of Salisbury describes the need for a Bill as “urgent.” This is a transcript from the actual Cabinet discussion:

Coloured Immigrants.

P.M. Need for decision before long.

Anthony Eden. Before Commonwealth P.M. mtg.

Henry Hopkinson. Osborne M.P. is thinking of introducg. Bill under 10 min. rule.

Lloyd George . Depn. y’day from B’ham. No objn. to them as workers. But qua housing. Figures are impressive.

Viscount Swinton. Might consider Cttee. on social aspects, alone.

A.E. Might be useful – to re-inforce action we decide to take.

P.M. Not in favour. Better to introduce Bill. May find we cd. get it thro’. At least we shd. have shown our view.

Marquess of Salisbury. Urgent.

H.H. Movement is starting now in favour of immign. from Barbados.

[Exit H.H.

This brings us to where we started with the discussion that Harold Macmillan referred to in his diary entry 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! (11)
The Bill Sir Winston referred to was not ready until June, two months after he had to retire because of his health. His successor Anthony Eden was an internationalist who told Conservative Cyril Osborne in the House of Commons, “There is no question of any action being taken to control immigration and in any case most were from Eire.” Then in November Eden’s Cabinet ceased discussion of immigration.

Just before he gave up the Premiership in 1955 Mr. Churchill told Spectator owner and editor Ian Gilmour that immigration "is the most important subject facing this country, but I cannot get any of my ministers to take any notice". (12)

Cabinet Secretaries Notebooks covering this period CAB 195/13 was released at the beginning of February 2008. The papers of British Prime Ministers are classified under PREM at the public records Office at Kew. PREM 11/824 covers Churchill’s premiership. It has Information requested by the Prime Minister on immigration of coloured workers to the UK and their employment in the Civil Service; deportation of British subjects; powers of Colonial Governments; employment of Jamaicans in the UK 1952-1955 etc.

1 The River War

(2) Peter Hennessy, 'Having It So Good - Britain in the Fifties' (Allen Lane, 2006) p 224. Hennessy's reference is: Peter Catterall (ed.), 'The Macmillan Diaries: The Cabinet Years, 1950-1957' (Macmillan, 2003) p 382. This is Enoch Powell referring to Churchill's attempt at 56 seconds.

(3) ( Panikos Paranyi (ed) “Racial Violence in Britain in the Nineteenth Century.” (Leicester University.1996). The discussions on immigration are classified as our “racism” and usually by Marxist academics who blame us”whites” for any difficulties. See also

British Immigration Policy Since 1939: The Making of Multi-Racial Britain, By Ian R. G. Spencer. (Routledge. 1997)

(4) These are held at the National Archive. CC100(52)8(cabinet Conclusions on 25/11/1952, CAB 128/25; The Post Master General’s report and the Chancellor being asked to restrict entry to the Civil Service is in CC106(52), 8/12/1952, CAB 128

(5) Eminent Churchillians, Andrew Roberts. (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson) 1994,

(6) R.A.Butler,”The Art of the Possible, (London. Hamish Hamilton),1971, p173.

(7) ibid Eminent Churchillians.

(8) Sir John Colville.(London. Stoughton Ltd )1985.The Fringes of Power. P654

(9) Daily Telegraph 29/1/54 "Cities Concerned at Influx of West Indians."

(10) CAB124/1191 Report of the Working Party on Coloured People Seeking Employment in the United Kingdom. 17th December 1953.

(These are transcripts of Cabinet discussions on immigration taken in the hand of Cabinet Secretary Sir Norman Brook. I researched many original documents at the Public Records Office.

Cabinet Secretaries Notebooks. The eleventh Notebook (CAB 195/11) (released August 2007) covers the period 3.12.52 - 26.2.54.

Cabinet Secretaries Notebooks. The Notebook covering this period CAB 195/13 was released at the beginning of February 2008.

(11) ibid Peter Hennessy, 'Having It So Good - Britain in the Fifties' (Allen Lane.2006) p 224. Hennessy's reference is: Peter Catterall (ed.), 'The Macmillan Diaries: The Cabinet Years, 1950-1957' (Macmillan, 2003) p 382.

(12) Inside Right. Sir Ian Gilmour (Quartet.1977)

Sunday, 31 October 2010

Standing on the Firm Ground of Ancestral Precedent

The 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 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.
 Mister Fox