Sunday, 7 November 2010

The Fraud of Globalism: Minarets in Switzerland and McDonald's in Mecca

The Fraud of Globalism: Minarets in Switzerland and McDonald's in Mecca

By Robert Stark,
December 2009

Swiss Voters recently voted to ban the Construction of Minarets which greatly affect the skylines of many European Cities due to the massive growth of Muslim populations. The ban does not stop the construction of new Mosques but bans the Minaret towers. We are used to American values of freedom of religion (where it would be a questionable infringement on the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion), but keep in mind that many European nations do not even have the same rights to freedom of speech that we have.

Both Jewish and Muslim groups are outraged by Switzerland's decision. However many Muslims nations do not allow for the construction of Church's or Synagogues, and Israel also has restrictions on freedom of religion such as laws against proselytizing and intermarriage.

It is a shame that the issue about Minarets in Switzerland has become an issue of Islamophobia rather than opposition to foreign influence and Globalism. I can understand how many Muslims living there may feel their religious rights are being infringed upon, however due to the large scale of immigration Europeans feel threatened that they are loosing their culture and nations. While I support European Nationalism and a halt to immigration it is shame that the movement have focused on making Muslims into the enemy rather than supporting nationalism for all people and opposing Globalization.

What they fail to realize is that the Muslim world has a lot of the same concerns about loosing their cultures to Globalization that Europeans have. 

Wednesday, 3 November 2010

None dare call it White genocide

None dare call it White genocide

The case for a new discourse of genocide in our lands
by Christian Miller

The overarching goal of the “open borders” movement is to flood millions of non-Whites into all traditionally White nations. Make no mistake - this is not mere coincidence. It is White genocide by design, worldwide in application.

The United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Australia: White people founded and populated these nations. All of these nations operated under the implicit mandate, if not explicit by law, that they existed as White nations for the posterity of the White founding stock.

All of these nations had overwhelmingly White populations for the preponderance of their national history. Now, in the beginning of the twenty-first century, all of these traditionally White nations face demographic upheavals through massive non-White immigration. The White populations of these countries are slated to become minority populations in just a few generations.

Friday, 29 October 2010

Tibet and the Lessons for the West - by Welf Herfurth

Tibet and the Lessons for the West 
- by Welf Herfurth

What does the Chinese occupation of Tibet, and the resistance of Tibetan nationalists against that occupation, have to do with nationalism here in the West? The answer is: a great deal. This article will use the recent events in Tibet as a starting point, and attempt to break down Left-Right thinking on the subject – that is, it will try and show that the Left does not have an exclusive monopoly on the issue. The intention of this article is to show that it is no exaggeration to say that, ‘We are all Tibetans now’.

Just as during the time of the Burmese repression of the uprising of the monks, the Left in Australia, in particular the communist groups, are trying to seize hold of the issue, and make themselves look good by associating themselves with the Tibetan uprising. They blame the Chinese heavy-handedness on ‘capitalism’ (despite the fact that the Chinese Communist Party is responsible for the occupation and repression). Likewise, the liberals are trying to portray it purely as a human rights issue. But the most important element of the Tibetan uprising is the question national identity, national self-assertion in the face of immigration. And that, of course, relates to us in the in the West: we are in the same position as the Tibetans.

The article shall conclude with an example of some of the techniques we nationalists can use to foment Tibetan-style national awakenings in our own countries. Really, we nationalists should be ashamed of ourselves: the Tibetans face a greater danger, and face worse persecution, than we do; yet, we are afraid, and, more often than not, too afraid to come out from behind the keyboard.

Equalitarians! The Unnecessary Faith

Equalitarians! The Unnecessary Faith

By The Narrator

There is today probably not a more destructive presumption, even faith, than the notion of Equality. For its sheer baselessness and capacity to harm, and be it racial, cultural, societal, gender, etc, the modern notion of intrinsic or inherent “equal-ness” among human beings resides in a historical class by itself. From a racial perspective, pondering why Whites and non-Whites are not civilizationally, morally or temperamentally equal or why there is a socio-economical gap between the races, is about as necessary (and forced) as asking why dogs make better household pets than Grizzly bears.

All about us we see inequality as a natural condition and reality. Within sets and subsets, disparity in quality and ability is the norm. Be it among men or animals, fowl or fish, we see systems where this normative condition is nature’s engineering, and obviously not the outcome of prejudice or bigotry.

Of course, when we look at groupings of distinct classes of Man, animal or plant we can instantly recognize similar qualities distinct to each group or sub-group. We observe, for example, that fish swim and birds, by and large, fly. We can test this for the validity of labelling them by their distinctiveness. Yet not all fish are the same or equal, nor are birds without a variety of differences.

Even when similarities are more relevant (yet still greatly divergent in degrees), differences in quality, ability, adaptiveness and so on, are undeniable … such as, for instance, the fact that flight is a quality common to both butterflies and eagles. Yet the ultimate and distinguishable inequality between the two, in any given circumstance they may happen to share, is self-evident to all but the wilfully blind.

And so we come to the unnecessary predicament that the wilfully blind Equalitarians create with their presumption for Equality and their grievous vexation by the lack of it.

Britain faces mass migration, warns Admiral

Britain faces mass migration, warns Admiral

Daily Mail 2006

Britain and Europe face being overrun by mass migration from the Third World within 30 years, a senior Royal Navy strategist claimed yesterday.

In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry forecast 'reverse colonisation', where migrants become more dominant than their hosts.

He said the seeds of the problem were spiralling population growth and environmental destruction. In the competition for resources, many would flee their homelands and head en masse for better places such as Britain.

The Internet, cheap foreign travel and free international phone calls would hasten the demise, he said, because new migrants would stay connected with their homelands rather than assimilate into the host country's culture.

His prognosis is that Western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the collapse of the Roman Empire after the 5th century invasion of Rome by the Goths, the East Germanic tribe.



The following by Alistair McConnachie appeared previously in editorials in the August 2005 and October 2006 issues of Sovereignty, and in an article in the May 2006 issue.

Many who defend and promote the huge levels of immigration into the UK are self-styled "anti-capitalists" and "greens" who would be expected to oppose anything -- like mass immigration -- which promotes capitalist economics and unsustainable growth.

Let's consider some of their defences in the light of basic capitalist economics.

Immigrants are the best way to address our essential skills shortage/are needed to fill job vacancies

Basic economics tells us that a skills shortage in any field of labour is always remedied in a market economy by offering higher wages. These rising wages will act as an incentive for people to train to enter these fields.

Consequently, after a few years, the shortage is remedied, while per capita incomes have risen.

However, if shortage of labour is merely remedied by importing ready-trained workers from abroad, then the wage level never rises, and indeed, may fall. At the same time, the shortages will continue because there will be no financial incentive for the indigenous population to train in that field. They will have been dis-incentivised!

This will be exacerbated by the fact that employers will have no incentive to invest in training programmes, because they're able to get ready-trained employees without expense.

Thus the indigenous skills-shortage will continue, and in the long-run, per capita income will fall. The only beneficiaries here are the employers.

And it is not just us saying that, it is the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King. He was reported as saying that the recent migrants from Eastern European EU countries had kept the lid on wages and prevented inflation from rising: "Without this influx to fill the skills gap in a tight labour market it is likely that earnings would have risen at a faster rate, putting upward pressure on the costs of employers and, ultimately, inflation." (Larry Elliot and Charlotte Moore, "Migrants hold down inflation says governor", The Guardian, 14-6-05, p.15.)

In this regard we cannot do better than to quote MigrationWatchUK's Sir Andrew Green and his response in The Daily Mail letters column of 11 May 2006.

Immigration has little effect on vacancies. We had 600,000 vacancies in 2001 when the Government first gave this as a reason for expanding immigration and we still have a similar number, despite net immigration of roughly 900,000 in the same period. The reason is that the number of jobs in an economy isn't fixed. Immigrants also create demand and thus extra vacancies, so there is no end to the cycle. It would be much better if employers trained British workers rather than importing them from abroad. They could also try paying a decent wage to the unskilled, whose pay is being held down by the current large-scale immigration. No wonder some employers are happy.

So why do those who claim to be for "the workers" and against "the employers", support mass immigration? Why should those who claim to speak for the working class support an immigration system which holds down wages for the benefit of the employers?

Why should people like Mike Brider, Scottish secretary of the T&G say to a meeting of Polish immigrants, "T&G Scotland warmly welcomes the role and contribution which migrant workers are making to our economy and communities." (Dave Sherry, "Polish workers organise", Socialist Worker, 14-10-06, p.14)

Does he not have a clue that in October 2006 it was revealed that there are 962,000 claiming jobless benefits in the UK, and a further 3 million on incapacity benefit of which the government estimates one third are fit to return to work? Does he have anything to say about this? No he doesn't! He just wants to suck up to people he thinks will join his "Union" and keep him in a job!

What we are saying is that importing cheaper foreign labour keeps wages low throughout society.

The economy is growing as a result of immigration

Yeah, and so are interest rates, house prices and taxes -- as wages fall.

Obviously, any influx of people will encourage an economy to "grow" in the sense that there are more people needing more goods and services and more economic activity is likely. For example, if we imported the whole of Poland tomorrow we would, overnight, create hundreds of thousands, if not millions of new jobs, and we would have huge economic growth.

But why is that growth, per se, necessarily a good thing? In many ways it would be a very bad thing! You would only consider that a good thing if you were some kind of "capitalist"! Why do those who want a sustainable economy and world, justify immigration levels on the basis of growth?

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

Myths of British ancestry

Myths of British ancestry

OCTOBER 2006 —  ISSUE 127

Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands

The fact that the British and the Irish both live on islands gives them a misleading sense of security about their unique historical identities. But do we really know who we are, where we come from and what defines the nature of our genetic and cultural heritage? Who are and were the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English? And did the English really crush a glorious Celtic heritage?

Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.

Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words “Celtic” or “Anglo-Saxon.” What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.

The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language.

Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.

Fallacies of Integration

Fallacies of Integration

Dave Baxter argues that now the Establishment has admitted that the multicultural society is not working, full integration, i.e. multiracialism, is likewise doomed to fail. It would have the effect of fragmenting society and breaking down still further our traditional sense of community.

Even before the July London bombings, prominent Establishment figures were questioning how much longer the belief in a multicultural society could continue. The Times published an interview with CRE chairman, Trevor Philips, on 3/4/04. In it he said that multi-culturalism was out of date and no longer useful as it encouraged “separateness” between communities. This brought praise and support from a number of people, including former Tory party chairman, Norman Tebbit, who declared: “If we can make common cause around the idea that the problems don’t revolve around so much as ethnicity as culture, then we have moved a huge step on.”

For many, the very word “multi-cultural” is little more than a euphemism for multi-racialism. Perhaps even the very word “race” is just too traumatic for those who fervently believe that no such thing exists (or of it does then we certainly shouldn’t acknowledge the fact!)

Culture also has a convenient ambiguity to it. In its strictest definition, after all, it is simply a way of life at any one given time. There can exist a ‘culture of violence’ or a ‘culture of apathy’ and so on. Of course, healthy cultures do not remain static and stagnate; they change, adapt and evolve. The crucial point is that all previous changes in our cultural norms – language, dress, modes of behaviour and so on – have mostly been part of an evolutionary process within our own people. Historically, customs and manners have changed, but the people have remained unaltered.

The forced imposition of a multi-racial society, however, is different. It is a regressive step and unless halted and reversed, will lead to the decline and eventual disappearance of the British as a distinct ethnic group.

Those who think this prediction is alarmist should reflect on the fact that decades of immigration and asylum, combined with a higher non-white birth rate, have already resulted in indigenous British people becoming a minority in many cities. In addition to this, Britain has the highest rate of inter-racial relationships.
Based upon the above trends, what is the prognosis for our people?

Monday, 25 October 2010



April 2007

Immigration into Britain is now running at a level that is without precedent in our history and which threatens our cohesion as a nation, according to a report from the independent social policy think-tank Civitas. 

In 'A Nation of Immigrants' David Conway takes issue with those who minimise the threat posed by mass immigration by claiming that this is nothing new; that we are a 'mongrel nation'; and that, in the words of the Commission on Racial Equality, 'everyone who lives in Britain today is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant' (pp.2-3).

He argues, to the contrary, that from the time England can be considered to have become a nation, immigration has never risen above very low levels and had no serious demographic impact until the last part of the twentieth century. 

This isn't the Britain we fought for

Some WWII soldiers, and families of those lost in the war, have complained society today shows no sign of the effort they made to help

'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII

By Tony Rennell
Daily Mail
Nov 2009

Sarah Robinson was just a teenager when World War II broke out. She endured the Blitz, watching for fires during Luftwaffe air raids armed with a bucket of sand. Often she would walk ten miles home from work in the blackout, with bombs falling around her. As soon as she turned 18, she joined the Royal Navy to do her bit for the war effort.

Some WWII soldiers, and families of those lost in the war, have complained society today shows no sign of the effort they made to help. 

Hers was a small part in a huge, history-making enterprise, and her contribution epitomises her generation's sense of service and sacrifice. Nearly 400,000 Britons died. Millions more were scarred by the experience, physically and mentally. But was it worth it? Her answer - and the answer of many of her contemporaries, now in their 80s and 90s - is a resounding No. 

They despise what has become of the Britain they once fought to save. It's not our country any more, they say, in sorrow and anger. 

Sarah harks back to the days when 'people kept the laws and were polite and courteous. We didn't have much money, but we were contented and happy. 'People whistled and sang. There was still the United Kingdom, our country, which we had fought for, our freedom, democracy. But where is it now?!' 

Sarah Robinson, who joined the Royal Navy when she was 18, says the Britain she once knew no longer exists

The feelings of Sarah and others from this most selfless generation about the modern world have been recorded by a Tyneside writer, 33-year-old Nicholas Pringle. Curious about his grandmother's generation and what they did in the war, he decided three years ago to send letters to local newspapers across the country asking for those who lived through the war to write to him with their experiences.

He rounded off his request with this question: 'Are you happy with how your country has turned out? What do you think your fallen comrades would have made of life in 21st-century Britain?'

What is extraordinary about the 150 replies he received, which he has now published as a book, is their vehement insistence that those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the war would now be turning in their graves.

England: A mongrel nation?

England: A mongrel nation?

The definition of mongrel in my dictionary goes thus –

Mongreln. animal (esp. dog) of mixed breed. Adj. Of mixed origin or character

To me this definition implies an admixture where no particular trait or feature prevails, and a multiplicity of elements and forces, many of them unknown, has been at work. It’s opposite is often held to be ‘pure’. 

This article is emphatically not to be read as a claim that the English are a ‘pure race’. All I intend to do is ask (and, I hope, answer) two questions – “Just how ‘mongrel’ are the English?” and “Why is the term applied so frequently to the English?”

Few people in the modern world would ever make a claim that their nation is somehow racially ‘pure’. And yet by the same token few would be willing to dispense with their historical identity. The use of the word mongrel in relation to an entire nation of people implies that their characteristics are not only not fixed, but are easily mutable, and have been frequently changed over time.

In recent years the word has often applied to the English by commentators and not a few English people themselves in a way which would have been uncommon just a few decades ago.

The implication is that the English are not an ‘historical’ people, and do not have characteristics of their own but have an identity that is simply an amalgam of elements taken from the identities of other people. In the context of the doctrine of multiculturalism, these elements are provided by the supposed ‘waves’ of immigration to which England has been subject throughout her history.

Ethnically dense neighbourhood good for health

Ethnically dense neighbourhood good for health
September, 2009
By Joene Hendry

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Living in a neighborhood with a lot of people of similar ethnic background may have some health benefit, hints a new study from the United Kingdom.

In the study, fewer activity-limiting long-term illnesses were reported by people who lived in neighborhoods they felt were more than half made up of people with whom they shared a common ethnicity.

This effect was seen among white (primarily of British and Irish ancestry), Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and African race and ethnic groups, despite the tendency of ethnic minorities to "live in deprived neighborhoods," Dr. Mai Stafford, from University College London, told Reuters Health in an email correspondence.

Stafford's team measured actual ethnic density of various neighborhoods and asked residents for their views on the ethnic makeup of their own neighborhood.

The study included 8,850 whites, 1,299 Indians, 678 Pakistanis, 233 Bangladeshis, 690 Africans, and 820 of Caribbean ethnicity.

The investigators found general agreement between actual and perceived ethnic density, except that whites tended to underestimate the proportion of whites in their neighborhoods.

By contrast, "ethnic minority participants tended to overestimate the proportion of people from the same ethnic background as themselves in the local area," Stafford said.

A health benefit of living in neighborhood with people of the same ethnic background was evident for all ethnic groups - except those of Caribbean ethnicity.

For unexplained reasons that need further study, those of Caribbean ethnicity reported fewer long-term illnesses associated with actual, rather than perceived, ethnic density.

In earlier research, Stafford and colleagues reported ethnic minorities living in areas with greater proportions of "co-ethnics" experience less racial discrimination and associated stress, which may partially explain the current findings.

They call for continued investigations to further explain and clarify the impact neighborhood ethnic density has on overall health.

SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, August 15, 2009

Dutch advance socialist case against immigration

Agnes Kant, leader of the Socialist Party of the Netherlands

Dutch advance socialist case against immigration

The Socialist Party of the Netherlands has profited from its opposition to immigration and the free movement of labour

By Neil Clark
The First Post
NOV 24, 2008

Anyone who argues that, as a political force, socialism is dead, ought to visit the Netherlands. The Socialist Party of the Netherlands (SP) is the fastest growing political group in the country.

They won 25 seats in the last general election - an increase of 16 seats - and made huge gains in last year's local elections. They are now the third largest party in Holland in terms of members and could well replace the Dutch Labour Party as the main alternative to the Christian Democrats.

Why are they so successful? I would suggest that it is because they are a socialist party that actually has socialist policies. They oppose the privatisation of public services, advocate higher taxes on the very wealthy and have condemned the "the culture of greed" caused by "a capitalism based on inflated bonuses and easy money". They oppose war and Nato and the nascent European superstate. They were the only left-wing Dutch party in Parliament to oppose the new EU Constitution in the 2005 referendum.

WWII just as pointless & self-defeating as Iraq?

Heroism: Tommies commandeer a German machine gun during battle for Caen in 1944
Was World War Two just as pointless
and self-defeating as Iraq?

April 2008

It makes me feel like a traitor to write this. The Second World War was my religion for most of my life. Brave, alone, bombed, defiant, we, the British, had won it on our own against the most evil and powerful enemy imaginable.

Born six years after it was over, I felt almost as if I had lived through it, as my parents most emphatically had, with some bravery and much hardship in both cases.With my toy soldiers, tanks and field-guns, I defeated the Nazis daily on my bedroom floor.

I lost myself in books with unembarrassed titles like Men Of Glory, with their crisp, moving accounts of acts of incredible bravery by otherwise ordinary people who might have been my next-door neighbours. I read the fictional adventures of RAF bomber ace Matt Braddock in the belief that the stories were true, and not caring in the slightest about what happened when his bombs hit the ground. I do now.

After this came all those patriotic films that enriched the picture of decency, quiet courage and self-mocking humour that I came to think of as being the essence of Britishness. To this day I can't watch them without a catch in the throat.

This was our finest hour. It was the measure against which everything else must be set.

So it has been very hard for me since the doubts set in. I didn't really want to know if it wasn't exactly like that. But it has rather forced itself on me.

When I lived in Russia at the end of the Soviet era, I found a country that made even more of the war than we did. I even employed a splendid old Red Army war veteran to help me set up my office there: an upright, totally reliable old gentleman just like my father's generation, except that he was Russian and a convinced Stalinist who did odd jobs for the KGB.

They had their war films, too. And their honourable scars. And they were just as convinced they had won the war single-handed as we were. They regarded D-Day as a minor event and had never heard of El Alamein.

Once I caught myself thinking: "They're using the war as a way of comforting themselves over their national decline, and over the way they're clearly losing in their contest with America." And then it came to me that this could be a description of my own country.

When I lived in America itself, where I discovered that the Second World War, in their view, took place mainly in the Pacific, and in any case didn't matter half as much as the Civil War and the Vietnam War, I got a second harsh, unwanted history lesson.

Now here comes another. On a recent visit to the USA I picked up two new books that are going to make a lot of people in Britain very angry. I read them, unable to look away, much as it is hard to look away from a scene of disaster, in a sort of cloud of dispirited darkness.
They are a reaction to the use - in my view, abuse - of the Second World War to justify the Iraq War.

We were told that the 1939-45 war was a good war, fought to overthrow a wicked tyrant, that the war in Iraq would be the same, and that those who opposed it were like the discredited appeasers of 1938. Well, I didn't feel much like Neville Chamberlain (a man I still despise) when I argued against the Iraq War. And I still don't.

Some of those who opposed the Iraq War ask a very disturbing question. The people who sold us Iraq did so as if they were today's Churchills. They were wrong. In that case, how can we be sure that Churchill's war was a good war? What if the Men of Glory didn't need to die or risk their lives? What if the whole thing was a miscalculated waste of life and wealth that destroyed Britain as a major power and turned her into a bankrupt pensioner of the USA?

Funnily enough, these questions echo equally uncomfortable ones I'm often asked by readers here. The milder version is: "Who really won the war, since Britain is now subject to a German-run European Union?"

The other is one I hear from an ever-growing number of war veterans contemplating modern Britain's landscape of loutishness and disorder and recalling the sacrifices they made for it: "Why did we bother?"

Don't read on if these questions rock your universe.

Sunday, 24 October 2010

Roy Jenkins made Britain a far less civilised country

Roy Jenkins: An Architect Of Destruction

Roy Jenkins made Britain a 
far less civilised country

By Neil Clark
Jan 2003.

In his Guardian obituary of Lord Jenkins, David Marquand listed four "achievements" of his hero on which, to him, "the verdict of history seems plain". As Home Secretary, "Jenkins did more than any other person to make Britain a more civilised country to live in". As leader of the Labour Europeans, he played an "indispensable part" in taking Britain into what is now the European Union; and, as president of the European Commission, he played an "equally indispensable part' in paving the way for the single currency. Finally, by forming the SDP, and "breaking the mould" of British politics, Jenkins created New Labour.

As an Old Labour Euro-sceptic, I believe the last three "achievements" that Marquand lists were ones we could have well done without. But what of Marquand's first claim: that Jenkins made Britain a more civilised country to live in?

As an up-and-coming Labour backbencher, Jenkins had written, in the late 1950s, a tract entitled Is Britain Civilised?, in which he attacked Britain's "archaic" laws on censorship, homosexuality, divorce and abortion, as well as arguing for the abolition of capital punishment and changes to the country's "Victorian" criminal justice system.

At that time, Jenkins's "progressive" views on social reform were still in the minority in the Labour Party, dominated as it was by its socially conservative, working-class ethos. But by 1964, when Labour eventually regained power, much had changed. A group of middle-class, mainly Oxbridge-educated "intellectuals" had risen to prominence in the party and, for these "modernisers", led by Jenkins and his Oxford friend Tony Crosland, the main aim was the social, rather than the economic, transformation of Britain.

Although their views had little support among the British public at large, this group was able to push through its liberalising agenda when Jenkins became Home Secretary in 1965. Already, earlier that year, the death penalty had been suspended. Now it was full steam ahead to give support to private members' Bills to decriminalise abortion and homosexuality, relax censorship and make divorce easier.

Jenkins's impact at the Home Office did not end there. He also embarked on the most radical programme of penal reform since the Second World War. His Criminal Justice Act of 1967 said very little about the victims of crime, but plenty about the perpetrators. The Act introduced the parole system of early release of offenders serving sentences of three years or more, established the Parole Board and introduced the system of suspended sentences.

Friday, 22 October 2010

What Do White Nationalists Want?

What Do White Nationalists Want?

by Jared Taylor on June 01, 2009

Lost in Justin Raimondo’s torrent of mistaken assumptions and wild accusations is one useful question: What do “white nationalists” want? By putting the term in quotation marks, Mr. Raimondo has stumbled onto an important truth, namely, that there is no accepted term for contemporary Americans who still hold some of the views about race that were taken for granted by virtually all Americans until about the 1950s.

Until then, most people believed race was an important aspect of individual and group identity. They believed that the races differed in temperament and ability, and whites preferred the societies built by whites to those built by non-whites. They wanted the United States to be peopled by Europeans because they believed only people of European stock would maintain the civilization they valued. These views were so wide-spread, so taken for granted, so indisputable that there was no term for them. Just as there was no name for people who expected the sun to rise in the East, there was no name for people whose views are today sometimes given the clumsy term “white nationalism.”

The national-origins immigration policy that lasted until 1965 embodied this basic understanding of race. As one of the supporters of that policy, Congressman William Vaile of Colorado explained in 1924, “[the United States] is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different.” I might add that even if this sentiment shocks Americans today, it is exactly the view of their own country held by virtually every Japanese, Israeli, or Mexican.

What perhaps most succinctly characterizes those whom Mr. Raimondo calls “white nationalists” is the conviction that it was a terrible mistake to abandon national-origins quotas and throw the United States open to immigration from everywhere. As Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina wondered at the time: “What is wrong with the national origins of the American people? What is wrong with maintaining them? What is wrong with preferring as immigrants one’s own kinsmen?” There were no good answers to those questions then and there is none today.

I believe Sam Ervin—and Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt—shared my desire for a country in which our ancestors were respected as pioneers and statesmen, not reviled as murderers and thieves. I believe they wanted a country in which their children’s children would walk in the ways of their forebears, sing the same songs, worship the same God, revere the same heroes, and proudly carry forward the civilization and culture of the West. I am certain they believed this would be possible only in a nation whose majority people were the biological heirs to the creators of that culture and civilization.

Thursday, 21 October 2010

We Were Warned 

by Anne-Kit of Perth, Australia

“In order to be, a society must defend itself against whatever and whoever might threaten its existence. The inability to defend oneself against the enemy has always been the sign of approaching death … Men can live and act together only if they are bound together by code and custom, myth and legend, sculpture and song … Where such underlying orthodoxy is lacking we find ourselves in the midst of an aggregate of ghettos, not a society.”

— Frederick Wilhelmsen, Editor of National Review, early 1960s

Imagine this scenario: The time is the near future; the setting is the South of France. It is Easter Sunday and 100 rusty, decrepit ships have just run aground off the coast of Provence, having completed a spontaneous and precarious journey half way around the world from India and bearing a cargo of 1 million destitute refugees from the subcontinent about to spill out and swarm ashore. The emaciated corpses of those who didn’t survive the journey litter the water around the ships. The squalor and the stench of unwashed bodies and excrement are indescribable.

Immigrant boatWe observe this through the eyes of M. Calguès, a retired professor of literature, ensconced in his 17th century ancestral home high in the hills of Provence and watching it all through a spyglass on his spacious terrace. Everyone else has fled and left their homes and belongings to the conquerors; he alone has decided to stay and await his destiny.

His home, a symbol of Western Civilisation, is a fortress, well-stocked with bread, cheese, ham, olives, home grown vegetables, wine, brandy and cigars. Curiously, he leaves his front door open, for “can a door protect a world that has lived too long?” He turns on his radio: Gone is the pop and jazz, the vapid talk show hosts, the experts on health and love and sex. Only Mozart is playing on every station.

Race Realism - "American Civil Rights Struggle Won Long Ago"

Race realist Jared Taylor declares the 
"civil rights struggle was won long ago"

Jared Taylor, current editor of the American Renaissance, denies the term "white nationalist" and explains why he is not a "white supremacist." But, what this established journalist claims, is that he is a "race realist." Taylor's views have become an important piece of the race relations puzzle, and can often be found in studies, essays, newspapers (including the Washington Post) and books. Taylor has been called everything from a racist to a "true paragon of tolerance." He takes a few moments to discuss with Jamie Hines what is a "race realist," why there is no need for the civil rights battle, and what he thinks of President Barack Obama. 

JH: I've read that you describe yourself as a "race realist." What is a "race realist?"

JT: Race realism is rejection of the agreeable fantasies about race that have become orthodoxy since the 1960s. First, it is obvious that most people prefer the company of others of their own race. Forced integration therefore causes tension and resentment.

Second, race is an important element in individual and group identity, which means it is impossible to build a society in which race does not matter.

Third, people of different races build different societies. Blacks—wherever they are found in large numbers—establish communities with certain characteristics, and whites and others do the same.

Fourth, the combination of the first three factors means that racial diversity is a source of constant conflict. This is blindingly obvious, yet one of the requirements of respectability in this country is to pretend—and to repeat loudly at every opportunity—that diversity is a strength.

Fifth, the evidence is overwhelming that there is a substantial genetic contribution to well-established racial differences in average IQ. North East Asians living in America have higher incomes, better test scores, and more education than whites because they are, on average, smarter. Whites are smarter than Hispanics, who are smarter than blacks. It is vital to recognize this because otherwise “society” (meaning whites) is blamed for the failures of blacks and Hispanics.

Finally, race realism recognizes that whites have legitimate group interests just like everyone else.

JH:  What are the legitimate group interests of whites?

JT: It is vital to eliminate the stark racial double standard that denies white even have legitimate interests as a group. White pride or racial consciousness is considered “bigotry” or “hatred,” while any other kind of racial consciousness is considered to be a healthy form of ethnic self-esteem. This means every group in the country—except whites—is constantly pushing its collective interests, while whites are not allowed even to have interests as a group, much less work for them.

Some of the interests of whites are obvious. The first is not to be reduced to a minority. Most whites don’t want this but they dare not say so for fear of being accused of “hate.” Hispanics, on the other hand, are constantly rejoicing in their increased numbers and influence, and it is considered natural for them to look forward to eventually become a majority. Their gain is our loss, so why are they allowed to be happy about their gain but we are not allowed to resist our loss?

Whites have every right to prefer the kind of society that they create and to resist demographic shifts that are already changing their country in profound ways. Jews have a right to a Jewish state, and they keep it Jewish through selective immigration. Japanese have a right to a Japanese state and they keep it that way through restrictive immigration. Whites also, whether in North America or Europe, have the right to live in nations that reflect their culture and heritage.

Second, what is known as “affirmative action” is really discrimination against whites. If the kinds of preferences shown to blacks or Hispanics were shown to whites it would be a nation scandal, but because the victims are whites (and sometimes Asians) it is of no consequence. Whites must work to eliminate this while it is still possible to do so. When non-whites become majorities, they are likely to push for even more extensive racial preferences than the ones they enjoy today.

JH: Do you consider yourself a White Nationalist and/or a White Supremacist? Why or Why not?

JT: No. I don’t know what the term white nationalist is supposed to mean. White supremacists presumably want to rule other races, and race realists have no such desire. I believe people of every race should be free to pursue their own destinies, and this is impossible in societies in which they become minorities.

It should not be necessary to add that a concern for one’s own interests implies no hostility to others. Race realists understand that people of all races have the same rights: to preserve their culture and identity against any force that would dilute or replace it. One’s race is one’s extended family. Putting the interests of family before the interests of strangers is not hostility to strangers. One can become good friends with strangers but family comes first.

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

10 Reasons to Get Rid of the EU — A First Draft

Ten Reasons to Get Rid of the European Union
(- A First Draft)

Jan, 2008

Hello from Fjordman.

I intend to write a text called “Ten Reasons to Get Rid of the European Union”. This text will be written with me as editor and contributor, but not necessarily sole writer. I will post some ideas here which can be expanded upon by blog readers. I will then post a second, more elaborate draft, make some changes to that, and then post the final version. It is my intention that this text should be translated into major European languages and be republished or reprinted in various EU countries.

The proponents of the European Union claim that it is a “peace project.” But the EU is not about peace, it is about war: A demographic and cultural war waged against an entire continent, from the Black Sea to the North Sea, in order to destroy European nation states and build an empire run by self-appointed and unaccountable bureaucrats.

This is supported by national politicians in order to enhance their personal power, by creating a larger political entity than their individual nation states and by ridding themselves of the constraints of a democratic society. The EU thus corrupts national political elites into betraying the people they are supposed to serve and protect.

Anthony Coughlan, a senior lecturer at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, notes:

At a national level when a minister wants to get something done, he or she must have the backing of the prime minister, must have the agreement of the minister for finance if it means spending money, and above all must have majority support in the national parliament, and implicitly amongst voters in the country. Shift the policy area in question to the supranational level of Brussels however, where laws are made primarily by the 27-member Council of Ministers, and the minister in question becomes a member of an oligarchy, a committee of lawmakers, the most powerful in history, making laws for 500 million Europeans, and irremovable as a group regardless of what it does. National parliaments and citizens lose power with every EU treaty, for they no longer have the final say in the policy areas concerned. Individual ministers on the other hand obtain an intoxicating increase in personal power, as they are transformed from members of the executive arm of government at national level, subordinate to a national legislature, into EU-wide legislators at the supranational.

EU ministers see themselves as political architects of a superpower in the making. They can also free themselves from scrutiny of their actions by elected national parliaments. According to Coughlan, EU integration represents “a gradual coup by government executives against legislatures, and by politicians against the citizens who elect them.”

This process is now sucking the reality of power from “traditional government institutions, while leaving these still formally intact. They still keep their old names — parliament, government, supreme court — so that their citizens do not get too alarmed, but their classical functions have been transformed.”

The European Union is basically an attempt by the elites in European nation states to cooperate on usurping power, bypassing and abolishing the democratic system, a slow-motion coup d’état. Ideas such as “promoting peace” or “promoting free trade” are used as a pretext for this, a bone thrown to fool the gullible masses and veil what is essentially a naked power grab.

The European Union is now suppressing free speech across Europe in the name of Multiculturalism and tolerance. Free speech is the hallmark of freedom. When the EU is suppressing free speech, it is repressing freedom itself. The EU has thus become a tyranny, and the laws and regulations it is passing are illegitimate.

The EU is deliberately destroying the cultural traditions of member states by flooding them with non-European immigrants and eradicating native traditions. This is a gross violation of the rights of the indigenous peoples across an entire continent. Forcing native Germans, Brits, Italians, Dutch, Greeks, Swedes or others to fund their own colonization, to suffer abuse and violence in their own countries and watch as their heritage gets extinguished is evil, not tolerant. Native Europeans are taught that we should be grateful for the cultural traditions Pakistanis, Iraqis or Nigerians bring to our countries.

We are also told that we “don’t have a culture.” This is an insult to thousands of years of Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, Germanic, Celtic and Slavic history. Europe has one of the richest cultural and artistic traditions on the planet. To replace this with sharia barbarism is not just a crime against Europe, it is a crime against humanity.

Will Whites Commit Race Suicide?

Will Whites Commit Race Suicide?

Indigenous Britons will be a minority by 2100. 
John Morse asks: Have our people the will to survive?

The White Race is headed for minority status, not just on a global scale but in its own homelands. Alarmism from the far right? No, statistically verifiable reality supported by official figures.

Governments, academic demographers and the UN are all agreed on the trends. Immigration and differential birth rates between Whites and non-Whites speak for themselves. If they remain as they are, people of European descent will be outnumbered practically everywhere before the end of the 21st century.

Much as our rulers want to keep the facts under wraps and, as far as possible, away from the public gaze, those facts are nevertheless fully acknowledged by those in the know.

In what ought to be a wake-up call to the British people, Anthony Browne, writing in the left-wing Observer (3rd September 2000) under the blaring headline "The last days of the white world" outlined the situation. The trick, it seems, is to present he matter as if it were no big deal. Said Browne, speaking of shifting population balances in America:-

‘It was news and non-news: the most significant milestone in one of the most profound changes to affect the US in the past century, and yet a non-event. Last week the US Census Bureau issued figures showing that non-Hispanic Whites made up 49.8 per cent of the population of California. Anglo-Saxon Whites are already a minority in Hawaii and the District of Columbia. Now they are a minority in the country's most populous state, the one most usually identified with American dream.’

Friday, 15 October 2010

How my multicultural dream went sour

How my multicultural dream went sour

August 5, 2004

Our correspondent, a New Yorker, imagined that life for her family on a London council estate would be a perfect example of community spirit. Then junk and urine in her garden, threats from neighbours and a drug-related killing outside her front door forced her to question her liberal values
- Michele Kirsch

SOMEWHERE between the time my children called out of the window to a dead man and his seriously injured girlfriend, “Would you like some chocolate digestives?” on the first estate, and the day I threatened to kill the wrong pit bull on the second estate, I started to understand how a good family could go bad.

The day I came back from the police station, after the care-in-the-community lady upstairs who hated white people in general and me in particular threatened to strangle me, my husband said, for the 100th time: “We should have stayed in the first flat.”

The first flat was two tiny rooms in a nice private cobblestoned enclave in Stoke Newington. There were a lot of families like us there — first step on the property ladder, first baby. There was a great sense of community. We were squashed but never felt poor. The negative equity-trapped families who had two school-age kids, with the parent sleeping on a sofabed in the front room, the kids crammed into the wardrobe-sized bedroom — they were poor. I thought they were nuts to live like that. Better to cut their losses and move into a bigger place with a manageable mortgage. There were large, reasonably priced ex-council flats with gardens in Hackney. Yeah, but we don’t want to live on an estate, they’d say. I didn’t get it.

I come from New York City, where people live in tiny, overpriced apartments, houses in Brooklyn, Queen’s, or the suburbs, or the Projects if they are really poor — city subsidised, urine-in-the-lift flats with huge cinder blocks and tiny windows to make you feel like you are in prison. Most of the people who lived in the Projects were black, Puerto Rican or white people who had too many kids and not enough money. The Projects were not a microcosm of New York’s supposed melting pot. It was never a melting pot, but more like a bunch of little pots simmering on the same stove.

Democracy and the Media Bias

Democracy and the Media Bias

August, 2007

In democratic societies the press, the Fourth Estate, should supposedly make sure that the government does its job properly as well as raise issues of public interest. In practice, we now seem to have a situation where the political elites cooperate with the media on making sure that some topics receive insufficient or unbalanced attention while others are simply kept off the agenda altogether.

This isn't the case with all issues but with some more than others, especially those related to Multiculturalism, mass immigration and anti-discrimination where there seems to be a near-consensus among the elites. Together they form a new political class. This trend is recognizable all over the Western world, but it has become more deeply entrenched in Western Europe than in the USA, partly because more media outlets in Europe are either controlled by or at least sponsored by the state, but mainly because the political class has become formalized through the European Union.

In Europe, politics is more and more becoming an empty ritual. The real decisions are taken before the public even get a chance to vote on them , and the media won't talk honestly about important matters. Our daily lives are run by a bloated bureaucracy which is becoming increasingly transnational. Ever so slowly, everyone is reduced from being an individual to being a cogwheel in a giant machine, run by supposedly well-meaning administrators and technocrats. They don't really care about you; they just don't want anybody to rock the boat, so they constantly grease the bureaucratic machinery with lies.

Africa is giving nothing to anyone

'Africa's peoples are outstripping their resources'.
Africa is giving nothing to 
anyone - apart from AIDS

By Kevin Myers
July 10 2008

No. It will not do. Even as we see African states refusing to take action to restore something resembling civilisation in Zimbabwe, the begging bowl for Ethiopia is being passed around to us, yet again. It is nearly 25 years since Ethiopia's (and Bob Geldof's) famous Feed The World campaign, and in that time Ethiopia's population has grown from 33.5 million to 78 million today.

So why on earth should I do anything to encourage further catastrophic demographic growth in that country? Where is the logic? There is none. To be sure, there are two things saying that logic doesn't count.

One is my conscience, and the other is the picture, yet again, of another wide-eyed child, yet again, gazing, yet again, at the camera, which yet again, captures the tragedy of . . .

Sorry. My conscience has toured this territory on foot and financially. Unlike most of you, I have been to Ethiopia; like most of you, I have stumped up the loot to charities to stop starvation there. The wide-eyed boy-child we saved, 20 years or so ago, is now a priapic, Kalashnikov-bearing hearty, siring children whenever the whim takes him.


V FOR VICTORY: Churchill became PM in 1940


August 27,2009
By Leo McKinstry

ON the eve of the Battle of Britain in 1940, when the fate of our nation hung in balance, Spit- fire pilot Bill Millington wrote to his parents, “Being British, I am proud of my country and its peoples, proud to serve under the Union Jack and regard it as an Englishman’s privilege to fight for all those things that make life worth living: freedom, honour and fair play.”

Like so many in the RAF, Millington made the ultimate sacrifice in the heroic, victorious struggle against the Luftwaffe, as his plane was shot down over the southern coast. Yet his words beautifully encapsulate the spirit of patriotism that galvanised the British people during the Second World War.

It was the same deep love of our island home which inspired the soaring rhetoric of Winston Churchill, drove men to fight on the beaches of normandy and the deserts of north Africa, compelled exhausted bomber crews to fly on missions for night after night over Germany, and enabled the British public to survive the Blitz so stoically.

Patriotism is one of man-kind’s most noble ideals, an extension of the natural loyalty we feel to our families, friends and neighbourhood. In its highest form, it requires us to lay down our lives to protect others, just as a devoted husband might risk all to defend his wife or children.

But in our modern age, patriotism is despised rather than admired. For the Marxist ideologues who now run Britain, love of country is a vice, not a virtue. As a result we are now encouraged to learn entirely the wrong lessons from the Second World War. Instead of being presented as a magnificent defence of our native land against a savage aggressor, the conflict is now portrayed as a triumph for the forces of political correctness against right-wing extremism.

In this warped narrative the Second World War has been transformed into a gigantic crusade against xenophobia, while our soldiers, sailors and airmen are regarded as armed outreach workers in a vast anti- racism project. It is a bizarre paradox of our times that, thanks to the predominance of multi-cultural dogma, the patriotic instinct that led to national salvation in 1945 is now treated as a thought crime.

The sense of unifying national identity that once motivated millions of Britons to defend their homeland is held to be suspect by a political elite obsessed with cultural diversity. We are told that opposition to mass immigration is the equivalent of siding with the Nazis.

What's the point of citizenship classes?

What's the point of citizenship classes when we've already surrendered our national identity?

Melanie Phillips
10th March 2008

Britain currently seems to be in a state of permanent uproar about its national identity. Home-grown Brits don't seem to know what it is any more, while immigrants flock to these shores in vast numbers to claim it for themselves.

The Prime Minister frets about recreating a sense of national solidarity which he thinks has been lost. Accordingly, he has proposed erecting hurdles for immigrants to jump before they can join the British national project.

Meanwhile, he was forced to slap down the so-called Culture Minister, Margaret Hodge, for wanting to junk that quintessential British institution, the Promenade Concerts, because they are a symbol of a Britain she would clearly like to abolish altogether.

Tomorrow, Lord Goldsmith will publish his review of citizenship which Gordon Brown commissioned to find ways of increasing a shared sense of belonging.

According to weekend leaks, this will suggest that schoolchildren should swear an oath to the Queen and promise to obey the law in ceremonies similar to those for new immigrants. We don't yet know whether the review will in fact say this. But it sits with the view often expressed by ministers — who look enviously at the way every American pledges allegiance to the Stars and Stripes — that similar loyalty oaths to our own national symbols will make people identify with Britishness.

This, I'm afraid, gets the argument totally back to front. Their flag doesn't make Americans patriotic. They rally to it so emotionally because they have enormous pride and belief in their country. That's because they believe that America's defining characteristics of freedom and equality, based on Judeo- Christian ethics, are simply superior to anything else.

So they love their country for what it represents and, accordingly, are prepared to fight and to die for it. That is the essence of a shared sense of national purpose.

I'm a holocaust denier, but I also believe Nazis planned extermination of Jewish people

I'm a holocaust denier, but I also believe the Nazis planned the extermination of the Jewish people

By Kevin Myers
March 04 2009

Let me say from the outset; I'm with Bishop Richard Williamson on this. There was no holocaust, (or Holocaust, as my computer software insists) and six million Jews were not murdered by the Third Reich. These two statements of mine are irrefutable truths, yet their utterance could get me thrown in the slammer in half the countries of the EU.

Why, they could in the right circumstances even get me extradited for trial in Sweden, a country which heroically kept the Third Reich supplied with iron ore, even as the last victims of the Nazi genocide were being murdered.

What? I admit that there was murder and genocide (or Genocide, as my spell-check wants me to call it) but almost in the same breath, insist that there was no holocaust? How is this possible? Well, if you turn historical events into current political dogmas, (believed even by my computer) you are thereby creating a sort of secular, godless religion, which becomes mandatory for all who wish to participate in public life. Yet dogmas, by definition, are so simplistic and crude that they are usually not merely wrong, but are also probably so.

It is an offence in German law to say that six million Jews did not die in the holocaust. Very well then. I am a criminal in Germany. For efficient though the Nazis were, they were not so clinically precise as to kill six million Jews -- not a Jew more, or not a Jew less.

Africa has to learn lessons - the hard way if necessary

Africa has to learn lessons - the hard way if necessary

By Kevin Myers
Friday October 30 2009

Writing on these pages two days ago, Concern's CEO Tom Arnold wrote: "I am being constantly asked by people 'Why food shortages in Ethiopia again? Why are we always being asked for money to keep people alive there? What is the Government doing?'"

The questions were good. How did he answer them? Well, he didn't. For he continued. "The implication is that the Ethiopian government is doing nothing. . . The implication is that nothing has changed."

Tom. Do us a favour. Spare us what you think people might be implying when asking these questions, and simply answer them. So back to question one: "Why food shortages in Ethiopia again?" Go on: the answer please. Question two. "Why are we always being asked for money to keep people alive?" The answer, again, please. Question three. "What is the Government doing. . ?" Oh please.

True, later he pointed to a rise in food prices as a sort of general explanation for why six million Ethiopians now need feeding. (But food prices have risen round the world. And six million people are not queueing for foreign relief in India or Brazil). He added that a number of measures were needed, including watershed management, environmental regeneration, greater use of drought resistant crops, da da da da. . . "It takes time to achieve structural strange," he cautioned. Indeed it does. But if structural change is being simply overwhelmed by population increase, then it can achieve nothing.

Labour is malignant, not incompetent

Labour is malignant, not incompetent

By Simon Heffer

The problem with accusing a government, or any institution or person, of incompetence is that it seems to excuse its motives.

When we say, as we should often feel the temptation to do, that the Labour administration that has governed us for the past 11 years is incompetent, we should be aware also that we are saying the following: that, but for its administrative and technical failings, it would have done well.

I do not believe this to be true. Despite the sheen of reason that Gordon Brown and, before him, Tony Blair and their chums have sought to put on all they do, this Government has had dark motives from the start.

It has followed policies deliberately that have enabled it to pursue its own political agenda - and this has always been a deeply politically motivated government in the way that Lady Thatcher's was, and that John Major's wasn't - and irrespective of some of the dire consequences that might flow from those policies.

The element of deliberation and deliberateness in what Labour has done makes an accusation of incompetence, or carelessness, seem wide of the mark. Things were meant to be this way.

Labour has pursued policies, be they social or economic, for ideological reasons: and when they fail, as so many have, it has not been because of slipshod administration. It is because that was how things were always going to work out.

I mention this in the specific context of the House of Lords report on the benefits - or lack of them - of mass immigration. The theory applies, however, to much else, immediate or not. Some feel that mass immigration happened by accident; or that Labour's economic miracle was, indeed, so miraculous that it required hecatomb's of foreigners to come here and undertake it.

Labour despises Britain and it's History

At last we know the truth: Labour despises anyone who loves Britain, its values and its history

By Melanie Phillips
24th February 2010

Of all the issues of concern to the public, immigration is possibly the most explosive - and the one about which the most lies are continuing to be told.

During the period that Labour has been in office, mass immigration has simply changed the face of Britain. The total number of immigrants since 1997 is pushing three million.

Ministers claim that immigration policy has been driven principally to help the economy. They have always denied that they actually set out deliberately to change the ethnic composition of the country.

Arrivals: The total number of immigrants that have come to Britain since 1997 is close to three million

Well, now we know for a certainty that this is not true. The Government embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society - and they kept this momentous aim secret from the people whose votes they sought.

Worse still, they did this knowing that it ran directly counter to the wishes of those voters, whose concerns about immigration they dismissed as racist; and they further concealed official warnings that large-scale immigration would bring about significant increases in crime.



By Leo McKinstry
April 17,2008 

A NEW bulletin has just been issued which is worthy of George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth. Apparently there is no link between crime and mass immigration.

According to Peter Fahy, chief constable of Cheshire and one of the co-authors of a report from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the idea of a migrant crime wave is nothing more than “a myth” invented by a sinister media to create “resentment and misunderstanding”.

This rose-tinted view holds that most newcomers are professionals with qualifications who come here to boost our economy.

Only a politically correct ideologue determined to brainwash the public could come out with drivel like this. Whereas the rank and file and some very senior coppers make it plain in the report that immigration has put huge pressures on policing, Peter Fahy’s imput is truly Orwellian in its denial of reality, trying to tell people not to believe what they can see with their own eyes.

Any viewer of the BBC’s Crimewatch and any reader of a local newspaper will be only too aware of the grim weekly catalogue of murders, rapes, shootings, thefts and stabbings perpetrated by thugs from immigrant communities. 

As one member of the public put it yesterday in response to the ACPO study: “In my area the number of immigrants has rocketed since Labour came to power and the number of muggings and street crimes have significantly increased. The streets were once very peaceful but in the last 10 years we have had four murders, two committed by Afghans and two by Eastern European gangs.”

This is the experience of so many British people today who have seen their once well-ordered civilisation crack under the brutal pressure of mass migration. It is an insult to our intelligence to suggest otherwise.

Yet that is the game Labour ministers have been playing for far too long, with their endless injunctions that we should all “celebrate” the joys of multicultural diversity and applaud the benefits of immigration even while we have to watch the collapse of our once great nation.



Friday February 15,2008

By Leo McKinstry

AS yet another innocent father is senselessly murdered by rampaging thugs laughing at the law, novelist Anthony Burgess’s nightmarish vision of ultraviolent youths has come disturbingly true.

Nick Baty was trying to be a good samar­itan. On his way home from a night out near Bridgend, the 48-year-old was helping an injured man outside a nightclub when he was stamped on and kicked for no reason whatsoever. A few days ago his wife Lyn agreed to switch off the life support machine that had kept him alive but in a coma for a month.

His 12-year-old daughter Katy said: “Things like this just ruin families. This could have happened to anyone. It’s just shocking. My dad has been so brave all his life and he always tried to help people.”

It’s inconceivable that a man just trying to do his best to help someone in trouble can become yet another grim statistic in crime-ridden Britain. A 17-year-old youth from Bridgend has been charged with grievous bodily harm with intent. Police will consult with the Crown Prosecution Service about bringing a murder charge.

Dreadful stories like Nick’s have become all too common in recent years. And the more we read of them, the more a notorious series of images of wanton violence comes to mind. 

High on drugs, a teenage brute and his gang of fellow thugs trap a homeless old man in a deserted underpass, then savagely attack him with chains and sticks.



By Leo McKinstry
May 28,2008

NOTHING exposes the hypocrisy of Left-wing politics more graphically than the issue of immigration. 

Labour ideologues constantly tell us how much our society benefits from a mass influx of foreigners, both by strengthening the economy and adding to the richness of our culture. 

But this is just empty propaganda. In reality mass immigration has deepened poverty, driven down living standards, pushed up taxes, promoted social dislocation, exacerbated crime and stretched public services to breaking point.

The winners from immigration are the corporate employers and the affluent, nanny-employing class who are insulated by their wealth from the breakdown in social cohesion. The losers are the very people whom Labour used to represent – the traditional British working class who find their communities dissolved, their jobs taken and their support networks shattered.

Far from heralding a new era of prosperity, as the Labour Party claims, mass immigration has actually worsened the economic prospects of a large section of our society. 

Labour cynically plotted to transform Britain

The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us

By Melanie Phillips
26th October 2009

So now the cat is well and truly out of the bag. For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened. Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate?

The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very make-up of this country without telling the electorate.

There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage.

This astonishing revelation surfaced quite casually last weekend in a newspaper article by one Andrew Neather. He turns out to have been a speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

And it was he who wrote a landmark speech in September 2000 by the then immigration minister, Barbara Roche, that called for a loosening of immigration controls. But the true scope and purpose of this new policy was actively concealed.