Random Answers

Here are some random answers which may yet get moved to the crib sheet.


I Have A Dream

 by John Bull

“How few men are strong enough to stand against the prevailing currents of opinion …. Be prepared to stand up faithfully For Right and Truth, however the wind may blow.” Winston Churchill.
Perhaps I’ve been involved in patriotic politics too long. The other day I woke up from a strange dream in which I was a spokesman for the BNP and was being interviewed on Newsnight by Jeremy Paxman. This is rather odd as I’m not even a party member, but perhaps I’d eaten too much cheese before going to bed … Anyway, it went something like this:

Paxman: You’re racist, aren’t you?

John Bull: I prefer to stick to intelligent, mature debate rather than engage in childish name-calling. I am certainly not a “racist”, and if you are going to use that word, then you should define what you mean by it. Everyone uses the word “racist” to mean something different. It was invented by the Left as a meaningless term of abuse to be used to intimidate their opponents and stop them from promoting patriotic policies. I am just an ordinary, traditional British Patriot.

Paxo: They say that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

JB: That is not only a silly cliché, but also an offensive one. Patriotism is what inspired our fathers and grandfathers to fight, and often die, for Britain and for the freedom which you and I enjoy today, so I think it is quite disgraceful of you to sneer at the values of people who were better than you. What have you done for your country?

Err, all right, but if you’re not racist, why do you hate blacks?

JB: (Laughter.) What a ridiculous idea! Of course I don’t hate blacks. I’ve always got on perfectly well with blacks and Asians. You really shouldn’t believe all the stupid lies put out by our opponents. Listen to what we say, read our literature, visit our website and make up your own mind. You will see that we don’t hate anyone – apart, that is, from the treacherous politicians who have ruined this once-great country of ours. We have never blamed the immigrants for choosing to come here – we blame the British politicians who have failed to protect our borders and …….

Paxo: If you’re not racist why doesn’t your party allow non-whites to join?

JB: Look, just because the boy scouts don’t allow girls to join it doesn’t mean that they hate girls – quite the opposite I suspect! – it’s just that they are an organisation for boys. The same principle applies to the BNP. The BNP exists to promote Britain’s traditional culture and character as a European country, and to protect the native population of European descent from daily politically-correct persecution, so it would be bizarre to say that people who are not of European descent can join the party. We are very happy, however, for decent and patriotic non-whites who feel and wish to be British to affiliate to us through our Ethnic Liaison Committee. We want to be friends with all those who want to be friends with us. There is nothing wrong or “racist” about loving and wishing to preserve your own kind!

Paxo: Would you be happy for your daughter to marry a black man?

JB: I don’t approve of mixed marriages in principle, as this destroys the separate genetic identity and lineage of both partners, and nor is it good for the mixed-race children, who suffer from cultural confusion and a lack of sense of belonging to one group or the other. Strange as it may seem to you, I actually want to preserve human diversity, just as all conservationists want to preserve the diversity of plant and animal species.

Paxo: You say you don’t hate blacks, so why do you want to kick them out of Britain?

JB: The only people I want to “kick out”, to use your expression, are those people – of whatever race – who are here illegally, or who have been allowed to stay and have abused our hospitality by committing crimes. Surely no reasonable person can object to the deportation of illegal immigrants and criminals?

But it’s not just those who are here illegally – you want to deport all non-whites. You are opposed to the very idea of Britain as a multicultural country, aren’t you?

JB: That shows just how little you know of our policies. We do not want to deport all non-whites, only, as I’ve said, those who are here illegally or commit crimes. As for multiculturalism, this has been an experiment which has failed. You don’t need to take my word for it – even Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, admits it. Cultural diversity results in a lack of social cohesion. For a society to function as a community, rather than fragmented individuals who just happen to live near each other, we need to feel a sense of togetherness, of shared values and identity. This can’t happen in a multicultural society. Social cohesiveness depends on feelings of kinship, as well as common values and memories which themselves result from a common history. Even an increasing number of liberals now agree with that.

Paxo: Well, what about those immigrants who do adopt our way of life? Trevor Philips is in favour of a multi-ethnic society – are you?

JB: That depends on your view of “multi-ethnic.” I have no objection whatever to a small number of law-abiding and patriotic ethnic minorities being in Britain, but it’s all a question of numbers. We all enjoy going to Chinese or Indian restaurants, but when ethnic minorities become majorities in certain areas, then the whole character of the area is changed and is no longer traditionally British. Besides …….

Well what’s so bad about that? Why shouldn’t Britain change? Surely that’s what makes Britain interesting?

JB: A small number of law-abiding immigrants might possibly make Britain more “interesting”, but a large number just makes Britain more alien. All research shows that levels of communal co-operation are highest in neighbourhoods which are most homogenous. If you want to change the nature of this country, you should have the decency to ask the people for their approval first. We were never asked if we wanted millions of aliens to be allowed to move here or if we wanted the character of the country changed. If the government are so convinced of the value of immigration, why don’t they have the courage and honesty to hold a referendum on it?

Paxo: Do you agree that immigration has benefited Britain?

JB: Some individuals have no doubt had a positive effect, but as for large-scale non-European immigration, other than foreign restaurants I honestly cannot say that it has benefited Britain. Perhaps you could tell me what is so wonderful about it?

Paxo: You say that you would accept “a small number” of immigrants – what do you mean by that?

JB: Well obviously, you need to be flexible and pragmatic, but broadly speaking I think that an ethnic minority population of 1-2% in any given area would not affect the essential character of the area and would therefore be perfectly acceptable.

Paxo: But what’s the problem with an area having a lot more black faces – unless you dislike blacks?

JB: Skin colour and other aspects of physical appearance are not the real issue; I’ve tried to explain to you that for a society to be cohesive, it needs to be largely homogenous. The fact is that the closer people are related to you, the greater you affinity towards them. People feel a greater affinity towards their traditional fellow countrymen than towards foreign immigrants. That doesn’t mean that they hate foreign immigrants any more than the fact that you love your family more than the family next door doesn’t mean you hate your neighbours.

Paxo: the truth is you believe blacks are inferior to whites, don’t you?

JB: Once again, you are hopelessly wrong. I agree that studies both here and in the US have shown that there are definite group differences in temperament and in IQ, as well, obviously, as cultural, historical and religious differences. I’ve never said, however, that blacks are inferior, only that they are different. In some aspects, in some sports, for instance, they have physical advantages over whites, whereas in other areas, whites have shown themselves to be more able. Do you really think that it’s just pure coincidence that the most successful countries are all European or Oriental, rather than Asian or African? The various races have evolved over millennia and are different. We believe those differences should be valued rather than denied and denigrated, and should be preserved.

But everyone agrees that Britain needs immigrants. Without them our economy would collapse.

JB: (Derisive snort.) I thought you had more sense than to fall for such absurd government lies and spin. Britain is already grossly overcrowded, and independent environmentalists agree we need to reduce our population. Immigration imposes a number of burdens on …….

But we have an ageing population and need immigrants to come and work here to help pay for our pensions when we retire. Government statistics show that immigration benefits the economy and immigrants contribute £2.5 billion net in taxes.

JB: That’s exactly what I mean about government lies and spin! First, when ministers say immigration benefits the economy what they mean is that it increases GDP, but this is a meaningless measurement as all activity – even crime – increases GDP: are you saying that crime is a good thing? The true measure is GDP per person, and there is no evidence that immigration leads to an increase in this – on the contrary, immigration is more likely to reduce GDP per person than increase it as cheap labour reduces the incentive to increase industrial productivity. Productivity in Britain is 20% lower than in France and 40% lower than in the US. The solution to the ageing population is to increase the productivity of the workforce, not to import immigrants who will themselves age and need pensions. To maintain the current proportion of the population of working age we would need to import a million immigrants here every year – it’s simply unsustainable! As for the much-repeated statistic of immigrants contributing a net £2.5 billion, this again is another example of lies, damned lies and fiddled government statistics. This figure takes no account of the £2 billion a year cost of processing asylum seekers, for instance, or the cost of extra unemployment resulting from migrants filling jobs which could have gone to native workers. Even more absurdly, the government lumps all migrants together, including those who skew the statistics. The Swedish multibillionaire Hans Rausing, for instance, is put in the same category as an unskilled Somalian goat herder! Third World migrants are a huge drain on the British economy, not a benefit to it.

Paxo: So if you think there are too many immigrants and ethnic minorities here, what would you do about it?
JB: We believe in offering generous grants to immigrants and their descendants to enable them to start a new life in their countries of origin, if they wish to do so. I believe many would, especially those who are unemployed or in poorly-paid jobs, or who feel alienated by Western society. Such a policy was supported by black MP Bernie Grant, so it is certainly not “racist”. The exact amount which would be offered would be decided at the time, but it would be a significant amount – some 30-40-50 thousand pounds each – and would allow people to start a business, or maybe just retire, in their countries of origin. I believe this would attract a lot of support.

Paxo: If it did, it would cost billions, how on earth would you pay for it?

JB: It wouldn’t actually cost that much in net terms. Don’t forget we would make huge savings in terms or reduced expenditure on education, health care, policing, new housing, social services, benefit payments, etc.

Paxo: What about those immigrants who want to stay? Would they be able to live her in peace without being harassed or persecuted?

JB: Absolutely. As I’ve said before, we have nothing against those immigrants who are law-abiding, productive and patriotic. They would be free to remain as long as they wished and would be treated as one should always treat one’s guests: with courtesy, fairness and friendship.

You mean you would regard non-whites born in Britain as guests? Don’t you accept that blacks and Asians who were born in Britain are British?

JB: It was the Duke of Wellington who said that if he had been born in a stable that wouldn’t have made him a horse! The British are a European people; those who descend from Africa or Asia are not.

Paxo: How would a fortress Britain approach, keeping out people with essential skills, or even unskilled people needed to pick fruit, be good for Britain?

JB: I have never used the expression “fortress Britain”, and we would, of course, have a flexible policy which would allow in a small number of people with genuine essential skills – scientists, for instance, or highly qualified surgeons – as well as people willing to invest significant amounts of money in new businesses. We also accept that British citizens who fall in love abroad must have the right to bring their spouses to this country, but this wouldn’t extend to those spouses’ relatives or to marriages of convenience from countries such as India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.

Paxo: But businesses need more than just a few scientists and surgeons. What about the crops that will rot in the ground without foreign pickers?

JB: On the contrary, Britain does not need foreign workers. Businesses only want migrant workers because they allow them to keep wages down. The government keep telling us that there are half a million vacancies in Britain, but they never mention the fact that we also have one and a half million who are unemployed! Why don’t we train our own people instead of paying them benefits to sit watching daytime TV while we import hundreds of thousands of foreigners? We should introduce an element of work-fare for the unemployed, and also make use of the tens of thousands of prisoners who currently idle their time away at great public expense – they too could be used as crop pickers: this would save taxpayers’ money too as their earnings would go towards their keep.

You are just a single-issue party obsessed with race, aren’t you?

JB: You’re the one obsessed with race – you’ve asked me about nothing else! We have a full range of policies dealing with every single political issue. I would like to talk about important issues such as the need to control our own laws and destiny outside the EU, the need to improve our hospitals and our educational system, the need to protect our environment …….

Paxo: Err ……. I’m sorry but that’s all we have time for this evening.


Given the following reply:

Jesus, the ignorance in racial prejudice is unbelievable. This country isn't yours. Your stock is mixed anyway by years of invasions (go back far enough). Mankind began in Africa. And a load of strong Nationalist parties in each European country will take us back to the good old days of National European war. And you're worried that your grand kids will be mixed race?

Still, you and your beliefs are always going to a be a good source of material to satirists and piss takers, which is why we have the above video in the first place. Silver lining and all that (or should it be a white lining with the silver heritage brushed under the carpet because that won't sit as well with ones prejudice and self loathing?) 
I'm glad you find colonisation of other peoples lands and the resulting slow motion genocide funny Cartman. Really, it must be hilarious for you. It is not so funny for some of us though.

Just for arguments sake, let me entertain your nihilistic tendencies for a moment and I will bother to try and address your reply.

Firstly, do you even know what the words you use mean?

Lets start off with ignorance.

Ignorance is the state or fact of being ignorant; having lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

Now, our opinions may differ - but that does not mean to say we have no knowledge, no learning, no information. In fact, I would go as far as to say Nationalists are by far some of the most "informed" people in this country because we know what is going on more than the vast majority of the population. We know about liberty, about freedoms being eroded, about loss of sovereignty, about the post democratic society, about civilisational trends, about religions, about their systems of life and different world ideologies.

We know this, because we read about it, we pour over statistics and factual evidence as well as the emotional and historical evidence. We have taken the time to learn, to explore and investigate things which people find "uncomfortable". We have the documentation and facts, we have the ideologies and the concepts which are valid and which have previously stood the tests of time. Most of us know what this country was like BEFORE and what it is like NOW, and a pretty good idea of what it will be like in the FUTURE.

We know what the EU is upto as well as our own "government". We know about race and racial and cultural factors because we study it and are aware of it. That you personally just don't happen to CARE about it, or perhaps prefer to ignore it, or otherwise denounce it as being irrelevant is here nor there. Who the hell are you, and people like you, to decide what is or is not important?. Who made you judge and jury on what is right or just?.
Perhaps that is your own ignorance at play because perhaps you yourself are closed minded to concepts that do not fit your comfort zone. You probably take the lazy way out and absolve yourself from having to take any stance at all other than wishy washy liberalistic nonsense that has no quantifiable or rational measurement like "strength in diversity". You're probably one of these schitziods who first tells us to celebrate diversity then in the next breath tells people they are all the same and have no differences. You probably believe in everything and everyones values, and therefore believe in no values at all.

Theres nothing worse (or more extreme) than a cultural, moral and racial nihilist. Racial nihilists are more extreme and more evil than the most hardened "white supremacist".

Then there is what you claim to be ignorance "in racial prejudice". Now let's see.....prejudice........

1. an opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes.

If you are suggesting we have found ourselves here because we have just happened to have collective "preconcieved" ideas then surely that is a bit far fetched. I think most of us here, if not all, are here because we have become "informed" with "knowledge" and then gone on to form "opinions" which are not by any stretch of the imagine "without thought" or "reason".

But more precisely, I would like to know from you Cartman, just *WHAT* or in *WHAT WAY* are we being "Prejudiced" about other races?. Where is your evidence for this "prejudice" in specific terms and how would you quantify it or explain it?

Do you think we all believe "all black people are no good" or that "all Muslims are suicide bombers"? Have you in fact got any real idea what we believe in at all?. If you DO think those things then I am afraid it is YOU who is being "prejudice" about what we are and what we stand for. We are ethno orientated British Nationalists - NOT "racists" or "supremacists". We do not "hate" or otherwise seek to eliminate other races from the world. Can you even comprehend the difference between Nationalism and "racial hatred"? - probably not, because the type who come and sneer in comment sections and newspaper replies never usually seem to be able to. There, that is perhaps prejudice of you as an individual, but it is borne from experience of others.  

This country is currently ours, it is ours by inheritance from our indigenous peoples, our families and extended families and it is ours to be custodians of for our children and their descendants after them to enjoy. We are collective custodians, not owners in monetary terms, and it is for our people - not the third world overspill or the global ummah. Our ancestors built this land - NOT immigrants. Our ancestors fought and battled for this land for centuries to keep it for our people and to not be ruled or taken over by foreign invaders. So did our European counterparts, or did you think Charles Martel was wasting his time and he should have gone to an interfaith dialogue meeting? Or perhaps we should have welcomed in the French and the Spanish to take what they like?. Welcomed the Nazi's to simply have passports and take office through Harman'esque shortlist selections so they can feel better about their plans for the country long-term?.

It is ours by default, and our property to hand to our next generation so they can enjoy the country and the safety and security that we have all strived towards for centuries and worked through such things as the enlightenment for, to be free.

We do not want our country to become a third world quasi Islamic slum, or a dictatorship under undemocratic mandates in a New World Order globalist construct. We do not wish to subject our future generations to regimes, ideologies, faiths and a failed society, whilst increasingly being a persecuted minority in our own homeland in the future. Or do you not read what happens around the world and throughout history when this happens?. We are not even given the dignity to fight it off or avert disaster.

We have feelings, opinions and attitudes which ARE reasonable and justified. That you do not seem to appreciate any of that is again perhaps YOUR "prejudice" at play, borne from the aforementioned "ignorance" and lack of "tolerance".

As for the "nation of immigrants" nonsense - what do you know about it? No doubt you are one of these who believes, and regurgitates (like a parrot with digestive problems) how we "had the Romans, the Vikings, the Huguenots, the Jews" etc. and therefore we are a "mongrel nation".

It is in debate all the time. It is an easy throw away line and an easy way to absolve yourself from caring. Have you ever investigated it?. Because, if you have, you will surely know that at no point did ANY immigration wave ever comprise of more than 5% of the total population, and our genetic make up was altered a fraction of a percentage because of it. You will surely know that the waves of immigration were minuscule, such as the Huguenots and the Jews and that this happened over centuries, at a pace at which we could absorb them unscathed.

French Protestants (Huguenots) began arriving in Britain in the sixteenth century, with much larger numbers coming after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. However, their overall numbers cannot have exceeded 50,000. The wave of Jews who began to arrive in London towards the end of the nineteenth century and before and during the war represented an even smaller percentage - a combined number not much over 225,000 - representing about 0.5% of the population.

What is more, is that almost ALL those invasions of yesteryear, and all those including Heugenots etc were EUROPEANS (ie "White") from the Western Europe mainland. They were racially and often culturally and of the same temprement as those who comprised this land mass and that of Ireland. Ireland, once attached to this Island, and the people who are the indigenous people of Ireland are essentially of the same "stock" as the indigenous British peoples. So, it wasnt exactly "mongrelising" ourselves with the third world was it?. The vast majority of British people can trace their ancestory back to william the conquerer. 
We take 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 'everyone who lives in Britain today is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant'. It is a lie. From the time England can be considered to have become a nation, immigration has never risen above very low levels over vast time spans and had no serious demographic impact whatsoever until the last part of the twentieth century.

A "nation of immigrants" we are not - we were actually a nation of "emmigrants" to sparsely populated landmasses. We didn't become a "nation of immigrants" until the late 1970's and 80's if you care to look at any serious charts on the matter.

We dont even condone what our ancestors did to the America's and Africa and such like - even though our presence in the latter was not entirely a bad or shameful one. But you're probably one of those who likes to make a few digs at the "white people" for American Indians and the wrongs of "colonialism" whilst failing to see the irony in your championing of the exact same thing being done to this tiny overpopulated Island.

Its ironic because 1) people like you often afford the rights of everyone else to survive and retain their land and have it free from invasion apart from us, and 2) that "if we all go back far enough" (as you say) then ergo, "white people" never colonised or did anything to the Native Red Indians or the Africans, because well, we were ALL Africans at the end of the day right?.

I will therefore be expecting a renouncement of the appologies afforded to such nations and ill deeds carried out by European ancestors..........oh wait, I won't hold my breath on that one.

To take India as one example of our "colonial" past, at its height we comprised about 0.7% of the population - we were hardly going to make them ethnic minorities on the continent, and nor was that ever the intention. The same demographic trends cannot be said to be the same in reverse now!.

If we all go back far enough, we might be akin to sea bacteria - so what is your point?. Oh yes, the "Out of Africa" theory. You do realise that it is just a theory? There are other theories out there which can argue a just as equally valid case. But even if the theory was true, which is disputable, are we supposed to ignore the present day, where after millenia in isolation from each other different races did evolve? Are we supposed to somehow pretend it never happened or that it is insignificant or that the evolution is not worth protecting? How ridiculous. Maybe if white people turned around and said to you that in 150 years time we are going to make sure there are no black, asian, chinese races etc around, or that we didnt care if they were all gone you might mutter something about what a tragedy it would be.

Maybe you could be the first to go and tell the Han Chinese, or the Pakistani's and Indonesians that they are to be ethnic minorities their countries within the next 30-50 years, and that their country will resemble Brazil. That the Muslim world is to become overtaken with Falun Gong, Catholicism and Judaism too, as well as ethincally altered in the process. I'm sure they will welcome this news with open arms and "celebrate" the diversity that will kill them, their race and their civilisation off.

Perhaps you could do some good "anti racism" work out there? Perhaps you could go to Africa and preach tolerance and diversity to black people who butcher *each other* to death year in year out, nevermind white people!!.... If Africa is "too dangerous" for you to spout your glib platitudes, why not head to Israel and open some interfaith dialogue with the Palestinians and the Jews, or if thats too tricky, between the Tibetans and the Chinese...........oh, no.....hang on.....you don't actually care about any of them do you? Just your own warm fuzzy glow that you are in some way being "righteous" by repenting the "white guilt" of the percieved sins of our forefathers - sins that we are not even answerable for. Or that you are black, asian, muslim, or mixed yourself in which case you will naturally have no bond or bind to anything we stand for anyway.  

The EU has not "prevented war" - that's a common myth that is peddled by Pro EU campaigners. It is a mere coincidence at the best. But I suppose you're one of these types who again show ignorance and prejudice against Nationalists by claiming that we somehow "hate" European nations' people and are as such "xenophobic" to the French and the Germans and the Scandinavians etc because they are "foreigners"!? If you are, then here is some news for you......we don't like the EU as a political system, - it has nothing to do with the nationalities of our European counterparts. I love European diversity and I loathe what's happening to France, Denmark and Germany to name just three places that are ticking time bombs.

The most volatile issue you probably have with us is race, nationhood, and immigration. Let me put it to you:-

As a direct result of the policies of the Labour government alone, which amount to a virtual (and PURPOSEFUL) abandonment of the control of our borders, immigration is now running at levels which have never been seen before in our history. We have not seen such a population churn and such population transformation since the thawing of the ice age. That is a fact, not opinion.

In 2004 and 2005 net foreign immigration was 342,000 and 292,000 respectively, representing an increase in the population of one per cent in two years. Compared with earlier waves of immigration like the Huguenots and the Jews, who increased the population by one per cent or less over a period of many many decades, it is clear that we are in an unprecedented situation - and we aren't supposed to care or even notice as vast swathes of our country transform, or perhaps say "hang on a moment!" ?.

White people worldwide comprise just 8-10% of the total demographic. Something like 92% of future world population growth is in the developing and third world - ie non white. The growth here in this country is primarily due to ethnic minorities and their higher birthrate. Muslims are expanding at least 8x that of everybody else here in the country, and in 2005 1/3rd of babies born in this country were non white.

France is due to be an Islamic nation (of Africans and Arabs) before I am dead and buried (if I live to a normal age). We are already due to be ethnic minorities in our own cities within the next 20 years, Leicester and Birmingham are arguably already there or if not, it is a matter of two to five years away. America is going to be white minority before 2050 too. This is all documented and accepted as being factual, not fanciful projections or lies.
Current levels of immigration to this country (for Nationalists) raises questions not only about numbers and racial survival in the long term, but also about integration in the short-medium term - and the simple acknowledgement that the second is related to the first.

Until the last part of the 20th Century, the immigrant population comprised only a very small proportion of the total population, which meant that in order to flourish they had to adapt to the prevailing culture and integrate and be assimilated in all ways eventually. Nationalists (and most sane people) believe that this has given Britain an enviable record of social harmony combined with considerable ethnic and cultural plurality. We have an envious track record, and an envious homogeneity in this world as an island race of peoples. However, the presence of large ethnic communities after 1948, for some of whom integration with the host culture is not an aim (especially Islamic), is threatening this social harmony.

We are people who cherish our race, our nation, our ancestory and we are people who cherish Britain's comparative stability, freedom, and tolerance - and we feel we cannot afford to ignore the potential threat that is posed to it by the large-scale changes in its demographic composition now taking place as a result of recent large-scale immigration in combination with declining fertility among its indigenous population.

This is not an absurd or irrational thing to be concerned about.

We believe society will always find it harder to reproduce its political culture and to maintain its traditions the less deeply rooted its members become in it historically and ethnographically.

The acknowledgement that all four suicide bombers of 7 July 2005 were British-born, second generation British Muslims who had grown up in Britain in highly segregated enclaves (in which normal patterns of acculturation into mainstream British life have apparently become far harder to sustain) is an obvious testament to that idea.

The acknowledgement of which section of society is the most responsible for gun and knife crime, gang rape etc is another. This country now has a myriad of problems that are borne from the cultures and prevailing systems of other failed continents and their faiths. Honour killings, extremism, voting fraud, female genital mutilation, violence on the streets in inner cities.......the list is endless.

It is particularly in light of how quickly and recently many such enclaves and such problems have sprung up in Britain, and are continuing to grow apace, that all those who want to see Britain remain the stable, liberal, and tolerant country it has been for so long need to consider carefully how much truth or falsehood is contained in the claim hat Britain is and has always been a "nation of immigrants" - like you do.

We do not wish to "bring on" this future for our people. So we are determined to limit the damage and put ourselves back on course. This is not an irrational behavour, and nor is the human desire for our descendants in our own families to look like us and possess the same kind of traits as us.

You can make all the "colour" jibes you want, but like many people who approach us with negative tones, I doubt you're much of an ambassador for changing our minds.