Our Tradition of Conserving Homogeneity
A racial world view is a traditional world view. It goes back to our Anglo-Saxon tribal days. Hitler ventured far beyond that, of course, and fashioned not simply something that held his people together but that excused military aggression. But he was an historical exception.
In fact, many aspects of wanting to conserve or recreate our homogeneity can be traced back deep into our history. Britons have a great and noble tradition of conserving our homogeneity, and, at least until the end of the war, had a better and more pleasant life for being homogenous.
Queen Elizabeth was firmly in the Great Tradition. In 1596, she sent an “open letter” to the Lord Mayor of London, stating:-
“there are of late divers blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are allready here to manie,”
She order that they be deported. A week later, she repeated the treatment:-
“good pleasure to have those kinde of people sent out of the lande.”
And commissioned the merchant Casper van Senden to “take up” certain “blackamoores here in this realme and to transport them into Spaine and Portugall.”
In 1601, she again complained about the:-
“great numbers of Negars and Blackamoors which [as she is informed] are crept into this realm … infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel,”
And she had them repatriated.
Edmund Burke offered a definition of a nation which involves a shared identity, history, ancestry, and continuity:-
As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living and those who are dead, but between those who are living and those who are dead, and those who are to be born.
Today we are concerned that “those who are to be born” will be dominated by immigrant populations. We read repeated reports that we are becoming a minority in our own towns and cities. The immigrants are human and like us, are subject to the same failings, and are likely to treat us no better than they perceive we treated them.
Then there is the threat of miscegenation.
Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli wrote in Chapter 24 of Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography (1852),
The particular equality of a particular race is a matter of municipal arrangement, and depends entirely on political considerations and circumstances; but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequences on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors.
Sir Winston Churchill followed the noble tradition but unfortunately had failing health. Yet he still tried to heal the rupture in our national continuity in 1955 by having a bill to control immigration drawn up which was not ready until June, two months after he stepped down because of his health. He wanted the Conservative party to adopt the slogan “Keep England White.”
A hero against mass immigration in the early 1950s was the fifth Marquess of Salisbury, grand son of the great Conservative Prime Minister and descendent of Lord Burleigh adviser to Queen Elizabeth. He fought his battles in Cabinet. A letter preserved at the National Archive written to Viscount Swinton in 1954, shows his standpoint. Swinton like others only wanted the powers to deport criminals, sick immigrants and charges on the state but Salisbury was deeper and wiser than that and foretold:-
I should not be satisfied with the legislation which you suggest. I feel that it would only be tinkering with what is really becoming a fundamental problem for us all, though it is only beginning to push its ugly head above the surface of politics. The figures which we have been given make it clear that we are faced with a problem which, though at at present it may be only a cloud the size of a man’s hand, may easily come to fill the whole political horizon! Indeed, if something is not done to check it now, I should not be at all surprised if the problem became quite unmanageable in twenty or thirty years time. We might well be faced with very much the same type of appalling issue that is now causing such great difficulties for the United States. The main causes of this sudden inflow of blacks is of course the Welfare State. So long as the antiquated rule obtains that any British subject can come into this country without any limitation at all, these people will pour in to take advantage of our social services and other amenities and we shall have no protection at all.
Oliver Lyttletton (later Lord Chandos) wanted to introduce deposits of £500 to be put down by immigrants. In a letter to Viscount Swinton, dated 31st March 1954., he wrote:-
“… if there is to be means of controlling the increasing flow of coloured people who come here largely to enjoy the benefits of the Welfare State.”
He had a list of all restrictions imposed on Britons by other Commonwealth countries, who refused to accept:-
… persons who are likely to become a public charge, illiterates, those deemed undesirable, had unsuitable standards or habits of life”. Many had quota systems and even dictation tests. Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependents as he shall bring with him to the island.”
Thirty-nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission.
Only Britain allowed entry to everyone.
Conservative Sir Cyril Osborne (Louth) first tried in 1954 to introduce a bill to control immigration under the 10 minute rule. Before it got to Parliament the Commonwealth Affairs committee had 17 present when 14 spoke and only one supported the bill.
In May 1958, 3 months before the racial battles of
Notting Hill and 1922 Committee to consider the consequences of uncontrolled immigration, he broke down and wept. At the second reading of the Commonwealth Immigration bill (1961) he prophesied:
“The world’s poor would swarm to Britain’s welfare honey pot. We have neither the room nor the resources to take all who would like to come.”
Norman Pannell, Conservative member for Liverpool (Kirkdale), served in the Nigerian Legislature and lived in Africa for over 10 years. He proposed a motion at the 1958 Tory conference for reciprocal rights of entry with other Commonwealth countries, for the U.K. had an open door policy and let anyone in:-
“When I visited Nigeria two years ago as a member of Parliament without ultimate responsibility for the affairs of that country, I was given an entry permit valid for 14 days and renewable subject to good behaviour.”
He also addressed the 1961 conference on the perils of admitting criminals and the sick. The debate was stage-managed to stop Cyril Osborne speaking, who stood outside in the rain handing out off-prints of a letter of his from the morning’s Telegraph. Pannell stated that although Butler had disagreed with limiting numbers and had agreed with his suggestion of deporting immigrants who commit crimes, nothing had been done.
There is the importation of diseases which puts the population at risk. In a letter to the Times of 13th December 1960, Harold Gurden wrote:-
On the health question we find the middle ring of the city(Birmingham), where immigrants are mainly concentrated, heavily peppered with dots of tuberculosis incidence. It is the opinion of medical officers that at least some immigrants are suffering with this disease before entering the country ... We have a duty to our constituents.
In 2007 it has been revealed that we have a record number of cases of TB. This has been
imported by our authorities.
When we were homogenous we trusted one another and the police did not need to be armed. Now they regularly have to shoot people in the street. We are in a surveillance state, and have totalitarian race laws to oppress us. At a Society For Individual Freedom meeting at Birmingham Town Hall, on 18th April 1968, two days before Enoch’s famous Rivers of Blood speech, Sir Ronald Bell warned of the forthcoming Race Relations Act:-
“I am profoundly convinced that if this immediate threat is not sharply challenged and then fought with as great a persistence as has been shown over recent years by those who have worked for this engine of oppression, then many further uses of law and of the power of the state for shaping men’s minds will follow.”
To control thought, totalitarians redefine words and change the meaning of legal terms.
K. Harvey Proctor addressed the 1983 Conservative party conference, but no senior party member sat on the platform apart from a glum looking John Biffen who only clapped sparely. Mrs Thatcher was not present. In 1981 Proctor had announced a plan by the Monday club Immigration and Repatriation Committee to repatriate 50,000 immigrants a year. The forward to the document was by Sir Ronald Bell. At a Monday Club dinner in early 1984, guest of honour Enoch Powell revealed that the Conservative Party had threatened to not speak to Proctor for his belief in repatriation, which would have been the first time in their history they had sent one of their MP’s to Coventry!
In his outstanding book The Unarmed Invasion(1965) Lord Elton wrote:-
We seem to be re-enacting the story of the Roman Empire, which in its decadence imported subject races to do the menial tasks.
In his autobiography, the great Rock guitarist Eric Clapton tells of adverts he saw while touring Jamaica for immigrants to come here and how clear it was that they were being brought here as cheap labour.
A passage in Edward Gibbon’s masterpiece The Decline and Fall of Rome is prophetic. He pondered what would have befallen us had Muslims won the battle of Poitiers in France in 733. He saw that battle as a major turning point in European history:-
“… the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.”
They are there now because our rulers are on their side against us. The Saudi monarchy are building
The Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS), founded in 1985. Prince Charles is its honorary patron. It is the biggest Muslim educational centre in the United Kingdom and built as a traditional Oxford college around a central cloistered quadrangle.
The 10,230 sq m four-storey building will feature study and research facilities, a lecture theatre, a large library and an environmentally controlled archive for rare documents; a prayer hall with traditional dome and minaret tower. The centre includes a 108-foot-high minaret and a 75-foot-high dome. It is estimated at £65 million. We must remember that Oxford, the University of Treachery, is pushing us out in favour of overseas students.
Modern prophet: Enoch Powell, MBE
A TV poll marking 40 years since Enochs ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech found most people anticipate racial conflict over the years to come. It is only the unprecedented level of prosperity Europe has enjoyed over recent years that has prevented civil unrest. But we are now heading into recession. In an echo of Enoch’s warnings on racial civil war, The Sunday Times of June 11, 2006 reported that Rear Admiral Chris Parry, one of Britain’s most senior military strategists, warned that western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman empire. He said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while North African barbary pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years. Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries, a “reverse colonisation” as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the internet and cheap flight.
We never asked for, nor were we asked if we wanted, the new invasion, not by proud conquering warlords, but by cringing Third World masses who the elites showed favour over us and with whom we have nothing in common. The elites wanted cheap labour and their historic guilt expiated while they lived peacefully in fine areas.
The words of these heroes became reality on 7 July 2005 when 52 innocent people were murdered by Third World immigrants in London. Enoch had told the Southall Chamber of Commerce on 4th November 1971, “Yet it is more truly when he looks into the eyes of Asia that the Englishman comes face to face with those who will dispute with him possession of his native land.”
