1 INTRODUCTION

Many things in Britain have got much better since the end of the Second World War. Medical advances have improved lives immeasurably; technology has made communication and the dispensation of information much easier; capitalism has brought the wealth of the few to the many; our cities are much less polluted; mental illnesses have been recognised as such; smoking has been banned in enclosed public places; more people than ever go on to higher education; the voting age has been lowered from 21 to 18; women can now potentially lead more fulfilling lives and, well, we’re not being bombed by Nazi Germany.
But some things have got much worse. You could nearly boil it down to two words: social order; but it isn’t enough to say just that. You must make clear the root cause, and that root cause is, I believe, mass immigration. Because what mass immigration and the resultant, inevitable, multiculturalism and political correctness have done is the following: divided and transformed neighbourhoods; suffocated British culture; placed great strain on all public services; ‘politicalised’ people (more on this later); increased crime; lowered wages (particularly in the short term); made the future a much less hopeful place; led to the suppression of free speech. You have probably heard much of this before. Yet there are facets of the above that I’d like to go into in-depth in this blog, hopefully offering some original thinking.
But why write such a blog? Isn’t it a wicked thing to do? Well, a person who cares both about his everyday surroundings and the future for him and his descendants should feel no guilt about trying to do something. Perhaps it’s a pressure release, perhaps romanticism, perhaps idealism, perhaps an expression of atavistic feelings that form the core of our being. Some of us look around more, literally and metaphorically, than others do. Some of us are more prone to speak out – others feel the same but do not speak out. Some have other things to occupy their time – and good luck to them, but this is a world with room for many different kinds. Perhaps I am interested in quality of life, which could encompass anything from desiring repartee with a shopkeeper to wanting to visit a safe-feeling housing estate to being able to speak out freely on matters of national importance. The writing of this blog may be cathartic but it will also hopefully do some good out there, somehow, perhaps through a tiny ‘drip down’ effect. Because I believe we have a problem here. A massive problem. Immigration eventually affects all facets of our nation. No other political issues are as important as immigration because they all stem from immigration. Who you have inside your borders affects every single aspect of your everyday existence. The future can be changed but changes must be made now. Britain has made so many catastrophic mistakes since the end of the War that it’s difficult to know what to do. But something’s better than nothing.
The first thing I’d like to delve into is multiculturalism. It is a divisive force and has had a detrimental effect on free speech. It has also warped communication. Having worked in journalism for many years, I’ve had the opportunity to observe the deliverers of information first-hand. They are frightened rabbits scurrying over eggshells. It wasn’t just the question of ‘we can’t say such and such in the magazine’, it was also how the PC culture affected office banter. The ‘R word’ was ubiquitous, tediously so. (From henceforth, ‘racism’ – and that’s the only time you’ll see that word here – will be referred to as such, or written with a dash in. It gets quite enough exposure already and doesn’t need any more.)
Many people nowadays seek to use the R word as a jibe at others, sometimes semi-humorously, because it makes them feel virtuous. No one has moral superiority over you if you use the R word; if you call someone that, they’ve no come-back, there are no more arguments. So a discussion among journalists might go like this: we need an icon to illustrate a story we’re doing on football clubs. How about we represent each football club with a familiar but quirky local symbol? Sheffield United: a big steel fork - fine. Newcastle United: a stottie cake (or something more insulting concerning ‘thick’ Geordies) - fine. Bradford City: a popadum. Hold on! Not a chance! The R word flung forth! Yet all the above objects represent these places in the same sort of way. But one might be ‘racially offensive’ and we can’t have that.
Or take another scenario: a magazine that likes to use humorous picture captions, and possibly jibing ones at that, is using a photo of a white person. The caption might joke that he was a thief or unclean or stupid. But if a similar caption was mooted to be used on a photo of a black person then, yep, the R word would come out. I give these [true] examples to illustrate the ‘politicalisation’ of people and the potential for rancour it naturally creates. This can then be exploited, and in much more dangerous ways than arguments in an office of fools. More on this later.
Christopher Hitchens talks of religion ‘poisoning everything’. I think multiculturalism poisons everything too. Every part of society that gives in to an embracement of multiculturalism is automatically poisoned. Strong words perhaps, but over the remainder of this blog, I hope to set out a convincing case that this is true, followed by visions of the future and possible solutions to our difficulties.

2 THE EROSION OF FREE SPEECH

How many times have you heard someone say ‘You can’t say that any more’? Probably quite a few. It’s usually hissed in a demi-whisper, perhaps by a person with slight crack of a smile on their face. And when confronted with this phrase most people will take it on board. They may still say the thing they were wanting to say but they will be wary next time of saying something similar. This, of course, is the entire aim of those who claim they seek a harmonious multi-racial society. If certain words and thoughts are demonised then they are repressed and over time no longer used, leading to a happier land for everyone. That’s the idea anyway. But there is a danger in the ‘you can’t say that any more’ society. It is partly that it can be misused by those who only seek to fit in and like to feel they are doing good. They can unwittingly suppress speech and ideas that shouldn’t be suppressed. (Those of average intelligence are the most enthusiastic vessels of political correctness. Those of higher intelligence see the absurdities, those of lower intelligence just don’t care.) And it is partly because it leads to a general air of admonishment; that there is some higher force telling people what they can and cannot say, and how what they say sharply defines them. No one wants to feel like a rotter, so they deliberately avoid saying certain things. Thus grows a dangerous swelling that will at some point be in need of lancing.
There was much celebration when the Conservative party got its first black MP in 2005 (the media always like to call a half caste person ‘black’, when they could just as accurately be called, by that logic, ‘white’. Black roots are always deemed more desirable and sexy than white roots). In a way, the celebrations were justified: Britain’s second biggest political party was reflecting the make up of the country. But it was bad in another way: debate of racial issues in the Tory party would become a slightly harder proposition. If the black MP was in the room with you, you might not choose to make a comment on racial matters, even if it was in no way offensive. This is the same as in wider society – people are prevented from saying certain things because they feel one of their group of friends or colleagues might take affront. That person might not take affront, but few like to take the risk. They have seen in life and on their television screens what happens when they do. And so debate is stultified, with long-term repercussions. British people are particularly unlikely to want to offend – John Cleese used to sum it up well when he commented on the fact that we tend to apologise when asking for the salt at the dinner table.
An obvious ‘thing you can’t say any more’ would be ‘Those bloody wogs are taking all the jobs’. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing to stop people saying. But the comment ‘I feel there’s too much immigration into the UK’ could also come under the same banner. And it IS a bad thing if people don’t feel they can say that any more. Indeed, it is very bad, because it indirectly leads to more immigration (because of pusillanimous debate over the issue) and more problems down the line. Each problem that we have now with immigration-related matters will grow, including the limiting of free speech. So the immigration will continue, the problems will worsen, including, again, the erosion of free speech. And so on. A vicious circle. A problem with no obvious solution in sight. And when a white family moves out of an increasingly black area, they will say to all but a few the real reason why they are doing this. They might use a euphemism by saying they wish to move to a ‘nicer area’. When people aren’t talking to each other properly about why they’ve done something like this, you’re on a slippery slope. (I contrast all this with the Malaysian I met in his own country a few years back who baldly stated: ‘I don’t like Muslims.’ He had his reasons, his candour was admirable, almost a breath of fresh air after escaping from repressed Britain, and even though many would criticise him for it, he was only telling the truth about his feelings.)
But the race folk are never happy, and often you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. (I’m reminded of the BBC’s ‘ethnic’ station BBC 1Xtra, which was referred to in disparaging terms as ‘The station for the blacks’ by rapper Dizzee Rascal. The race game is a game you cannot win, so many don’t even bother to try.) The humourlessness of the race lobby goes directly against British people’s way of taking life with a good dollop of humour. In September 2007 Private Eye reported a splendid example of scampering, scared, well-meaning white people getting awfully twisted in knots over being nice to black people. For a survey, a south-east council had created icons of people holding up signs showing a tick or a cross so residents could vote on an issue. These icons naturally showed a mix of whites and blacks. But then it was realised that the black figure was holding up a cross rather than a tick, which could lead to negative associations with black people. So it was changed, with the black person icon ending up with a nice, happy tick. Examples of this sort are far too numerous to list. They all indicate how warped our thinking has become, how our natural behaviour is perverted and how this can lead to absurdities, and often far worse. Multiculturalism makes liars and criminals of us all. The Daily Telegraph’s Peter Simple used to be especially brilliant at satirising the horrors of our new order. They’ll soon come up with The Bumper Book Of Anti-Racism he’d say, only inches away from the truth. The ghastly Macpherson Report has been to blame for much of what we see now, a document so full of contradictions that on one page it recommends treating ‘minorities’ differently and on another page recommending treating them the same as everyone else.
The Left frequently use enormous amounts of energy to not see the bleeding obvious and attribute, say, the failings of black schoolchildren to the R word. There’s very little they don’t imprint with the R word. It’s easy to do. Why bother examining historical, scientific or social factors when you can slap a tag like ‘institutionalised r-sm’ on whatever it is you’re looking at. And the media are mostly dumb little sheep who will publish your findings, so that makes it even easier.

3 TRUTH IS THE FIRST CASUALTY OF MULTICULTURALISM

The scholars of the future will struggle to learn much about our times by studying our present-day media, including films, popular television programmes, magazines, newspapers and music. That is because so much of what is now in mainstream public view has been through the digestive system of the PC media treatment.
Advertising is a prime example. Take a look at the majority of adverts and you will be greeted by scenes of happy black and white people together in bars and on sofas and the like. These adverts overly represent the mixing of races. Just one example would be the way some breakfast cereal packets illustrate black and white children eating together in the morning. Now, you have to go to mangled lengths to explain how this could be so (they’re on a school trip together, their mother has married again, to a man of a different colour etc). You could also even say that whatever explanation you come to illustrates the break-up of the family.
People finding their own types better company is not something that is entertained. This is because advertisers are obsessed with not excluding anyone from their adverts who might possibly buy their products. It’s interesting that this representation is not repeated at times when it actually might be particularly appropriate. For instance, in the early ’90s the London Underground carried an (utterly useless, obviously) anti-mugging poster featuring a man behind bars; he was of course a white man. To be closer to the truth it should have featured a black man, as the vast majority of muggings in London are committed by young black men. This fact is far too hot to handle for the advertising and public information industry. And so truth becomes a casualty of multiculturalism.
Achievements in education by ‘minority’ pupils tend to be given extra attention in the media, whether it be a nine-year-old Asian taking A-levels or a sink comprehensive doing marginally better than expected. Almost without intent, the media exercises discrimination by highlighting such cases. In many cases the achievement portrayed would not be worthy of mention if it had involved white children. (Incidentally, it would make grimly fascinating viewing to look at yearly class photographs from 1948 to the present day of an average London comprehensive. The pupils would gradually go from 100 per cent white to around 10 per cent white. I used to live next to the school where Peter Sellers went – now it’s roughly 75 per cent black. Progress, eh?)
We are also served up a make believe ethnic past in which Britain has always been a ‘nation of immigrants’ and had a sizeable coloured population. The smallest item will grab the attention. I remember a couple of years back appeals being made to find the name of a black policeman shown in a photo from around 1907. The paper excitedly exclaimed that he was probably one of the first black policemen in Britain – the whole tone of the piece was one of excited celebration. The quality of the picture was poor – the policemen may not have even been black – and I’m not aware that the quiz was ever solved. (I’m also reminded of an ITV newscaster breathlessly exclaiming, ‘And there’s a black policeman there, helping keep the crowd back,’ a few years back – his colour was of no relevance.) An episode of Doctor Who - The Shakespeare Code - had the Doctor taking Martha back to the time of Shakespeare. He assured her that London was ‘pretty much the same’ as in her times, and to prove the point two black maids immediately strolled past. How easily the past is reinvented for the young!
The Left also seek to ridicule legitimate views by exaggerating them into stupid sounding jokes. For instance, a Leftie might satirise a taxi driver, and have him saying something like ‘Enoch was right about these darkies’. He will offer a colloquial, mocking interpretation of what are actually often truths. Enoch was actually right on the subject of immigration, just as he was on many others. Numbers wise he was right – though underestimated it a bit ­– and entirely correct on the discord immigration would cause. There are other phrases the mocker might use while imitating a reactionary: they smell funny, they all look the same, they breed like rabbits, they live 20 to a room. All of these are exaggerations or warped versions of what is effectively the truth. For each of the statements you could find a way back to a core truth. The Left seeks to de-legitimise truths by abuse. That is why political correctness has become such a desired weapon of choice for them – arguments no longer become necessary, when a culture of stigmatising certain forms of belief is created. Beliefs that they don’t share are made into beliefs they think nobody should have. So the truth is suppressed.
Economic truths are also sacrificed on the altar of our new mixed society, and it’s blackly comic (no pun intended) to see a Labour party bringing in thousands of foreigners to undercut domestic wages while the businessmen rub their hands at the endless supply of cheap labour, leading to big profits for themselves. We are told that without immigrant workers we would struggle to survive, partly because we’re ageing as a society. So immigrants don’t age then? They really are magic! What the politicians don’t tell us is all pretty obvious if you give it just a minute’s thought: more bodies brought into the country means more bodies to be serviced. These people, like the rest of us, need food, toilet facilities, transport, refuse collection, meat and veg, televisions. So they need people to provide them with these things. So if we choose to get these extra providers from abroad then we bring yet more bodies into the country. And so the cycle goes on, potentially infinitely. So what you end up with is a land that has money but no space, no quality of life, no cohesion, no peace.
Every government says they will limit immigration: each one makes it grow. This has been pretty much the case with every administration since 1951. If this isn’t a sign of a democratic deficit I don’t know what is, because people have often given their votes to political parties on the proviso that they would limit immigration. A clear majority of voters have always opposed further immigration. And yet immigration has continued and is now at record levels. So how on earth can this be squared with political parties representing the people? It represents the worst sort of deceit by our rulers, a salient sign that they don’t give a damn for those who elected them. No wonder people are so disenchanted with politics; no wonder so many of them choose to support ‘fringe’ parties.
In Britain, humour has always been a way for us to emolliate our day to day hardships. No matter how bad things get we always seem to make a joke out of it to get through. For instance, the comedian Bernard Manning provided a vital outlet for growing concerns and tensions about the transformation of Britain from the 1960s onwards. Now that he’s gone we don’t have that boil-lancer as there are few others in his mould. Comedians will no longer be in the front line in making our tragedy seem less so. We ourselves can laugh when hearing that blackboards have been banned because they are r-ist – until we learn that actually happened. There’s nothing at all funny about Islamic fundamentalists, although brilliant satirical comic Viz has often punctured the absurdness and pomposity of the likes of Bin Laden and Abu Hamza. One bittersweet example was when character Gilbert Ratchet thought about heading off to the local mosque for some chortles, then at the last moment changed his mind and headed to the local Church of England instead. In this one panel in one comic, the makers unerringly skewered the mess we find ourselves in – but can still laugh about. The friends of the likes of murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh would probably not manage a laugh.
As someone who works in magazines I see examples day after day of the whole truth not being fully reported. For example, one magazine I worked at had an interview with a TV star who mentioned that she had been mugged and robbed by some men - black men, she happened to say. Sure enough, an editor’s proof mark on the page was to delete the word ‘black’. I am not saying that it definitely should have stayed in, because it could have been argued that their colour was not needed to be mentioned, but I cite it as an example of what happens a lot now, and on a much larger scale. Another time a funny caption or anecdote was to include reference to a ‘Chinese man coming into pubs to sell pirate DVDs’. This too was changed to ‘dodgy bloke’ or some such neutral non-race reference. Now, I’ve been to a few pubs, and I’ve seen men selling pirate DVDs in them. And every single one of them has been Chinese! It was the same one for all I know. (A quick note: liberals – and those they have brainwashed – would fall off their chair in horror at the last sentence, but, as is often the case, such observations have their root in truth. Asian and black people look more similar to each other than Western people do to each other. This would be true even if it wasn’t for the fact that their hair is generally the same colour. Facially too, they are not as varied. Again, I’m not suggesting that ‘they all look the same’, as it could be stated colloquially and therefore ‘offensively’, but pointing out how the liberal intelligentsia has ensured that everything we state about a non-white is derogatory. Even to state a truism that Chinese people struggle with the letter ‘r’ would not be entertained.)
Imagine if films were made from right wing points of view and not left wing points of view. It’s almost unimaginable because we’re so used to it being the other way around. Indeed, it might seem positively odd if we had ‘right wing’ television in our house every night of the week. British people tend to have a natural leaning towards social progression and acceptance of the new even if they don’t realise it. This is entirely laudable. But the multicultural ‘push’ has been caught up in this tide of liberalism. Imagine if mass immigration had never happened. Social liberalism would still have carried on, the country would have gone on improving. (This point is never accepted by the Left, who like to thank mass immigration for helping make us a more civilised society. This simply does not stand up to analysis, whether you look at anything from the street crime epidemic caused by young blacks to the rigid, puritanical views of Muslims. The growth in liberalism throughout the 20th century can almost entirely be put down to the white upper/middle class either in the media or politics.) But back to television and film – more often than not the favourable side of what’s happened to Britain will be portrayed, not the dark side. So when the BBC makes a play about an immigrant coming to an English village he is a saint while the villagers are sinners. A soap opera will show the results of prejudice against a non-white person, they will probably not show the detrimental actions of a non-white person, or be afraid to do so (Coronation Street did this a few years back, and was brainlessly admonished by The Sun). It’s something to look for in TV output, and a particularly salient example of how truth is ill-represented by the mass media.
Finally, a note on how the London Bombings in 2005 caused subtle twisting of reality by that detestable socialist newt Kenneth Livingstone. In the aftermath, posters appeared around London saying that we as a city were all one, and highlighting the fact that we are a multiracial city. Yet mass immigration is what indirectly led to the London bombings! If millions of Muslims hadn’t been allowed to make their homes in Britain, it is unlikely that these terrible bombings would ever have taken place. The propaganda was a good example of how no matter what happens because of unfettered immigration, it can be turned upside down by the liberal Left. George Orwell predicted something similar many years ago.

4 A MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY IS NOT A FAIR SOCIETY

Imagine for one moment that the entire world was of one colour, one creed. People would stand a very good chance of being judged for themselves. No one would be able to claim that they were being done wrong against because of their colour or the way their eyes were slanted or the way their hair curled. Of course this is, in reality, impossible. The world is not like this so it is pointless to think of it so. But until around 50 years ago, most West European countries were like this. Britain, for example. Until 1948 we had a ‘trace’ amount of black people and Asians. Yes of course there were Jews and others whose ancestors may not have occupied these lands in 1066. But they were a small minority, largely accepted, largely happy to fade into the background and do their bit for their adopted land.
Thanks to the British Nationality Act of 1948 Britain changed forever. After a few short years the land had been changed so much that new laws were deemed necessary to ‘protect’ certain people. These laws were not necessary before mass immigration. Therefore mass immigration is a divisive force. We may never be able to think of the world as mono cultural (and nor would it be a desirable thing – a variety-packed world is what makes it such a fascinating place) but we could, before 1948, think of Britain as such a place. The immigrants arriving can not be blamed – most were just after a better life. The finger of blame must be pointed at the politicians who allowed them to arrive and create conditions that could in no way be said to be as harmonious and rancour-free as what preceded them.
And so from the 1950s onwards in Britain, people have not been merely people, they have become political objects. This is what the Left loves – a land of various types that allows them to carry out their favourite way of ruling: to introduce new laws to control. People aren’t people now, they’re black, or white, or Asian or ‘Other’ - take a look at any form your local council sends you. You are asked to identify your race by any number of organisations. And these statistics are collated, and they are used in such a way ‘to benefit all parts of the community’. Which means to boost the ‘representation’ or visible presence of ‘minorities’ (the word is almost becoming a joke and will soon become irrelevant). In other words, if you’re white British, you will not get favourable treatment.
One of the most ghastly aspects of our new order has been positive discrimination. This ensures that people who may be of lesser ability than others get favourable treatment because of the colour of their skin. It is the most blatant example yet of a multicultural nation not being fair. One day positive discrimination might disappear into the ether, an archaic relic of another age, but for the moment it’s very much around. Policemen, doctors, fire fighters, students – all are now likely to be chosen because of reasons that have little to do with their qualities as a person. It’s interesting that in certain industries - fast food service, security, retail work etc – it is anything but necessary to employ racial quotas. Any proper, evolved, democratic market economy should not require racial quotas of any kind – the market will ensure that fairness prevails. Socialists do not accept this, and hate the free market, which ties in nicely with their enthusiasm for quotas.
The trouble with quotas is that you don’t know for sure whether that person got where they are because they deserved to. They may have done. But they may not have done. If there is a seed of doubt then that person is in danger of not being fully respected. In some instances it is clear that a black person has achieved great things on their own, they have not had to rely on the machinations of politicians. Sportsmen and musicians are good examples (and these people in these high visibility industries actually give a false representation of the success and number of blacks in Britain). We know that the likes of Chris Eubank, Ian Wright and Frank Bruno became huge successes because of their particular talents. Would it be the same we could think of Lord Bill Morris, Lord John Taylor and Koffi Annan in the same way. They may fully deserve their positions. On the other hand... (Checking out Lord Taylor’s website, I notice he misspells the title of his favourite film, It’s A Wonderful Life, and cites Muhammed Ali as his ‘most favourite sportsman’. Curious indeed.)
If an office is full of white people, someone might say: ‘It’s a terrible thing there aren’t more black people here’. It’s not a terrible thing. It’s not a good thing. It just is. Once you start voicing fears about the ethnicity of an office you’re already some way down a slippery slope. But to do so shows how the Left have got their fangs so far into the minds of everyday people so that they begin thinking along these political lines. They no longer think along the lines of: the people who we get in this office must be the best people for that job. Even though they don’t realise it, they are being unfair to their fellow man.
One more way that a multicultural society is not a fair society is the way that decent people are punished for saying things which are harmless. They are admonished by the self-righteous who, keen to buy themselves an easy bit of virtue (see next chapter) speak harshly to them. This can lead to the innocent, sometimes elderly people being hurt when they hardly deserve it. (Keeping up with the latest ‘acceptable’ name for ethnics can be a major job in itself for some folk who have the temerity to live in the country or away from channels of fashionable media. It is not fair play to admonish an old person for saying ‘coloured’ rather than ‘black’, especially when they were trying hard to be non-offensive.) A perfectly respectable middle-aged woman found herself in trouble with the law and in the newspapers because she made some harmless, off the cuff remark linking an Indian woman with a popadum. This then leads in turn to further repression of free speech. We’re hardly a healthy, free, robust land when so much of what we do and say has to be censored, so much of it has to be deemed by the governing classes as ‘acceptable’. Fairness should be promoted in any decent society – what we have now in ours is a demotion of fairness, with political correctness put above it.

5 INSTANT VIRTUE!: THE EASY WAY TO FEELING GOOD

As touched on at the end of the last chapter, people nowadays have a very easy way to look good. Society has changed in such a way that they can now use the R word as a weapon, as a means to slay all around them. It is impervious. It is glittering. It is super strong. It cannot be defeated by anything (reason, argument, history, science) because it is all conquering. It is THE word. Roll up, roll up, you can read it anywhere. Flick open that freesheet on the Tube, it’ll be in there. Scan any edition of The Independent on any day and it’ll be there. And it is often used most by those who fancy getting one up on the next fellow.
Using it has replaced argument. Why bother to think up a coherent, logical argument when you have the R word at your disposal? Debate is reduced to the level of the playground (a somewhat disingenuous analogy, because children do at least possess an innate level of basic good sense and reasoning, until it’s brainwashed out of them). There’s little comeback when you’re branded an R word. Yet while this might in some ways seem harmless, it’s not; it’s very dangerous. Because when debate of what may be frivolous issues is stultified, so it goes that debate of serious issues is too. What kind of debate could the House of Commons have on immigration now? It struggled in the 1970s. The only time a reasoned debate on immigration could have been had on the subject is in the 1940s or early 1950s. The subject poisons itself because the more it grows the less it can be talked about. It’s like having a hole in your kitchen wall and the bigger it gets the less you can do about it. And so as time goes on it will be debated even less. The leap from someone calling someone else the R word because they, say, said that they didn’t like rap music, to the end of Britain as we know it isn’t as big a leap as you might think.
Once again the entertainment media is guilty of propagating the problems. Take the most revolting show on television, Big Brother. On the 2007 series a girl was thrown off for saying ‘nigger’ in a totally innocuous fashion. (Of course it was a sign of the times that the people on that show use the foulest of obscenities without any admonishment but blimey no, can’t say ‘the N word’. It’s reminiscent of Ron Atkinson being caught off mike talking about ‘f**king nigger’ Marcel Desailly. A Sun reader told the paper it wasn’t the swearing he minded, but the R word. I have a similar tale: a couple of years back, a leftie workmate said ‘And I was behind a f**king Muslim on the plane... No, I shouldn’t say “f**king”...’ – because it was casting aspersions on the fact that the man was Muslim, not that he was apologising for swearing! How strangely the world has moved, how inverse our society is compared to our grandparents’ time. Note that my ‘starring’ on words above would likely be transposed if they were in the pages of a left wing broadsheet.) The makers of Big Brother did it to feel good about themselves, to pat themselves on the back and say ‘Hey, we’re right on. We’re at the forefront of the anti-R movement, bless us all’.
Or take criticism of the character of Jar Jar Binks in the most recent Star Wars films. Did everyone who had a go at George Lucas for such an ‘offensive’ character really believe he was that offensive? What was offensive about him? He spoke with a sort of African American voice. So? Does that mean that every non-human character in a movie has to speak with a bland, ‘nothing’ accent? If the character spoke with a Swedish accent would that be offensive? People have been given the licence to get worked up over anything that might be considered ‘offensive’. Mostly it’s not the people themselves who are bothered, it’s their self-appointed guardians.
Steve Coogan, a man of great comic skill (once) and left-wing politics, is someone who likes to mock people who live perfectly normal lives. He can do it with impunity because he is rich and famous. His Alan Partridge character did a lot to puncture the behaviour of many an Englishman, leading to a mockery of actions that those outside the liberal media habitually perform without fear of reprimand. On one episode of I’m Alan Partridge, the character of an eccentric salesman says his area, Acton, has ‘too many blacks’. He is expelled from the social gathering by Partridge, and all around look shocked. The media mirroring life or leading it? We need not pontificate here. All we need to note is that free speech is being blocked. The scenario is not totally unlikely, but why need it exist? To make a point about the R word. It doesn’t matter to Coogan whether Acton does have too many blacks, and whether that is a bad thing; all he’s interested in is demonising such viewpoints, and the white businessman with it. How much more valuable would it have been (not in this show of course) to examine the views of thousands of Londoners who felt that their areas had ‘too many blacks’, why that was a bad thing and what could be done about it. Of course, this wouldn’t even be entertained, because as far as the media goes, it’s either something they don’t touch or they only look at from a singular point of view.
There is a sequence of events that is becoming a regular thing nowadays: a public figure makes a remark, is loudly reprimanded for it by certain bodies, then either retracts or denies it and goes quiet on the subject forevermore. Something similar happened in the mid-1970s when Margaret Thatcher talked about people feeling ‘swamped’ by immigrants. She was attacked and had to backtrack. (During her subsequent Premiership, which was generally a triumph, perhaps she didn’t address the issue as much as she could have done. Immigration controls were made more stringent but in the 11 years she was in power the ghettos grew and the whites flew, so she cannot be judged a success in curtailing the immigration problem (and it is a problem, no one denies that).) Poor John Motson even suffered the wrath of the fascist Left when he had the temerity to confuse one black player with another. There of course would not have been a problem if he’d confused a white player with another white player. One more example of the politicalisation of individuals.
While the R word remains one that is habitually used we are heading for more trouble. They say every time someone says they don’t believe in fairies, a fairy dies. Perhaps when one person says the R word, a little bit of Britain dies too.
Here are a few questions you could ask liberal friends when they howl in indignation at your perceived r-ism: Firstly, do you think Britain would be a worse place than now if it was 99 per cent black? They will witter on about hypothesis. But if they have a shred of honesty or sense they will say, yes, it would be worse. So then go down in percentages, 90, 80 , 70 etc, until you reach a level they are happy with. Then hit them with: well, that makes you a r-ist too (all about numbers, see?). They will protest. But it’s rather like the old joke when the man barters with the woman over the sum of money she will accept to sleep with him: she scornfully rejects £1 and £10 but accepts a million. The man then goes down to £15 again. She asks what kind of a girl he thinks she is. He replies, Madam, we have already deduced what sort of woman you are, we are now trying to agree on a price. So with your liberal friend possibly a little deflated, hit him with questions like: would the Lake District be as nice a holiday destination if it had the same racial make up as Brixton? Would the Cotswolds or Cornwall? Is it good that the local school is now 90 per cent black? If he says it is good, ask why? And be serious: just why is it a good thing, is he saying that white people are bad eggs and, hey, isn’t that r-ist. Ask why this country would not be like Pakistan if it was full of Pakistanis. (This is a key point because the people of your land define your land, they are your land. Different people types will behave as they are prone to, it barely matters what rules and regulations you have to make up.) There are many ways to tie a liberal in knots; those are a few.

6 THE WEARY INEVITABILITY OF HOW BRITAIN WILL BE REPORTED IN THE FUTURE

The newspaper headlines of tomorrow will be much like today’s, only more so. We can confidently predict stories of the following nature: Black mothers weeping and wailing as they bemoan a dead son, probably killed by a bullet or knife in some inner-city area; Islamic terrorist attacks on innocent citizens – and how the perpetrators sprung from British mosques (BNP leader Nick Griffin made roughly this sort of prediction, got hauled up in court over it, then saw it happen); The already discussed ‘Famous person admonished for comment, makes grovelling apology’ story; Inter-racial violence; An ethnic celebrity will bemoan the lack of other ethnics in his or her particular industry, which will get a fair amount of media coverage and make white people feel mildly guilty, although they won’t be able to say exactly why; The determination of a certain institution to clamp down on r-cism: Fluff story about the success of a particular ethnic businessman or celebrity; How a council is ‘banning’ Christmas (which will be followed up by people, including ethnics, saying ‘this is crazy!’ It won’t matter though, because in the long run, Christmas will slowly fade, as Muslims become ever more populous); A government-sponsored public body finding that – wow! – immigration is actually a really fantastic idea and citing statistics to illustrate that fact; ‘Honour’ killings; Children brought before the law because of r-ist name-calling; Population predictions showing how Britain will be minority white by a certain date. This last one will be wearily received with a shrug of the shoulders by a British public who are tired, who can’t fight any more, not that they did much anyway. Like death, it’s a sad inevitability. (A quick point: notice how murders of blacks are treated in a completely different way by the media than murders of whites, assuming that both were killed by the ‘opposite’ colour. All the guilt, all the agonising, all the self-flagellation is wrung out when these things happen. And in British law nowadays murders which may otherwise be ‘equal’ aren’t any more, because of the invention of the warped ‘hate crime’.)
With the trend being towards bland free newspapers rather than editorial-led paid-fors, we are likely to see less scrutinising of British politics than previously, certainly in the mass market. Thanks to the internet, people will increasingly be able to educate themselves and read what the mass media won’t let them see. While this is in some ways a good thing, it means that people are more likely to pick up viewpoints from extreme ends of the spectrum. Who’s to say these views are incorrect? But governments must be prepared for a splintering of political thought. We are already seeing that in the loss of support for the major parties, particularly at non-general elections. And of course, thanks to the huge influx of Asians into Britain, we will see their own parties grow in strength and number. As the Asians of the West Midlands become divorced from the nation they reside in, they will increasingly choose to use their own banks, their own shops, their own political entities. This is all fairly normal behaviour.
What the press has struggled with is the ‘new’ sort of crimes and misdemeanours that have been imported into the country. Honour killings, ‘drive-bys’, serial fatherhood, drug-dependent neighbourhoods, mugging epidemics, ‘hate’ crimes and so on fall into this category. But the media also treats the slightly less serious stories in an odd fashion. We’ve seen a few reports of a ‘drug-dealing grandmother’ in the last few years. A drug-dealing grandmother! Well, I never! Up and down the land people think of a white-haired old lady sat in a rocking chair with her knitting needles. But hang on - that’s the old version of a grandmother, the traditional, British version of one. Nowadays you might have a Jamaican immigrant as a grandmother, and it’s her that you have to stick in your mind’s eye. People can’t do that yet, because the media persist in propagating the ‘old’ stereotype. (Interesting how stereotypes can work in different ways. And however they work, there is always some truth in them, otherwise they would not have evolved.)
The media always love their ‘father of four’ statistic, as if that were to conjure up some loving daddy surrounded by his little ’uns at the fireside who was terribly unlucky to be gunned down in the latest turf war between ethnic gangs. The media persist in this false picture for various reasons: firstly, some journalists don’t know any better, they are as naive as they come; secondly, it keeps the people feeling not too unsafe. Because nobody would buy a newspaper if they reported nothing but gloom and horror; thirdly, it is hoped that all people are the same, are of equal sensibilities and will react in the same way.
This will gradually change. It has to. Because when Britain is half non-white, behaviour will be very different from what it is today. It is difficult to predict how people will then behave. But we can safely predict that general existence will not be calm and collected.

7 WHY MASS IMMIGRATION HAS BEEN A DISASTER

Immigration is a pretty good thing. If a country had zero immigration for 1,000 years it may well become a staid, inward-looking nation that failed to care for those genuinely in need (ie refugees). However, mass immigration is a very bad thing indeed. Its effects can be undemocratic, troublesome, divisive and unsettling. As I have written previously, you probably know many of these arguments. In this chapter I’d like to reiterate a few and suggest others that may not immediately seem so obvious.
Firstly, religion. It’s back. And it’s even worse than before. You can thank millions of Muslim immigrants for that. In the history of Great Britain religion has played an integral part. Some of it has been good, much of it has been bad (we’ll set aside for a moment the extreme unlikelihood of the scriptures being based on anything that could have actually happened and religion’s clash with modern-day science). But by the middle of the 20th century it had been tamed in the West. No longer could puritans burn witches, or priests terrify the ignorant with tales of brimstone and damnation, or teachers tell their class that the earth was just a few thousand years old. Progress had been made, science was taking over, religion was beginning to die a deserved death. Reason and rationality had replaced archaic beliefs that were intransigent and did much more harm than good. Around the same time as technology was making lives easier and better, and global trade spreading the wealth of nations, Britain was throwing off the shackles of a creed that had over the centuries hindered scientific progress and rational thought. There was much to rejoice about. And then along came mass immigration.
So now, a large percentage of the people who live in Great Britain are back to square one; they’re where we were several hundred years ago. And so we now have fasts in the name of religion, cruel animal slaughter in the name of religion, social policies in the name of religion, diets in the name of religion, and killings in the name of religion. In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins lambasts religion yet doesn’t especially single out ‘British’ Muslims. That’s for someone else to do. How difficult can it be for an educated person to put two simple facts together and form an opinion: religion has always caused problems; mass immigration has caused many problems – put the two together and you have BIG problems. A government run by the rules of 12th century theocracy is no democratic government at all. There could not be a bigger clash of civilisations than that which we are now experiencing in our land. We could not have invited in a more unruly immigrant than the Muslim – take anything from our love of dogs (they hate them) or our smiling approval of nudity (they forbid it) to the actual running of a country by (roughly) democratic ways. You may well know a Leftie who is overjoyed that abortion is available, that homosexuals can do as they wish, that there is no capital punishment, that women are emancipated. How he squares that with his support for mass immigration and multiculturalism is anybody’s guess. Similarly the feminists who fought for their sex and now see on our streets Muslim women, covered head to foot, lurking some way behind their husbands. Emily Pankhurst, the land of your birth is going backwards.
Population predictions come and go with less fanfare than before, but they always show the population moving in one direction: up. Again, it’s so simple: we are heading towards overpopulation. White British mothers have 1.74 children, Pakistani mothers have 4.7 children; black mothers also produce more babies than white mothers. It’s a ghastly thought that this already squeezed-in nation might accommodate 20 million more in the next 40 years. What kind of quality of life will it be when you won’t be able to walk 20 yards without bumping into someone?
Ghettos are the new slums. Again, just as Britain was finally getting rid of the awful slums of the cities, something just as horrible replaced them. Generally featuring mainly ethnic populations, ghettos suffer drug problems, violence, illegitimacy and antisocial behaviour. But the politicians who make the laws don’t live in them, so they’re all right Jack.
As I say, drugs are a problem in inner-city areas. But they’re a problem in many more areas than that. The flourishing drug trade has touched every part of Britain. Many people will do drugs if they’re there. If they weren’t there they might not. So when the availability, through networks stretching back to Jamaica and other drug-exporting foreign countries, is not a problem, then there are more drugs around to take, at lower prices.
Enoch Powell said that a large immigrant population was food and drink to those who hate their country. The otherwise unemployable folk who have been sitting on Race Relations boards for the last 40 years have certainly been given meal tickets by their lucrative day jobs. Many may have good intentions, but they’re essentially getting paid for stirring up trouble. Their job is division, to look after only certain sectors of the population. Their operations are similar to black newspapers like New Nation and The Voice, who do more for racial segregation than any white South African politician ever did. It seems silly to state it, but if there were no immigrants here there would be no need for the race relations industry, and that could only be a good thing. There are immigrants here, but we would still be better off without the race relations industry, so people could stand on their own two feet and not be treated either as ‘special’ or inferior. Sadly that isn’t likely to happen for some time.
Finally, if there’s a global effect to mention about the mass migration from Third World to First, it’s that the world has become a darned sight more lopsided. Imagine for one moment not a single body had moved to the rich West from the poor countries. How much wealthier would those nations be, how their entrepreneurs would have kick-started their economies, created jobs, created hope. Yet these countries have been robbed of much of their finest talent. And so the rich nations have got richer and the poor nations have got poorer – the world is more divided, the gap between incomes and cultures more vast. The next time you are asked upon to contribute to Third World charities remember that the plight of such countries has been made worse by negligible immigration controls in your country. Also bear in mind that those who most keenly support Third World charities are likely to most likely oppose tough immigration controls.

8 WHY IMMIGRATION HAS BEEN BAD FOR THE IMMIGRANTS

It’s not only the indigenous population that the foreign invasion has been bad for – the immigrants themselves, and their descendants , have suffered, and will continue to suffer, in a multitude of ways. Of course, on balance, they are in many obvious ways better off than they were in their original countries. This is particularly true of the more successful among them, who can lift themselves up to a far better way of life. But look at those on the low rungs of the ladder: the elderly Asian housewife, living on a dirty, hopeless, crime-ridden estate surrounded by some of her race and others not – how much better off is she? The young black kid threatened by gang violence and antisocial behaviour, trapped in a concrete hell – is he really much better off than he would be in his homeland?
This is something that is rarely commented upon. It is blithely assumed by many that of course they’re better off here – the Left don’t even give a thought to the fact that life might not actually be that wonderful for them in this green and unpleasant land. What of the discrimination many must face? Because discrimination is a natural human reaction and although we are a nation that tends to successfully cover our innate feelings with layers of civilised behaviour, there will always be a form of unconscious discrimination against those who are not like us. It could be that somebody is dressed differently, that the person is of a different sex, a different age, a different class. The Left were right in the ’80s when they said ‘all whites are r-cist’, though they might have also added ‘all blacks are too, and all yellows’. So it is this immigrants have to contend with. If a black person does not get offered a job for no good reason he may well holler about it and feel hard done by. He may be right – he may well have been overlooked because of his colour. He may not have been. That’s the fizzing dynamite culture of the multicultural land. Potentially you lose because of the way you are, not necessarily what you do.
It has also been pointed out that ‘minorities’ are more likely to suffer violence against them. This is true, although it is largely from people their own colour. (Statistically, a white person is about 20 times more likely to be killed by a black person than a black person by a white person.) One reason is races tend to crowd together and mix only when necessary, so an estate could soon become a hotbed of black gang violence and pull in even those not directly connected with it.
One of the tragedies of what has happened is that perfectly lovely, hard-working, well behaved immigrants suffer from the backlash against unfettered immigration. The sense of frustration felt by the average British person about the events of the last 60 years cannot be exaggerated. And people do sometimes take their frustrations out on others. (This is the sort of thing that is unsayable in Labour’s Britain but again, it is a simple fact of human existence.) How tragic that they might take it out on the wrong people, say on the local Asian shopkeeper who has provided the neighbourhood with solid service over the years. A thick white thug struggles to identify the new arrivals from the old ones, the assets from the parasites. To state again, it is all about the numbers. The more the immigrant population, the greater the difficulties. For everyone - including the new citizens.

9 WHY GOVERNMENTS LET IT HAPPEN

If the results of mass immigration are bad as people like me say they are, then why on earth have they been allowed to happen? Why do so many people appear to be in favour of it? Surely it should have been stopped years ago? Well, there are reasons for everything. Firstly, a rough history of Britain’s tragedy would go something like this: end of the Empire; post-colonial guilt; British Nationality Act passed without any idea as to what the consequences might be; jobs up for grabs in booming ’50s Britain; race relations legislation passed because so many immigrants were now here; increasing politicalisation of an already touchy issue; inadequate controls introduced; pleas by Ugandan Asians persecuted by Idi Amin to come here; staggering birth rates amongst immigrants; increased ghettoisation of British cities; the rise of ‘the enemy within’, the vocal black Left; Blair’s decision in 1997 to abandon immigration controls once again; membership of the EU and the freeing of Eastern European citizens leading to another huge wave; Britain’s international legal position, which makes it illegal to send many immigrants home, comes to fruition; population predictions in 2007 of Britain being only 70 per cent white by the year 2030.
All along the line there have been different reasons given for why mass immigration is a good thing. We’ve almost gone full circle now – the latest fantasy the government peddle is that there are jobs to be filled and economic growth to be sustained, as in the ’50s. It is also routinely claimed that multiculturalism leads to a ‘vibrant’ and ‘colourful’ land, a happy melting pot. The reality hardly matches these claims. It is a vision seen by those high up in newspaper offices, in their ivory towers, looking down at the city that they don’t properly live in. Money alleviates you from the worst bits of multi racial cities: if you have a car, you can avoid public transport. If you have money you can send your child to a private school. If you have money you can avoid the NHS. If you have money you can live in a nice area. So those that dictate the conditions we live in – the journalists, the politicians, the bureaucrats – often do not have to put up with them themselves.
Big business also likes immigration, because it gives them an endless supply of cheap labour. Why employ British Bill for £10 an hour when you can get Asian Ali for £7 an hour? And so the population becomes more divided, between the super rich and the rest. (Anita Roddick said as much in her last interview.) Studies have shown that the only ones benefitting in monetary terms from immigration are the immigrants themselves. GDP as divided between the number of heads under our country’s roof stays roughly the same.
The Labour party have been especially keen on mass immigration for many years because it gives them more voters. Many immigrants don’t vote, but those that do overwhelmingly support Labour, always have done. Labour will never admit this but boy do they know it. And so is exposed the ultimate act of disgraceful political deviance: sacrificing your country for keeping your political party in power. You wonder whether these people will repent on their deathbeds when they have seen what they have done. As the immigrant population grows they become more influential. Policies are tailored to them. The country fragments more. We are close to reaching the point where those with shallow feelings towards this nation will become instrumental in its future; some might say we are already there. It is a very important moment, because it signifies that Britain is no longer being shaped by its indigenous population.
Lastly, there is a more simple answer why all this has happened. People are sheep. People let themselves be pushed around, be bullied by politicians. This would be okay if the politicians were wise, honourable characters who ensured that their constituents’ beliefs were fully heard in Parliament, but that seems rarely to be the case. Our political system, in which MPs have to take the party whip or suffer the consequences ensures that they generally vote with their party. Old and wise ones with no career to worry about may no longer do this quite so much. We have no proportional representation, we have three main parties who are under media spotlight and who must appeal to the masses. Churchill said: ‘Democracy is the worst form of rule, apart from all the others that have been tried.’ He was right, but there sure isn’t pure democracy, here or anywhere else.

10 THINGS THEY DON’T WANT ANYONE TO KNOW

The Left would rather you didn’t hear a lot of things that until very recently were well known. They also don’t want you to know that there are truths that are inconvenient. They don’t want you to know many things because it would interfere with their building of the new Britain, the sunshine state of the future where racial prejudice is dead and we all live together in peace and harmony. The information you can’t get any more is wide and varied. Here are a few choice nuggets you won’t see cropping up in The Independent, on T4 or in a school textbook:
R—ists can be nice people too. Yep, it’s true. They can be the nicest people in the whole world. A million old ladies could testify to it for starters. Of course you have to accurately define a r-ist first so the shock of this statement doesn’t seem too much. If you define one as a hate-filled, evil, irrational, possibly violent, deeply ignorant person, then it is an oxymoronic statement. But if you define one as, well, a natural state to be, then it isn’t too bad. By natural state, I mean a human being who prefers the company of those like him; who likes to see justice and fairness in all walks of life (eg those who use the NHS have paid for it, as opposed to those who haven’t contributed a penny). Nowadays the assumption is if you say a single word that is r-ist you are Satan’s spawn. This is not the case. All sorts of other things come into play when assessing a person’s character. True, a r-ist may be a nasty person, but then probably would have been a nasty person anyway. And it’s action not speech that, particularly in this instance, is the most important factor. A perfectly civil person can have views that favour immigration controls, or not wish to sit on a train and be the only white person there. This is perfectly natural. The Left seek to suppress and deny natural feelings. That person could even have several black friends. How many thirtysomething London liberals tussle with themselves over this! ‘I can't say or even think anything against immigration’ they whisper to themselves. They curtail their own thought processes; they stultify their own intellect and curiosity. This is the result of the growth of the PC thought police.
Of the many people who have at one time enrolled in the BNP or the NF only a very small percentage are of the type of person that the media likes to portray. They are not necessarily skinheads or thugs. Many are perfectly normal, perhaps frustrated, perhaps romantic people who feel let down by the big political parties – Keith Joseph said as much in the ’70s. To demonise them displays a very narrow minded view of human nature.
Most races do not get on particularly well with each other. By listening to the liberal media you’d get the view that all other races except the British (actually, the English) are paragons of virtue and fairness, with not an ounce of prejudice. In anything, the reverse is more likely to be true. London’s melting pot is not a happy one. It’s a generalisation, but the Africans don’t like the Afro-Caribbeans, they also don’t like the Muslims, the Muslims don’t like the blacks either, and they don’t like the Sikhs or Hindus. The Turks don’t like the Greeks. The East Europeans don’t like the blacks, the blacks aren’t too keen back (even Tony Benn mentions this in his latest Diaries). And so on. London is a long way from that portrayed in the 1948 film London Belongs To Me or 1949’s Passport To Pimlico.
Next myth to be exploded: we have evolved socially in spite of rather than because of immigration. I touched on this before, but it’s worth repeating. In the last 50 years attitudes in Britain have changed to many things: class, abortion, homosexuality, women, the church. Generally speaking they have become more enlightened and are to be welcomed. If not one immigrant had entered our country in that time, it would have been exactly the same. Ah, but what about race, you might cry – surely we wouldn’t be as ‘progressive’ in our thoughts about that? Perhaps not. Perhaps we would have moved at a slightly slower pace in realising that not all other races were totally uncivilised. But even if we hadn’t - what harm would it have done? Because there’d be no foreigners here to be offended! The Independent wouldn’t be able to ram it down our throats every day how beastly we are to foreigners – because no one would care. We’re getting hypothetical – they are here, but if r-ism has been dampened, then it has in many cases been replaced by a more pernicious form of existence.
One of the benefits of immigration is said to be the wealth and variety of cuisine we now enjoy. And it is true, this is one of the major plus points of the inflow – we eat better now than we did. But much of this would have happened anyway. When Marks & Spencer’s food section was growing like wildfire in the ’80s, blessed by Mrs Thatcher, it was demand led. People were richer and becoming more adventurous. And so foodstuffs we had never tried before were imported for our delectation. Mass immigration has given us a little more, but it is the market that gave us most, and if not one immigrant had come here, our palates would still have expanded as much as our wallets have.
It is necessary for the Left to denigrate those who do not see things their way, particularly if they are extremely intelligent, and particularly if they are dead. So no wonder Enoch Powell gets a hard time from them. Read Simon Heffer’s biography of him, Like The Roman, to get a true idea of the man who was a professor of Greek at 21, went from being a private to a brigadier, could speak several languages fluently including Urdu, was a poet, biblical scholar, economist, cabinet minister and prophet. He spoke his mind with bravery and alacrity. He was simply one of the cleverest men ever born in Britain. Most of what he predicted has come true, not just on immigration. In economics and on the issue of Europe he was years ahead of anyone else. The Left love to portray him as a swivel-eyed fascist, but that cannot be squared with his voting in favour of the legalisation of homosexuality, his opposition to nuclear arms, his speaking out against the ill treatment of blacks in war-time or his assistance in helping a Pakistani family stay in Britain. (‘Hypocrite!’ you may cry, but as Enoch said, it’s all about the numbers.) He is not to blame for the demonization of immigration as a subject because of his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech. In the years leading up to it he delivered many very similar speeches. The ‘notorious’, much-quoted passage was originally delivered in Latin, not English. It was only in the copy for the press that it was translated into English; this was the only thing Powell regretted about the speech. Powell was one of the most splendid politicians we have ever produced, with a brain the size of a planet. When the Left next rubbish him, learn about him, learn how much he knew, and wonder whether anything this erudite man uttered could not have truth in it.
Black people are not white people in different skin. Some years ago this statement would have been ridiculously obvious. You would have been laughed out of England for saying the opposite. Yet the media would have you believe this. Again, I’m not making claims for any sort of superiority, just that races and people are different. A few years back, Comrade Livingstone was behind an ad campaign that had white people computer-generated to have black skin and features, and vice versa. To anyone with a spark of individual thinking it was insulting to the intelligence. Sadly, individual thinking is not ubiquitous. If what the Left claimed was true then why would countries develop at different rates? Why does Britain have many thousand times greater GDP than African countries? Why do black people excel at certain sports? Why are there so many black footballers? And so few black chess players? Why were Shakespeare, Freud, Einstein, Brunel, Wilde, Darwin, Bernard Shaw, Orwell all white? This area of discussion is not one to go into now. But when anyone attempts to shed light on it, like Professor James Watson did, they are shot down by those who protesteth too much. All we need note now is that the world is full of varied and fascinating folk.
If you say you dislike a certain black person you may well be branded the R word. Yet you may very much like another black person. But don’t think that’ll be enough to get you out of jail. On the whole though, you may find certain characteristics of some ethnics not to your liking. Perhaps you may be an Englishman brought up on the virtues of being humble, being reserved, keeping to the law, being self-effacing. And you may look around and see that, for instance, black rappers tend to be anything other than these things. It’s a tricky one, it’s a fine line – do you dislike a person because of their characteristics, or just dislike them? At what point do the characteristics define the man? Philosophers may have to continue to argue this sort of thing out (Am I me? Or is my brain me?) and again, we just have to note that there are people we don’t care for because of their behaviour. They could be black, white or sky-blue pink. But a race difference is the biggest natural difference we have between humans, even more so than sex or age.
There are little things the Left don’t want you to know either. Like how many policemen it takes to keep the peace (or not) at the Notting Hill Carnival every year. They’d certainly prefer you not to know the cost of these policemen at the annual keep-the-pan-lid-on-the -boiling-water celebration. Then there are bigger things like: Britain was a nicer place without racial division, ghettos, kids with guns, drug-dealing, drive-by shootings, knifings, Islamic terrorism and honour killings. A bald statement, and of course some of these things went on before 1948, but there can be little dispute that the situation on the streets is more restless and uneasy than it was in the years before mass immigration took hold. Watch films from the ’40s and ’50s and ’60s, talk to older people (older people have not been as strangled by the speech clampdown as the rest of us, and although their views are generally demonised by the media – on certain subjects – they can give invaluable insights into bygone days), read reminiscences of, say, the East End by honest authors, trawl the internet for pertinent information. Good luck.

11 THINGS TO DO TO TRY TO SAVE BRITAIN

There is always a temptation to think it is too late to do anything, that we’ve run out of time. But that would only collude with absurd thinking that does not realise how long the road in front of us is. (‘End of history? Start of nonsense!’ Margaret Thatcher once snapped.) There are things that can be done to alleviate some of the nightmares that future generations will endure. Here are a few straightforward ideas:
Disband the race relations board, or whatever sobriquet it chooses to go under nowadays. Let people stand up for themselves without small-minded bureaucrats chipping in. It would be a tribute to the immigrants, it would create a level playing field. If the industry suits their natural talents, ‘minorities’ have done well. Millionaire Asian businessmen had little use of the race relations people. Nor did super-successful sportsmen or musicians.
Asking for ethnic data should be banned. It is divisive, it seeks to feed deadly quotas. It’s also nosy.
End translations into foreign languages on government and local government literature. English is a wonderful language (read Bill Bryson’s Mother Tongue) and should be spoken by as many people as possible. Making it mandatory would have the desirable twin effects of making social communication and integration easier, and dissuading those from coming here who have little interest in or ability to, integrate.
Pakistanis who are allowed to bring wives in for arranged marriages should be forbidden from doing so. It swells the population unnecessarily, creates pockets of purely foreign people and is hardly consistent with the aspirations of a modern, mobile democratic land.
Border police should patrol areas of susceptibility. The very fact that they would be there would dissuade would-be ‘invaders’. At the same time limit immigration to an absolute minimum in any way possible, even if it means pulling out of certain international agreements. The fabric of our nation is at stake here.
Allow the police to do their jobs properly. Stop the absurd practice of having them fill in forms detailing ethnic data about who they stop and search. Allow them to hunt suspects whoever they might be. If young Asian males are the ones who are more likely statistically to commit suicide bombings, then pay particular attention to them. If you knew the murderer in the village was a tall bald man you’d focus your investigation on tall bald men.

12 CONCLUSION

Britain is a battered country. For 60 years it has been the subject of a never-before-tried-on-this-scale social experiment. Change has been forced upon a nation that never asked for it. Who can blame the British for being r-cist, if that’s what we are? We’ve been asked to swallow a big, bitter pill. Other nations would have descended into civil war or revolution over what’s happened here.
Too much of anything isn’t good. And too much of a bad thing can be brutally destructive. When it comes to the composition of a population, especially when you’re talking about the population of a vastly successful country that has been established for a thousand years, a large foreign element is a challenge. Challenges are part of life and have to be met, but there are problems that can become insurmountable. As stated many times before, the immigration problem is a numbers game. Minimise the numbers, minimise the issue, minimise the problem. Otherwise all we have to do is look abroad to places like Pakistan, Zimbabwe or South Africa to see what life will be like in this sceptered isle in years to come if numbers are not curtailed. Tragically we’re going in the opposite direction. There is little light at the end of the tunnel. Or is there? To conclude, here’s a look at two scenarios of Britain’s future. (I take little comfort from the fact that it’s not just us, it’s several countries in western Europe, like France, Denmark and Holland, that are faced with similar problems to us.) First, the nightmare scenario, then the dream scenario. The years I have inputted are rough estimations of when events might occur.
So, the nightmare scenario: in 2009 the Labour government is re-elected. They spend the next five years doing much the same as they have since 1997, ie not policing the borders, encouraging minority discord, lying to the public about the extent of the problem. In the 2010s it is announced that the following cities are officially minority white: Bradford, Leicester, Birmingham and London. White flight continues to speed up out of these cities, along with cities like Bristol, Manchester, Leeds and Nottingham. During this time yet more race legislation is introduced. Islam overtakes Christianity as the main religion of Britain. By 2017 the EU’s legal stronghold is complete: we couldn’t change our immigration laws even if we wanted to (Christopher Booker says that is already the case).
By 2030 Bollywood films take up several screens at local Odeons. Blacks and Asians hold many more positions of power than they do now; there are more and more hints of corruption and prejudice in Britain’s workplaces. Race riots become regular occurrences, between all sorts of different races. White people continue to leave Britain at record levels. Another Conservative government – ever – seems unlikely. Politics has changed, issues have changed, immigration is not really an issue which is discussed any more. It’s all open borders now. To even voice the words ‘immigrant’ or ‘foreigner’ is considered r-ist. The R word is commended for being the most printed and said word in the English language, taking over from f-k.
By 2050 Britain is officially minority white. A group of militant black politicians say they pray for the day when there are no whites left on this soil. A white terrorist organisation, WFB (Whites For Britain) springs up and commits several atrocities. They are caught and executed but many more will fill their places. The country gets its first Asian prime minister.
By 2100 white cemeteries have been desecrated, history books rewritten, science replaced by ancient religious beliefs. Violent crime is everywhere. Most communities that can afford it are gated. Politics, the police force and the educational establishment are riddled by corruption and incompetence. There’s little hope left: folk who know of times like VE Day and the Swinging ’60s cannot believe what has happened to the land. How could their ancestors have done this to them?
That’s the gloomy side of the future. But let’s be optimistic for a minute, and consider the following as a dream scenario: in 2009 a Conservative government is elected. They set up decent immigration controls and introduce a series of sensible measures that reject multiculturalism and will limit future numbers. Over the next 20years, India, China and even parts of Africa enjoy economic growth, encouraging their inhabitants to stay in their native land. Many who are here actually go back to their homelands. Those that stay begin to integrate more – they have to because there are no translated documents any more, no race relations boards, no sops to the discredited creed of multiculturalism.
By 2050 the percentage of ethnics in the population is little more than it is now. Cities have not been totally overrun. There are still problems but people generally get along well, the media has grown up in its treatment of racial issues, there is little need for ‘extremist’ political parties because the main parties have adapted policies which are in tune with the electorate. An educated population knows what is best for it and vote accordingly. And they all lived happily ever after...
So those are two visions of Britain’s future. The latter version requires more will, more foresight, more courage (and a damn sight more optimism). Anyone who’s thinking of having children can only pray that there are enough people, particularly those at the ‘top’, who make wise decisions. If not, we’re doomed, and that ‘we’ may as well apply to the world, not just Great Britain.