Tuesday, 2 June 2009

Facing Reality and Making Tough Decisions

The British ruling class changed after the Second World War, becoming obsessed with an ideology of sensitivity towards the Third World and their posture of white man on top was discarded. The humiliation over Suez put the lid on it as the debacle showed us as weak and no longer a top nation. We need to understand how our foolish “Caste” think and to ask ourselves if we are betraying young people.

The events that led to the tragedy facing us now were dictated by - weakness, sentimentality and surrender which were presented as moral superiority, dressed up in high-mindedness. The tougher ones used it as a screen for the exploitation of cheap imported labour to make profits by keeping costs down. At the same time they think that when immigrants take over our culture will continue!

The old British ruling class had introduced minorities into several countries for commercial reasons and if contemporary elites had anything about them thy would see from history that immigration leads to racial war. They introduced Tamils into Ceylon (Sri Lanka) for rubber and saddled the Singalese with a race war. They spoke a different language and had a different religion from the natives. It was similar in Malaya were the ruling class introduced Chinese, then Tamils, while in Guyana they introduced Indians. It happened too in Fiji when the ruling class imported Indians to cut sugar cane.

Around 50 years ago little more than half of the population was Malay and the racial differences showed themselves in the Malays being pushed out as the Chinese were more successful at commerce and gravitated to the cities while the Malays lived in the country. There had to be laws introduced to protect the Malays.
Henry “Chips” Channon, wrote in his diary for 12th May 1948 “... I fear that England is on the decline, and that we shall dwindle for a generation or so. We are a tired race and our genius seems dead.” There was appeasement of the Nazis in the 30s and appeasement of immigrants since the 50s.

The elites became frightened of the world and needed to join larger bodies for protection The League of Nations was seen as a vehicle for morality rather than power and the national -interest. They renounced the Balance of Power for the moral superiority of the League. The began disarming while there was a potential threat from Nazi Germany and we were the most powerful nation. Since the second War its been the Commonwealth, the EU and ultimately World Government and for Socialists, even the Soviet Union.

There was racial conflict from the beginning of mass immigration and the rulers avoided facing it by making scapegoats of the British people. This blaming their own people is part of the multi-racialist outlook and endures still.

In 1948 between 31 July and 2 August in Liverpool, in Deptford on the 18th July; and Birmingham between the 6th and 8th of August 1949 but the idealists ignored them as they had in 1919 when after the racial battles in Liverpool and Cardiff Lord Milner wrote in a Memorandum of June 23rd, On the Repatriation of Coloured Men: ”I have every reason to fear, that when we get these men back to their own colonies they might be tempted to revenge themselves on the white minorities there…” (1) Milner’s high-minded comment on Britain ruling Egypt is telling:” It is a force making for the triumph of the simplest ideas of honesty, humanity, and justice...If Egyptian prosperity is a British interest so is Egyptian independence...”

They failed to keep power by being the centre of the Commonwealth and adopted a fawning attitude to them. It is thought that immigration was caused by the 1948 British Nationality Act. In fact there had never been restrictions because Commonwealth citizens were legally British subjects. However, it was one-sided as we could not just immigrate into their countries.

Oliver Lyttleton (later Lord Chandos), Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1951-53, made a list of the restrictions Commonwealth countries imposed on Britons. They refused “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 dictation tests. Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependants as he shall bring with him to the island”. Thirty–nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission.

In Eminent Churchillians Andrew Roberts reports that Commonwealth Secretary Lord Home (later PM), worried that they should not give the impression that Commonwealth citizens from India, Pakistan and Ceylon would be less favourably treated than those from the Dominions otherwise there could be retaliation. Robert’s interviews show the decadence of the rulers in the 1950s: “A Minister closely involved in the decision-making process, ‘ In fact…we were just stalling and hoping for the best’… One of Mr. Churchill’s private secretaries, ‘at that time it seemed a very good idea to get bus conductors and stuff’ … a junior minister, ‘it was becoming hard to find somebody to carry your bags at the station’

In 1955 Conservative MP Cyril Osborne tried to introduce a Bill to control immigration but was not successful. The Spectator of 4th February commented: “This will save the Government the duty of facing the facts.”
The government gave no practical support, leaving it to local councils and voluntary organizations. There were many representations from local councils to the Government; slum clearance was held back; immigration was under constant and secret discussion at Cabinet level but apart from Churchill’s attempt in 1955 to have a Bill for controls drawn up but having to retire because of his health, no other could take decisive action.

In August 1958 senior police officers dismissed the Notting Hill race battle as “...ruffians, both coloured and white, out for hooliganism.” However, the files show that there were mobs of 300-400 shouting “Keep Britain White” who fought large mobs of “youths of colour.” Coincidentally, “Keep England White” is the slogan Churchill wanted the Conservative party to use for the 1955 general election.

People are realising that the main parties, the media, academics and corporations are enemies promoting policies that are destroying them; that, far from representing us, they are against us. They and those who still follow them effect moral superiority, while we are lectured on our wickedness because we object to our communities being destroyed by being used as dumping ground for immigrants when the Ideological Caste themselves have 2 homes in posh areas or beautiful village and the recent revelations of their expenses scams has disgusted the whole nation.

The young are given no sense of cultural legacy, but taught what races we wronged and who to apologise to. As long as the state controls education and the parents abdicate their responsibilities the decline will continue. We have to face up to the fact that we are letting them do this to us. Would asylum seekers take the risks to get here if they were not so privileged?

Rulers are paralysed by fear of immigrants but tell themselves it is virtue - tolerance, absence of prejudice, we are all coming together in the brotherhood of man! They pretend the immigrants are assimilating. Its as if they boarded an airplane and left their ways behind like shedding a skin and arrived here waiting to be moulded into Brits!

Those who express, or are suspected of holding, unauthorized opinions never get a job in an Establishment position because they are "racists" or "haters." The result is an “Ideological caste” purged of independent thought and consisting solely of drones, and followers. They talk like mindless robots - sexism, homophobia, racism, hate speech. The education system filters dissidents, preventing them getting qualified. Malcolm Bradbury made it clear in “The History Man” that those labelled “right-wing” are marked down.

Everyone with a public profile is a hundred percent on message because of the "aspirational" adoption of elite orthodoxy by the middle class. "To be a progressive is to be elite". This is why it is an “Ideological Caste” - you can only belong if you submit, and you have no career if you think for yourself.

Nature abhors a vacuum and others take control: In August 2008 David Cameron had private talks with Murdoch as did Blair before becoming PM. I recall Mathew Paris stating on TV that Murdoch closed the Today newspaper to change The Sun from promoting the Tories to promoting Blair's Labour.

In one of his Talk Sport programmes, historian David Starkey criticised journalists and asked why none had the guts to tell us what Blair and Murdoch discussed at their private meeting. Murdoch should never have been allowed to take over The Times because of the Monopolies Commission but it was got through Parliament by Tory John Biffen. I assume at that time Murdoch supported the Tories!

If ever you wonder why Lord Archer was grassed up years after the event, remember his novel based on the lives of Murdoch and Maxwell. Maxwell was not exposed by intrepid journalists until he had died and stories of corruption were coming out. Journalists know about these things but keep them quiet until they need to control or destroy someone. They will have known about the expenses for ages but are bringing it out now for reasons that are not yet clear,possibly to present Cameron as a moral force to clean up.

The elites are afraid to listen to other opinions and face the harsh reality and this is leading to anti-Semitism as they grovel for oil and finance for Western banking.

Sin is no longer wrong behaviour but wrong thinking - those who err are persecuted and subject to public humiliation. Churchill was pushed into “the wilderness” by the establishment during a national crisis and Enoch was sacked from the Shadow Cabinet. For writing that “Enoch was right” prospective Halesowen Conservative candidate Nigel Hastilow had to stand down and local councillor Ken Turner claimed he was rejected because he is not Black!

Frank Ellis, was persecuted by the University of Leeds, for calling for “Humane repatriation of immigrants”, Talk Sport presenter Ian Collins shouted at him, “Your’e mad!” A couple of years earlier Collins screamed abuse at an elderly lady on his programme but Ofcom would not investigate. Adverts for his programme were later broadcast joking about him insulting elderly ladies! It's now alright to scream abuse at our elderly, but if you say anything about immigrants you must be mad!

Comedians have been dropped to stop them influencing the public - Hughie Greene, Jim Davidson and the massively popular Benny Hill. had his TV series cancelled. While the right sort of people like Ben Elton and Lenny Henry are promoted.

When it comes to different ethnic groups otherwise rational people become sentimental and weak. Its like a woman on seeing a baby or a child talking to its pet. When immigrants are presented they go to pieces in a girly sentimentality that has caused us to pretend invaders are coming to improve our culture and look after the sick and elderly!

It is like a family writ large. Sometimes one is despised and does not get the care that makes one feel worthy. I knew of an elder girl who was not favoured but the young one and son were. Her mother criticised her appearance which made her depressive. With fostering there is a danger that the parents will pay them attention leaving their own out and making them feel less worthy. This is what is causing immoral behaviour and a giving up amongst our working classes who are neglected for immigrants.

I listened to the debate at the Radio Academy of Nick Griffin and Abu Hamza. One particularly pompous journo asked Griffin:”Don’t you think people should be treated equally?". They don’t treat us equally! The positions of the “caste” are assumptions - they never justify their views while we are effectively put on media trial. I suppose they convince themselves they are righting wrongs, and redressing the balance, by showing us in a bad light and the ethnics as always competent and worthy. They habitually describe them as intelligent. We don’t talk about white people like this: “Charles Murray the intelligent social scientist,” but they do of ethnics and people start to wonder why it has to be emphasised.

Meanwhile television is telling us to feel sympathy for immigrants and how ill-used they have been. They boost others up but put us down. The neglect is psychological and subliminal. We are left out of adverts as the typical unit is portrayed as a black with a white woman.

Things come out in bits and we have to put them together as bits are usually in a little report tucked away in a newspaper.

The rulers have thrown in the towel and accepted that they can not stop immigrants taking over our homeland apart from keep us oppressed. It was stated by a former television employee in the Birmingham Post that we must be prepared for when immigrants become a majority.

Former Swedish PM Jens Orback stated Swedes must be nice to Muslims so they will be nice to us when they take over! To see where fawning on immigrants gets, the Muslim terrorists are the grandchildren of people our elites praised. If they slipped up in their restaurants like serving Kit E Kat in the curry it was assumed that they didn’t know any better but we would bring them up and they would become like us but instead they are making constant threats of violence and domination against us. Like a conquered people we are broken down by the elites so that immigrants can take over.

But why assume dominant immigrants would treat our children well? They are human like us and likely to treat us badly as they were treated under the Empire. In fact many quotations from preachers in mosques make it clear what they intend to do to our children. For elites to leave our children to be bullied and persecuted by new Muslim rulers shows what evil people they are.

Paradoxically, the elites think our culture is so powerful that the newcomers will imitate us. The unrecognised implication is that they are inferior. When they apply to open a Mosque the authorities think it is something harmless, like a local church. They hide in the comforting illusion that Islam is “a religion of peace.” But underneath the rulers are capitulating, betraying us to an enemy who will visit vengeance on our next generations for wrongs committed by these same rulers who invaded their homelands in Iraq and Afghanistan in an unjustified invasion and bombed their women and children! They see to imagine that they can make these countries Western and bring everyone here!

There is a pretence that the British Muslims against us are a tiny minority but its not a half-a-dozen chaps who happen to bump into each other fortuitously and think “Oh, lets plant some bombs!” They all share the goal of Muslim domination if not the methods.

The authorities can not face it when they plant a bomb so ask their neighbours leading questions then pretend how much they had integrated and how he loved fish and chips. They gather endless statistics on the widespread support for terrorism but can’t face them.

When the “Ideological Caste” discuss the multi-racial society they never give examples of the results but name someone they know or sports personalities; when we cite examples like Luton, (3) they do not prove us wrong with debate but slander us because they are afraid of facing things and our exposing reality frightens them. There is no attempt to be honest - they have closed minds.

We are given semi-psychiatric labels for our recalcitrance – prejudice, paranoia, living in the past, irrational. We have been labelled and do not need explaining. We are having a false identities imposed on us and internalising the negativity. For example, what is “racist” about wanting our own communities? What is racist about keeping jobs and homes for our own children?

The orthodoxy is dissolving and we face chaos or totalitarian holding measures, in this time of great change. We must ask ourselves some important questions. What future are we leaving for our next generations? In twenty years what will our children and grandchildren have?

We have a duty to our children and their children as they in turn will have to theirs and we owe a debt to our ancestors who bequeath our nation and culture to us and must honour that. The honouring is in maintaining what they left to us and the duty is in passing it on to our descendents. In the wise words of general George S.Patton:” "All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood.”

The elites have caused a human tragedy. We have terrible choices and must make tough decisions. Most people have friends, colleagues and relations from other ethnic groups but now have to ask ourselves: “can we allow our future generations to whom we owe a duty to be pushed out of jobs, homes, and college places in their own country?” Look at statistics from ONS which don’t take into account the births to mothers born here and then look at your children and ask” am I betraying them? Where will they live and work?” We have tough decisions to make. (4)

(1) For the weakening of the old ruling class see Correlli Barnett's "Collapse of British Power". I can't recommend it enough.
On behind the scenes machinations see Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, who was praised by Bill Clinton in his inaugural speech.


(2)Panikos Paranyi (ed) “Racial Violence in Britain in the Nineteenth Century.” (Leicester University.1996).

(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJDs0F1Cn8A




Mark Steyn on demographic domination - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlkEYoKC-kA


No comments: