Wednesday, 23 December 2009

In Defence of the Natural Society

We are encouraged to pretend that people coming here from countries we have invaded are bringing benefits and bear us no ill will. Can you imagine what people would have said if we had been allowing 700 Germans to enter the country each month when we were at war with the Nazis? Well, 700 a month are entering from Afghanistan but contemporary elites have lost touch with reality and are trying to compel us to do the same.

The whole notion of building a multiracial society is so unrealistic and artificial that it causes perverse behaviour. The media have to constantly lie to us to make it appear that it is working, but this attempt to create an artificial society is leading to racial tension and mutual racial hatreds. The elites blame us when things go wrong but they themselves have caused it.

During the war, the Duke of Marlborough wrote to his cousin, Winston Churchill, asking him to keep Black GIs away from white women.

Three-times British Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, on 24 May 1929, said: “…that each one of us, so far as in him lies, will strive to keep these islands a fit nursery for our race.”

The natural society is organic and evolves naturally among people who belong together. The living honour the dead by passing on what they have inherited to their children, but now we are perversely having our inheritance dissipated by the elites and shared with outsiders they bring as cheap labour.

Edmund Burke defined a nation which involves a shared identity, history and ancestry, and continuity: “… it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living and those who are dead, but between those who are living and those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

One deceitful trick is to label patriots as Nazis, Fascists or uneducated. A racial world view is a traditional world view and goes back to our Anglo-Saxon tribal days.

We have a tradition of conserving our homogeneity and had better and more pleasant lives for being homogenous.

Queen Elizabeth I sent an “open letter” to the Lord Mayor of London, in 1596, stating “there are of late divers blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are allready here to manie”. A week later, she repeated: “good pleasure to have those kinde of people sent out of the lande” and commissioned the merchant Casper van Senden to “take up” certain “blackamoores here in this realme and to transport them into Spaine and Portugall.”

In 1601, she again complained about the “great numbers of Negars and Blackamoors which [as she is informed] are crept into this realm … infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel,” and had them repatriated.

There is concern that the immigrants will come to dominate us. We read repeated reports that we are becoming a minority in our own towns and cities.

Part of the fantasy is to pretend immigrants are like empty bottles waiting to be made like us but they are fully-formed people with the same basic human nature as us and as likely to have grudges against us for the past or to want to take advantage of us for themselves and their kin as we were during the Empire.

Another pretence is that of equality. Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli wrote in Chapter 24 of Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography (1852), “The particular equality of a particular race is a matter of municipal arrangement, and depends entirely on political considerations and circumstances; but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequences on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors.”

The fifth Marquess of Salisbury, grandson of the great Conservative Prime Minister and descendant of Lord Burleigh, adviser to Queen Elizabeth, wrote to Viscount Swinton in 1954, in a letter preserved at the National Archive: “… though it is only beginning to push its ugly head above the surface of politics. The figures which we have been given make it clear that we are faced with a problem which, though at present it may be only a cloud the size of a man’s hand, may easily come to fill the whole political horizon …The main causes of this sudden inflow of blacks is of course the Welfare State.”

Colonial Secretary Oliver Lyttletton (later Lord Chandos) wanted to introduce deposits of £500 to be put down by immigrants: “If there is to be means of controlling the increasing flow of coloured people who come here largely to enjoy the benefits of the Welfare State.”

He checked on restrictions imposed on our people by Commonwealth countries. Some refused to accept “persons who are likely to become a public charge”, “illiterates”, those deemed “undesirable” and had “unsuitable standards or habits of life”. Many had quota systems and even dictation tests.

Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependents as he shall bring with him to the island. Thirty–nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission” (Letter to Viscount Swinton 31/3/1954). Only Britain allowed anyone in.

Cyril Osborne MP (Louth) first tried in 1954 to introduce a bill to control immigration. In May 1958, three months before the racial battles of Notting Hill and Nottingham, Osborne had written to Labour leader Hugh Gaitskill who handed it to his secretary to reply, “The Labour Party is opposed to restriction of immigration as every Commonwealth citizen has the right as a British subject to enter this country.”

Then three months after he instigated a Commons debate on the 5th of December 1958 when Labour spokesman Arthur Bottomley stated, “We are categorically against it (restrictions).”

Labour’s Frank Tomney remarked on elected representatives ignoring their constituents. “We have been sent here by the electorate to give expression to issues which concern them.”

At the second reading of the Commonwealth Immigration bill (1961) Osborne stated, “The world’s poor would swarm to Britain’s welfare honey pot. We have neither the room nor the resources to take all who would like to come.” The one who should have a statue on the forth plinth in Trafalgar Square is the great Cyril Osborne!

Norman Pannell Liverpool (Kirkdale) served in the Nigerian Legislature and lived in Africa for over 10 years. He proposed a motion at the 1958 Tory conference for reciprocal rights of entry with other Commonwealth countries, for the UK had an open door policy and let anyone in.

“When I visited Nigeria two years ago as a member of Parliament without ultimate responsibility for the affairs of that country, I was given an entry permit valid for 14 days and renewable subject to good behaviour.”

He also addressed the 1961 conference on the perils of admitting criminals and the sick. Pannell stated that though Butler had disagreed with limiting numbers, he had agreed with his suggestion of deporting immigrants who commit crimes but nothing had been done.

There is the importation of diseases which puts the population at risk. In a letter to The Times of 13th December 1960, Harold Gurden MP wrote, “On the health question we find the middle ring of the city (Birmingham), where immigrants are mainly concentrated, heavily peppered with dots of tuberculosis incidence. It is the opinion of medical officers that at least some immigrants are suffering with this disease before entering the country… We have a duty to our constituents.”

In 2007 it was revealed that we have a record number of cases of TB. This has been imported by the authorities.

When we were homogeneous we trusted one another and the police did not need to be armed but to build an artificial society the elites need a surveillance state and totalitarian race laws to oppress us.

At a Society for Individual Freedom meeting at Birmingham Town Hall, on 18/4/1968, two days before Enoch’s famous Rivers of Blood speech, Sir Ronald Bell QCMP warned of the Race Relations Act: “I am profoundly convinced that if this immediate threat is not sharply challenged and then fought with as great a persistence as has been shown over recent years by those who have worked for this engine of oppression, then many further uses of law and of the power of the state for shaping men’s minds will follow.”

To control thought, totalitarians redefine words and change the meaning of legal terms.

In 1981 K. Harvey Proctor published the Monday Club’s official policy to repatriate 50,000 immigrants a year. The forward to the document was by Sir Ronald Bell.

In The Unarmed Invasion (1965) Lord Elton wrote, “We seem to be re-enacting the story of the Roman Empire, which in its decadence imported subject races to do the menial tasks.” In his autobiography, rock guitarist Eric Clapton tells of adverts that he saw in Jamaica for immigrants to come here and it was clear that they were being brought here as cheap labour.

A TV poll marking 40 years since Enoch’s “Rivers of Blood” speech found most people anticipate racial conflict over the years to come. The unprecedented level of prosperity Europe has enjoyed for years had prevented the civil unrest but we are now heading into recession.

In an echo of Enoch’s warnings on “racial civil war,” The Sunday Times of 11 June 2006 reported that Rear Admiral Chris Parry, one of Britain’s most senior military strategists, warned that Western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman Empire. He said future migrations would be comparable to the Goths and Vandals while North African “Barbary” pirates could be attacking yachts and beaches in the Mediterranean within 10 years. Somali pirates are already at work.

Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries — a “reverse colonisation” as Parry described it. These groups would stay connected to their homelands by the Internet and cheap flight.

Thirty four years before 7 July 2005, Enoch told the Southall Chamber of Commerce on 4th November 1971, “Yet it is more truly when he looks into the eyes of Asia that the Englishman comes face to face with those who will dispute with him possession of his native land.”
Between 1596 and 1601, Queen Elizabeth I ordered the expulsion of all non-indigenous people, whom she called “blackamoores” from Britain.

In 1596 Queen Elizabeth I wrote to the lord mayors of major cities that there were “of late divers blackmoores brought into this realm, of which kind of people there are already here to manie. Those kinde of people should be sente forth of the land.”

In 1601, Elizabeth issued a further proclamation expressing her “discontentment by the numbers of blackamoores which are crept into this realm. . . . they are fostered and relieved here to the great annoyance of [the queen's] own liege people, that want the relief, which those people consume.”

An economy is not a country it operates within one and an economic system should strengthen the bonds of national union, but the nation is of a higher order than the construct of any economist. A nation is organic; lives and grows and can be destroyed.
A constitution does not create a nation it gives it order but that is after it lives in the hearts and minds of its people..

This belief that"that people of any culture or continent can be assimilated grows from John Locke’s funny idea that humans are Tabla Rasa - blank slates for experience to scribble on
and make them what they are. It’s nurture versus nature. This is why the believers or what Peter Brimelow termed “Immigration Enthusiasts” see no harm in immigration. (3)
Nation, is from a Latin root nascere, to be born, which intrinsically suggests a blood link, and a common community - an extended family. An “Ethnocultural community is”, wrote Peter Brimelow, “an interlacing of ethnicity and culture, that speaks one language”. It is handed down to the current generation by their ancestors and they have a duty to preserve it and pass it down to their children ad infinitum.

The immigrants are human like us and have attachments to their own tribe, race, nation, culture, community whence they came. Any man or woman, of any color or creed, can be a good person and law abiding citizen but will their grand children merge? The Muslims fighting us on our streets are from the smiley, servile immigrants of the fifties. They are now showing their teeth.
French counter revolutionary Joseph de Maistre wrote: "During my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians... but I must say, as for man, I have never come across him anywhere; if he exists, he is completely unknown to me." It is what is left out of the abstraction "tribal behavior" is what makes us human. Take it away you do not get "pure man" or "liberated man" but dehumanised man.

To traditional conservatives, this "abstract nation" is an intellectual construct, which inspires love nor loyalty. They have the superficial idea that people speaking in local accents are as British as us! But what are they speaking about?
Every true nation is the creation of a unique people. Indeed, an ideological nation based on abstract ideas only appeals to the reason not the heart and it is emotion that unites people not high minded attitudes and citizenship classes. We no longer speak the same language nor do we share the same faith. We are splitting into warring factions.

We have been trained to despise our heroes yet immigrant communities are encouraged to identify with theirs. But our glorious past is treated as shameful history.

Around ten years ago President Bill Clinton proudly told some Arab leaders that he was looking forward to whites becoming a minority in the states! Our children are having their future taken away.

I hear that Sacha Baron Cohen is pushing the boundaries back. Well that sounds such fun that I thought I would push some back: We are not going to be wiped out and we are going to give our children a future and we do it by re-asserting our being as what American Conservative Patrick J. Buchanan’s described as a “Blood and Soil people.

No comments: