Biology Beneath: Exposing the True Costs of Mass Immigration

November 21, 2013/3 Comments/in Costs of Multiculturalism, Featured Articles /by Tobias Langdon


In the West, we talk about the “tip of the iceberg.” In Africa, they talk about the “ears of the hippopotamus.” It’s the same idea: that there’s something big in the water, but you see only a small part of it. Mass immigration is like that. Its harmful consequences are reported every day even in the liberal media. But the full extent of the harm is concealed. Here’s an example from the BBC:

Christina Edkins killing: Phillip Simelane detained

A man who killed 16-year-old Christina Edkins on a rush-hour bus in Birmingham has been detained indefinitely under the Mental Health Act. Phillip Simelane, from Walsall, stabbed the teenager in a random attack as she made her way to school in March [2013]. He had been released from prison, unsupervised, three months before the attack – despite warning signs over the state of his mental health. … Mrs Justice Thirlwell, sentencing Simelane, said it was “likely to be a life-long order”. The judge added: “It is made for the nature of the offence and necessary to protect the public from serious harm.” She also expressed concern that Simelane had not been receiving treatment at the time of the killing.

Christina Edkins: A victim of mass immigration

Christina had been travelling to LeasowesHigh School in Halesowen on the number 9 bus, two weeks after her 16th birthday, when she was attacked. Simelane, who was sitting behind her on the upper deck, stabbed her in the chest as he walked past to get off. He was arrested a few hours after the attack following an extensive manhunt. … A memorial garden dedicated to Christina is due to be opened at her former school on Thursday. Speaking on behalf of the family, the great uncle said Christina was a “bright, beautiful girl” who was looking forward to her school prom and loved sports. He added: “Her headmaster said, ‘if a school could choose its pupils it would be full of Christinas’. Now the family asks the question –  when this man was discharged from prison on 13 December 2012, why was the recommendation, made a few weeks earlier by mental health experts, that he be supervised after release whilst adjusting to life back in the community, not followed up?” (Christina Edkins killing: Phillip Simelane detained, BBC News, 2nd October 2013)

According to the BBC, Phillip Simelane is “from Walsall.” In fact, he’s from Swaziland via Walsall:

Phillip Simelane in his pre-schizophrenic days

The 24-year-old was born in Swaziland, southern Africa, and arrived in the UK at the age of nine. He lived in Walsall with his siblings and mother, who had separated from his father. (See here)

Why was he here? Immigration from Africa imposes huge costs on the UK and has never had a democratic mandate. If Christina Edkins’ great uncle had pointed this out, he would have been in serious trouble. Instead, he was the model White victim, complaining only about the lack of services for the perpetrator: “Speaking [after the sentence], Christina’s great uncle Chris Melia said: “We have no sense of vengeance or revenge. We just want him out of the way and [to] remember Christina. The authorities didn’t help him, [they] just let him out of the prison door and let him go, just abandoned him. If there had been some help and authority he wouldn’t have been on the bus.”
The BBC also says that Simelane carried out a “random attack.” It’s always “random” when a non-White murders or assaults a White without an obvious motive. We’re forbidden to suggest another possibility: that many non-Whites hate Whites and enjoy harming them. If the great uncle had suggested that, he would also have been in serious trouble.
However, he’s right that the murderer would not have been on the bus if the authorities had provided expensive help funded by White tax-payers. The problem is that another Black schizophrenic might have been there instead. The murder of Christina Edkins is the tip of the iceberg: beneath it lies a stark biological reality. Blacks are not only much more violent than Whites, they are also much more prone to schizophrenia (see here). Over the decades, the White nation of Britain has spent billions of pounds treating and providing hospital places for mentally ill Blacks. Many billions more have been spent on imprisoning criminal Blacks and on trying vainly to raise Blacks from low achievement.
In other words, Britain has spent huge sums trying to do the impossible: alter the biology of Blacks. Without mass immigration, there would have been none of this useless expense and Christina Edkins would still be alive.
So would many other White victims of Black murderers. Britain’s crime statistics would look much healthier in other ways, because Blacks commit rape, assault and robbery at much higher rates than Whites. So do Pakistanis and other non-Whites (see here, here and here).
All this has been obvious for many years. Non-Whites in Britain cost huge sums of money and commit huge amounts of crime. The same thing is happening in Norway, which has watched Britain from across the North Sea — and decided it wanted some vibrancy,of its own. This means that Norway also had a brutal bus-murder this year. In fact, it’s had three of them:

Failed asylum seeker kills three on bus

The man accused of stabbing to death a woman and two men on an express bus in western Norway was an asylum seeker from South Sudan who was due to be deported from Norway on Tuesday … The 31-year-old, who was living at an asylum reception centre in Årdal,  was due to be deported to Spain on Tuesday, after having his application rejected in June.
“This person had applied for asylum, and come to Norway in April,” a spokesman for Norway’s immigration directorate said. “He was rejected in June, and was supposed to be returned to Spain under the so-called Dublin Regulation.”

Margaret Sanden: Another victim of mass immigration

The man is accused of killing the bus driver, Arve Haug Bagn (55) and Margaret Molland Sanden, a 19-year-old biotechnology student at the Oslo and Akerhus University College of Applied Sciences. The third victim,  a Swedish man in his 50s, has not been named. Police believe that the three victims were the only people on the bus when the man attacked.
… The attack marks the second time the Valdres Express has been hijacked. In 2003, it was hijacked by a mentally disturbed 26-year-old Ethiopian man who stabbed the driver to death. (Failed asylum seeker kills three on bus, The Local (Norway), 4^th November 2013)

The Norwegian authorities haven’t released the name or picture of this murderer, but he seems to be claiming mental illness too (see here), which may mean that he will be allowed to stay in Norway.
Either way, the similarity between the murders of Christina Edkins and Margaret Sanden makes me wonder if there was something sexual at work. Blacks don’t react well to rejection by attractive White women. But that’s crime-think, of course. For liberals, it’s far better to pretend that these very similar crimes were random tragedies. They weren’t: they were direct and predictable consequences of mass immigration. Non-Whites are violent in their homelands and violent in the West. If you import Third-World people, you will get Third-World pathology. This is not hard to understand, so liberals have no excuse for opening the borders.
Now let’s turn to a third story about vibrant enrichment. This one might seem more like farce than tragedy:

Taxpayers foot £350k legal bill for Muslim pubic hair battle

A top judge has criticised the “astonishing” £350,000 cost of a legal battle over a couple’s right to shave their disabled daughter’s pubic hair. The mother and father of the young woman, who cannot be named and is referred to as ED in court documents, said their daughter’s pubic hair should be removed in line with Islamic tradition. But their local council, which has cared for their daughter since 2008, questioned whether the disabled woman had the mental capacity to consent to her hair being removed. In 2011 the couple applied to the family court for their daughter, now in her thirties, to be returned home and raised the “stark” issue of her pubic hair being removed – leading to a long-running, £350,000 taxpayer-funded legal battle. But the couple have now dropped the case at the last minute, leaving a judge at London’s High Court “utterly baffled”.
Mr Justice Roderic Wood said: “I thus remain utterly baffled by the course this litigation has taken, and perplexed by this lack of clarity in their case. Obtaining a 10-day slot of a High Court Judge’s time is not easy, for there are many competing cases of equal if not greater urgency than this one.” … (Taxpayers foot £350k legal bill for Muslim pubic hair battle, The Daily Telegraph, 29^th October 2013)

If £350,000 is an “astonishing” cost, think how much the local council is spending on care for the disabled woman. It will work out at millions. That’s more expense for White tax-payers because of mass immigration. But is it fair to blame the Muslim parents for an unlucky roll of the genetic dice? Almost certainly it is. This is another iceberg story. Just as Blacks in the West suffer from schizophrenia at much higher rates than Whites, so Muslims suffer from “disability” at much higher rates. Why? It’s simple: in-breeding. Pakistanis, in particular, have a vibrant custom of marrying close relatives:

700 children born with genetic disabilities due to cousin marriages every year

The problem is worst among children born in Britain’s Pakistani community, where more than half of marriages are between first cousins, and children are 10 times more likely than the general population to suffer genetic disorders. The medical risks of first cousin marriages include higher rates of infant mortality, birth defects, learning difficulties, blindness, hearing problems and metabolic disorders.
As adults, the children born from first cousin marriages are at increased risk of miscarriage or infertility. A third of children affected die before their fifth birthday. An investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches programme found that although more than 70 British studies have proved the risks, and 700 British Pakistani children are born with associated genetic diseases every year, many people deny the dangers. Ann Cryer, the former Labour MP for Keighley, suffered abuse for trying to highlight the problems.
“It’s a public health issue and we deal with public health issues by raising awareness, by talking about subjects such as obesity, such as drug addiction, such as alcohol,” she said. “But for some reason we’re told that we mustn’t talk about cousin marriages because this is a sensitive issue. I think it’s absurd, we have to talk about it in order to find solutions.”
Research shows the number of cousin marriages has risen dramatically in the UK over the last three decades, mainly between British Pakistanis, but also between first cousins in the British Bangladeshi community in which nearly a quarter of people marry their first cousins, and in some Middle Eastern and East African communities. (700 children born with genetic disabilities due to cousin marriages every year, The Daily Telegraph, 22^nd Aug 2010)

This is a “sensitive issue” because it might be exploited by racists who say that non-White immigration is very harmful to the West. Racists are wicked people, you see: they speak the truth. So would liberals rather die than admit their errors? No, they’d rather you and your family die. Liberals get the righteous glow of supporting Third World immigration; ordinary Whites like Christina Edkins and Margaret Sanden pay the price. But it can’t go on. The iceberg of human biology will sink the ship of liberalism. Our job is to ensure that the West doesn’t sink with it.

Friends of Rape: How Feminist Liberals Help Sex-Crime to Flourish

September 8, 2014/30 Comments/in Costs of Multiculturalism, Featured Articles, The Charge of White Racism /by Tobias Langdon

 

 

Deafeningly. That’s how liberals would have reacted if the victims in Rotherham had been Pakistani, the rapists White and the cover-up organized by the Conservative party and its allies in the right-wing media. If the scandal had been like that, the Guardian would have boiled with righteous wrath and indignation: “The horror of it. At least 1,400 victims subject to sixteen years of rape, torture and degradation. These right-wing officials and journalists should be put on trial for their active, wilful complicity in these racist atrocities. Then we should lock them up and throw away the key.”

I think it would have gone something like that. But alas for liberals, it wasn’t evil right-ringers who were complicit in the horrors of Rotherham: it was golden-hearted liberals. Which political party gave rape-gangs the go-ahead year after year? Not the Conservatives or the British National Party, but feminist Labour, champions of the poor and vulnerable. Which newspaper dictated the multi-culti, rape-friendly politics of left-wing councillors and social workers in Rotherham? Not the Daily Mail or the Times, but the feminist Guardian, that staunch opponent of sex-crimes and patriarchal oppression. And you don’t have to take my word about the Guardian’s role in more than a decade of rapes, beatings and psychological torture:

Labour MPs: Left ignored sex abuse

A culture of Left-wing political correctness led politicians and officials to ignore the plight of young girls who were being sexually abused by Asian men, Labour figures have warned. Ann Cryer, an MP from 1997 until 2010, told The Sunday Telegraph how she had feared being called “racist” when, in 2002, she exposed a sex-abuse scandal involving Pakistani men in her constituency of Keighley, West Yorkshire. A “politically correct Left just saw it as racism”, she said.
At the same time, Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, revealed that even now some of his colleagues disapproved of his efforts to uncover child abuse, because some were “obsessing about multiculturalism”. It follows the exposure last week of the scale of child sexual abuse in Rotherham. An inquiry estimated that at least 1,400 girls as young as 11 were assaulted and raped by gangs of Asian men over a period of 16 years. Some had guns pointed at them or were doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight. Mrs Cryer recalled how there was a politically correct Left that saw her fight as racism. “At the time I was dealing with this, 2002-04, political correctness was playing a big part. The Guardian at that time hardly mentioned these things… because it was so politically correct.” (Labour MPs: Left ignored sex abuse, The Daily Telegraph, 30th Aug 2014)

Deluded though they still are about mass immigration, Ann Cryer and Simon Danczuk have qualities unknown to most liberals: courage, honesty and integrity. Those are certainly not words that can be applied to the disgraced MP Denis MacShane, a dedicated champion of “the Jewish community” who was jailed in December 2013 for expenses fraud. But MacShane too has pointed out which newspaper created the “culture of denial” where gang-rape could flourish:

Rotherham: Sorry isn’t good enough. When will Britain learn to protect its children?

… Denis MacShane, who was Labour MP for Rotherham at the time, also says he didn’t know. Can it be the case that he was blinkered to the plight of his desperate constituents: parents fighting to get the authorities to do something about the abuse happening to their daughters? Could the disconnect between him and the community he represented have been so great? Was he so far removed from the business of the council that he didn’t know about the presentations to councillors on child sexual exploitation as long ago as 2004? His plea that his “liberal leftie” Guardian-reading tendencies prevented him from digging deeper for fear of upsetting cultural sensitivities smacks of a post-hoc justification of his abject failure to do anything: an excuse hardly befitting a parliamentarian of 18 years. If he was so unable or unwilling to exercise proper scrutiny and inquiry in his constituency (that being his job, after all) then he should have resigned long before he was forced to – in 2012 – when he was charged, and later convicted, of fraud while serving as an MP. Politics failed the young children of Rotherham too. (Rotherham: Sorry isn’t good enough. When will Britain learn to protect its children?, The Guardian, 31st August 2014)

Yes, that Guardian editorial has a long list of guilty parties: “the police, social services and the state failed the children; so, too, did local councillors.” Conspicuous by their absence are some folk much closer to home: editors and journalists at the Guardian (and its Sunday version the Observer). The Guardian cares so deeply about victims and the vulnerable that its website has special sections devoted to women, children, child protection, rape and domestic violence. But it was the right-wing Times “whose estimable reporting sparked the inquiry” into what was happening in Rotherham. It seems that pious posturing isn’t enough to protect the vulnerable. But the Guardian isn’t going to break the habit of a lifetime just yet:

The Guardian view on the Rotherham child abuse scandal: no excuse. Nothing should stand in the way of protecting the vulnerable. Those who fail should take responsibility

Shaun Wright, Labour’s South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner, who was Rotherham’s cabinet member for children and young people’s services from 2005 until 2010, is refusing to resign. He apologises unreservedly for the grotesque abuse that 1,400 children or more may have endured on his watch, but he says the scale of the abuse has come as a surprise to him. … His lack of leadership, his reluctance to ask difficult questions or to intervene proactively, allowed the exploitation itemised in Professor Alexis Jay’s grim report on Tuesday to grow from what an earlier investigator called gang abuse for personal gratification into “financial and career opportunities” for young, mainly Asian, men. His failure to take responsibility now, in the face of the evidence, suggests a dangerous reluctance to address what went so damagingly wrong for so many vulnerable young women.
Rotherham is not alone in experiencing colossal institutional failure in child protection. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and a pattern of abuse that has now resulted in convictions in towns from Torbay to Rochdale is very likely to be happening in other places not yet identified. … Then there was a misguided reluctance to consider whether there was an issue of race involved. Finally, they lacked any kind of institutional data-sharing that might have allowed police, schools, hospitals and social workers to understand what was happening.
The question of ethnicity is particularly contentious. Rotherham is a very white, poor, working-class town with a growing but still small – less than 10% – black and minority ethnic population of which less than a third is Muslim. In last May’s local elections, Ukip won most votes and became the official opposition on the council. A march by the English Defence League during the campaign drew 500 supporters. On Tuesday, one of the first on Twitter with a gloating tweet was Nick Griffin of the BNP. In that context it is understandable that the Labour council was sensitive to the reputation of its Muslim community. But it led to a terrible misjudgment: the subordination of the safeguarding of abused and exploited children – who were mainly, but not only, white – to the protection of the standing of one particular community. When the then Labour MP Ann Cryer, the anti-forced-marriage campaigner, began reporting accounts of young Pakistani-heritage men hanging about school gates in 2003, she was bitterly criticised. (The Guardian view on the Rotherham child abuse scandal: no excuse, The Guardian, 27th August 2014)

“Bitterly criticized” by whom? Guardian-readers, of course. NASA should get in touch with the writer of that editorial: there’s enough hot air and humbug there to send a six-man crew to Mars and back. Let’s review the sorry list of failure: “lack of leadership… reluctance to ask difficult questions or to intervene proactively … dangerous reluctance to address what went so damagingly wrong for so many vulnerable young women… colossal institutional failure in child protection… misguided reluctance to consider whether there was an issue of race involved… terrible misjudgment: the subordination of the safeguarding of abused and exploited children to the protection of the standing of one particular community…”

In short, what caused the horrors in Rotherham was the ideology of the Guardian, as absorbed and applied by its dedicated readers in local government and social services. That ideology postures about rape and male violence while actually promoting them. The Guardian supports mass immigration from violent and misogynistic Third World nations, then conceals the consequences. It demonizes anyone who speaks the truth about the numerous pathologies imported by Muslims and other non-Whites. The Times wasn’t first with the news about Muslim rape-gangs in northern England: it was Nick Griffin, then the leader of the British National Party. And the Guardian wanted Griffin to go to jail for what he said.

If there are people who should be put on trial and imprisoned or expelled from Britain for promoting crime on a massive scale, it isn’t anyone in the British National Party and other nationalist organizations. No, it’s the politicians and journalists who have directly assisted a war of violence and rape waged by non-Whites against the White British. Here are a few of the guilty men and women:

• Friend of Rape #1: Keith Vaz

Keith Vaz is the greasy and sleazy Labour MP who chairs the Commons Home Affairs Committee. He is now set to grill Shaun Wright, the police and crime commissioner excoriated by the Guardian for his failures in Rotherham. But Vaz himself concealed the truth about Muslim sex-crimes and helped them to continue:

Keith Vaz says child sex ring case ‘not race issue’
Leading MP Keith Vaz has insisted the case of an Asian paedophile gang that exploited dozens of vulnerable white teenagers is not a “race issue”. Mr Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, said the “appalling” offences of the kind carried out by the gang needed to be looked into but it was important not to “stigmatise a whole community”.
He made the remarks after nine men from Rochdale were convicted for their role in a child sex ring. Police and social workers have been accused of failing to investigate the gang for fear of being perceived as racist, allowing them to prey on up to 50 young white girls.
Mr Vaz told [the BBC radio programme] Today the offences committed by the gang were “absolutely appalling crimes”. But he added: “Right at the start of this trial the BNP were outside demonstrating saying that this was a race issue. I do not believe it is a race issue.” He said his view was backed by the police and children’s experts. (Keith Vaz says child sex ring case ‘not race issue’, The Telegraph, 9th May 2012)

• Friend of Rape #2: Sue Berelowitz

Vaz referred to “children’s experts.” Here is the most influential of them all:

Sex gangs report ‘will play down threat of Pakistani men targeting white girls’
An official inquiry into child sex gangs will fail to highlight the targeting of white girls by Pakistani men. Instead the year-long Government-backed investigation will say that child sex abuse is a problem caused by men of all backgrounds in towns and cities across the country. The findings of the inquiry by Sue Berelowitz, the Deputy Children’s Commissioner for England, are likely to anger ministers and provoke disbelief among those who have observed and investigated cases of abuse of teenage girls in towns in Lancashire and Yorkshire. …
Education Secretary Michael Gove said in May that Miss Berelowitz should not let her inquiries be swayed by questions of prejudice and should instead ‘ask tough questions about cultural background’. However her first report, to be published next week, will argue that the problem lies with men from all ethnic backgrounds. … A spokesman for Miss Berelowitz said there would be no comment on the report until it is published next week. But a senior political figure with long experience of trying to combat sex gangs said there is a specific problem with groups of young Pakistani men, and that Miss Berelowitz would be wrong to ignore it. (Sex gangs report ‘will play down threat of Pakistani men targeting white girls’, The Daily Mail, 16th November 2012)

• Friends of Rape #3 and #4: Nazir Afzal and Javed Khan

These two dishonest and deceitful Muslims are, respectively, the “Crown Prosecution Service’s lead on child sexual abuse” and the Chief Executive of the Child Welfare charity Barnardo’s. The blogger Irish Savant reacts to them like this:

How the hell have what are arguably the two most important positions for preventing child abuse been awarded to members of the ethno-religious ‘community’ that specialises in this very crime? It goes without saying that there were many native British applicants for these posts. But in each case they appointed those from a community notorious for its treatment of and attitude to child sex abuse as well as a byword for corruption, extremism, filth and incompetence. (Monkeys and bananas, Irish Savant, 5th September 2014)

• Friend of Rape #5: Jonathan Freedland

When this Jewish journalist at the Guardian learned about White girls in Rotherham being raped and threatened with incineration, his thoughts naturally flew to another group who have suffered appallingly: some Jews who had eggs thrown at them in 2006:

Rotherham inquiry: the ‘PC gone mad’ defence is itself a form of racism
This week political correctness was blamed for a vicious and persistent series of crimes: the organised rape and sexual exploitation of 1,400 children, most of them girls, in Rotherham. The Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan – said to be the intellectual guru to Ukip’s Douglas Carswell – argued that “these children were victims of ‘anti-racism’”. In this he echoed much of the press commentary, seizing on a finding of the Jay inquiry that those who should have protected Rotherham’s young from predators of Pakistani heritage were instead cowed by fear of being branded racist. …
How much easier for police or council officials who had neglected their duty to blame the terrifying commissars of political correctness rather than admit they messed up. If that strikes me as plausible, it’s partly down to personal experience. Several years ago I witnessed an incident in the East End of London when an outdoor memorial service was disrupted by a handful of Asian men, who pelted the mainly elderly mourners present with vegetables and eggs. The police were called but insisted they could do nothing. One officer told those who’d been hit he’d like to go after the offenders but he couldn’t: “It’s the Human Rights Act.”
That sounds laughable now, so obviously an excuse for inaction. But I’d go further. In a subtle way, such a claim – and indeed similar invocations of political correctness – represent a kind of racism. For what is being implied when a council or police force say they cannot stop a ring of men raping children? … For what low opinion must you have of those of Pakistani heritage to think that they, or Muslims more widely, would be offended by the prospect of violent paedophiles facing justice for their crimes? Posing as cultural sensitivity, such a concern betrays contempt: by presuming they would stand by the abusers and torturers in their midst it damns an entire community for the vile behaviour of a few. (Rotherham inquiry: the ‘PC gone mad’ defence is itself a form of racism, The Guardian, 29th August 2014)

So Freedland piously believes that the Muslim “community” doesn’t support “abusers and torturers.” The Labour MP Simon Danczuk has a  different story:

I’ve also had [Muslim] family members come to my [parliamentary] surgery asking me to make representations on behalf of brothers who have been found guilty of child sex abuse. When I refuse, I frequently receive a tirade of abuse. “These girls are prostitutes,” one man shouted at me, and warned that I would pay a heavy price for not supporting him. He’d get thousands of people not to vote for me. (Rotherham is not an isolated incident, The Daily Telegraph, 31st August 2014)

A year ago, I think that Danczuk would have been howled out of politics for speaking the truth like that. But he’s said even more:

Rotherham: politics ‘imported from Pakistan’ fuelled sex abuse cover-up – MP
An unhealthy brand of politics “imported” from Pakistan is partly to blame for the cover-up of mass child abuse in Rotherham and other British cities, a campaigning MP has claimed. Simon Danczuk, who helped expose a pattern of grooming of white teenage girls by men from a Pakistani background in Rochdale, where he is the Labour MP, said a culture of intimidation and closing of ranks within parts of the Asian community had mired politics in towns and cities across northern England for years.
Mr Danczuk said the elements of Pakistani political culture itself were partly to blame for the cover-up. “There are cultural issues around the way politics are done in the Asian community which have to change,” he said. He said he had personally come under pressure from Asian councillors and members of the community for speaking out as well as being warned by prominent figures in his party.
He pointed to the way in which two Muslim councillors in Rochdale had provided character references for one of the perpetrators of the Rochdale abuse. “Politics are done differently in Pakistan, it is a cultural difference we have imported some of that into some of these northern towns and cities and I think we have to face up to the fact that we can’t carry on doing politics like that.
“It is not healthy and the direct consequence is that we end up having to tackle issues like has been faced in Rotherham.” He described it as “a looking after your own” within the Asian community which other politicians had accepted. “Pressure was applied, that’s what will have happened to Denis MacShane and he went along with it,” he said, referring to comments last week from the disgraced former MP for Rotherham who said he had shied away from the issue because he was a “Guardian reading liberal leftie”. (Rotherham: politics ‘imported from Pakistan’ fuelled sex abuse cover-up – MP, The Sunday Telegraph, 31st August 2014)

• Friend of Rape #6: Hugh Muir

Hugh Muir is one of the Guardian’s prized Black journalists. When reality contradicts his ideology, he does the right thing and denies reality:

Blaming the Rotherham abuse scandal on political correctness is ludicrous
The news from Rotherham becomes more horrific. Up to 1,400 children exploited and abused. And today we learn via an audit by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary that officers from South Yorkshire police – to whom many victims turned – were previously criticised by the police inspectorate for spending “a great deal of time trying to disprove victims’ allegations”. Little wonder so many victims felt they had to fend for themselves. …
But can it really be true – as the tabloids and the right robustly claim – that a significant contributor truly was political correctness; the fear of officials that by intervening appropriately in cases where the suspects were Pakistani Muslims, they themselves would be castigated as racist? If it is, it is outrageous. It is also ludicrous. …
If a backlash was feared, where would it have come from? There is no minority lobby for criminals and paedophiles. So long as communities knew the issue was one of law enforcement rather than an assault on those communities themselves, they would have supported tough action by the authorities. … In no other sphere does PC and its terrors prevent the authorities taking action against minorities. We’re over-represented in courts and prisons at one end of the social scale, overdisciplined and marginalised in the professions at the other. If it is true that political correctness prevented the authorities from using their powers against minorities for fear of giving offence, that’s a scandal. It would also be a first. (Blaming the Rotherham abuse scandal on political correctness is ludicrous, The Guardian, )

first? Hugh Muir doesn’t appear to read his own newspaper, which said this in February 2014: “Female genital mutilation (FGM) has been a crime in the UK since 1985. An estimated 65,000 girls aged 13 and under are at risk of mutilation. So why has there been a grand total of zero prosecutions?” (see here).
He may also have missed this, published in the Guardian in September: “The Home Office researcher …  also said she had been accused of being insensitive when she told one official that most of the perpetrators were from Rotherham’s Pakistani community. A female colleague talked to her about the incident. ‘She said you must never refer to that again – you must never refer to Asian men. And her other response was to book me on a two-day ethnicity and diversity course to raise my awareness of ethnic issues.’” (see here).
And if Muir thinks there is “no minority lobby for criminals and paedophiles,” he needs to read what the Labour MP Simon Danczuk says about the “abuse” he receives from Muslims when he declines to make “representations on behalf of brothers who have been found guilty of child sex abuse” (see here and above).

• Friend of Rape #7: Libby Brooks

While vibrant rape-gangs were hard at work in Rotherham, Oxford, Telford and many other British cities, Libby Brooks was hard at work too, denying reality and helping the crimes to continue:

Grooming and our ignoble tradition of racialising crime: Dubious claims about Muslim men grooming white girls hide legitimate worries about a system that fails victims of abuse
… the Times has marshalled evidence suggesting that these organised crimes are carried out almost exclusively by gangs of Pakistani Muslim origin who target white youngsters; and it quotes both police and agency sources who refer to a “conspiracy of silence” around the open investigation of such cases, amid fears of being branded racist or inflaming ethnic tensions in already precarious local environments. …
There is an ignoble tradition of racialising criminality in this country, in particular sexual offences, from the moral panic about West Indian pimps in the 1960s to the statistically dubious coverage of African-Caribbean gang rape in the 90s [she should have said “statistically damning”]. … The efforts of the Times to stand up this investigation are certainly considerable: selectively quoting or misquoting some groups, and inventing a category of “on-street grooming” that does not exist in law and was not recognised by any of the agencies I spoke to. It is also worth asking how responsible it is to provide ammunition to the violent racist extremists already active in these areas on such flawed evidence. (Grooming and our ignoble tradition of racialising crime, The Guardian, 7th January 2011)

• Friend of Rape #8: Liz Fekete

Last but not least, we have the Jewish anti-fascist Liz Fekete, who has worked for decades to conceal the truth about vibrant crime and ensure that it continues. She wrote this in 2012:

Given the current climate, in which the far Right accuses the anti-racist lobby of imposing a conspiracy of silence about Muslim involvement in ‘on-street grooming’, I was quite surprised to see you similarly accuse the ‘left’ and anti-racists of being ‘too quick to try and silence any discussion’ and of turning a blind eye to the fact that the bulk of perpetrators of what you describe as ‘on-street grooming’ come from the British-Pakistani community. But what I really take issue with is your uncritical, and occasionally slanted, take on Ministry of Justice crime statistics.
There is, as you will know, a long history of racialising sex crimes in this country – Jews being associated with paedophilia in the 1930s, West Indians with pimping in the 1950s and now the focus has shifted to Muslim ‘groomers’ [on the contrary, I suggest that all these “racialisations” are accurate]. And statistics (just like attitude surveys) are not scientific and neutral but can be manipulated to suit an argument. … It recalled for me the time in the 1980s when the media and the fascists were creating the spectre of the ‘black mugger’ and the Metropolitan police added to the moral panic by isolating ‘assault or threat of violence upon a person, especially with intent to rob’ from all street crime and then providing the ethnicity of the perpetrators. Then, young African-Caribbean men were being accused of racially-motivated attacks on ‘little white old ladies’ in much the same way as Muslims as a whole are accused of anti-white sex crimes. (Grooming: an open letter to Nick Lowles, The Institute of Race Relations, 15th November 2012)

The names listed above are the guilty Guardianistas: the traitors, liars and promoters of non-White murder, rape and corruption. But I think their day is ending. Those comments by Simon Danczuk about Pakistani corruption would have ended his career in the recent past. Not now. A Tory MP has publicly affirmed his belief that Enoch Powell was right to say mass immigration would end in disaster. That too would have been a career-killer in the recent past. Not now.

Instead, liberals are on the defensive, frantically lying and blowing smoke as they try to conceal the moral bankruptcy of their ideology and causes. There are more scandals like Rotherham to come and each new revelation will further expose liberals for what they are: promoters of hate and chaos, enemies of women and children, not friends and protectors. The Rotherham scandal has set a stake on the heart of the liberal vampire. Now history will begin to hammer it home.

Unexamined, Unquestioned, Unchallenged: Jewish Power in Brave New Britain

Unexamined, Unquestioned, Unchallenged: Jewish Power in Brave New Britain

December 21, 2019/35 Comments/in British Politics, Featured Articles /by Tobias Langdon

 

 

Ehud Sheleg. Who is he? CFI. What is that? The vast majority of people in Brave New Britain still don’t have a clue, because the mainstream media completely ignored these very interesting and important questions during the just-ended general election.

The biggest lobbying group in British politics

But this is the Occidental Observer, the Home of Hate, and we think that interesting and important questions deserve answers. Sir Ehud Sheleg (born 1955) is the Israeli Jew and possible “binary options” fraudster who is currently Treasurer of the Conservative Party. He succeeded Sir Mick Davis, a Jew from South Africa, in 2019 and has openly admitted in the Jewish Chronicle that he puts Israel’s interests above those of any other country. And CFI? That’s Conservative Friends of Israel, described in the same Jewish Chronicle as “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster [i.e., British politics].”

The Goy Grovel: Sajid Javid, Priti Patel and Boris Johnson perform at CFI

 

CFI, under the control of another undeservedly obscure Jew called Lord Polak, was responsible for shepherding a female Hindu politician called Priti Patel to a series of secret and unminuted meetings with Israeli politicians in 2017 (and probably long before that too). Patel had to resign her post in Theresa May’s government because of her off-the-record pandering to a foreign government, but don’t worry: she bounced back to an even bigger and better post when Boris Johnson replaced May in 2019. Yes, the four most important people in British politics — part-Jewish Boris Johnson as Prime Minister, Pakistani Muslim Sajid Javid as Chancellor, Indian Hindu Priti Patel as Home Secretary, and Jewish Dominic Raab as Foreign Secretary — are all devout Friends of Israel.

A “special and precious” Judeo-Royal connection

 
Or rather, they are not the most four important people in British politics. Ehud Sheleg and Lord Polak are more important as Treasurer of the Conservative Party and head of CFI, respectively. But Sheleg and Polak have received no serious scrutiny from the mainstream media. If any journalists had dared to question the role played by Jews at the heart of Britain’s ruling party, they would have been denounced as antisemites and driven out of public life. The rules are simple: 1) Jews are saintly philanthropists who have no interests of their own, and especially not vis-à-vis Israel; 2) Israel’s interests are, in any case, identical to those of Britain, America, France, Germany et al.

The Unwatched Web: how Jewish organizations control British politics (BICOM = Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre)

 

Remember Judeo-Christian values, people! They’re the foundation of Western civilization, after all. In fact, they’re a contradiction in terms, but the idiotic phrase “Judeo-Christian” may well become popular here during the rest of Johnson’s premiership. If so, one of its cheerleaders will be the naïve and stupid heir to the English throne:

Prince Charles praises ‘special and precious’ connection between Jewish community and the Crown

The Prince of Wales delivered this speech at a reception celebrating the Jewish community at Buckingham Palace
It is a great delight to welcome you this evening to Buckingham Palace, as the festival of Chanukah approaches, and to celebrate with you the contribution of our Jewish community to the health, wealth and happiness of the United Kingdom.
In every walk of life, in every field of endeavor [why the American spelling?], our nation could have had no more generous citizens, and no more faithful friends. That is why I am so glad to have this opportunity to say thank you, albeit in a small way, for all that you do, and have done, across the country, in major national and international institutions, and in local communities the length and breadth of the land.
I often describe the United Kingdom as a “community of communities”, which is enriched by the diversity of its constituent groups, and whose whole is so much greater than its parts. …
And it is why this time of year, which is so special to Christians and Jews alike, offered an ideal opportunity to arrange this evening’s celebration — because the importance of Unity through Diversity sits at the very heart of our values as a society. It defines what — and who — we are as a country.
The connection between the Crown and our Jewish Community is something special and precious. I say this from a particular and personal perspective because I have grown up being deeply touched by the fact that British synagogues have, for centuries, remembered my Family in your weekly prayers. And as you remember my Family, so we too remember and celebrate you. …
In my own small way, I have sought to recognize the contribution of the Jewish community by various means, whether in attending or hosting receptions for the Kindertransport Association, or for Holocaust survivors, or attending events for the National Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, of which I am Patron, or helping to build a Jewish Community Centre in Krakow — where I was privileged to fix a mezuzah to the doorpost — or in agreeing without a moment’s hesitation to become Patron of World Jewish Relief.
If I may say so, Ladies and Gentlemen, I see this as the least I can do to try to repay, in some small way, the immense blessings the Jewish people have brought to this land and, indeed, to humanity. In the Hebrew Scriptures, which provide so much of the ethical underpinning of our society, we read in The Book of Deuteronomy, the inspiring exhortation: “Choose life!”
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Jewish community of the United Kingdom have fulfilled that divine command in countless ways, and our society has been immeasurably enriched as a result. Today, we have the opportunity to give thanks for the friendship we have forged, and the values we all share. (Prince Charles praises ‘special and precious’ connection between Jewish community and the Crown, The Jewish Chronicle, 6th December 2019 / 8th Kislev 5780)

Unity through Diversity: horrors from the Partition of India in 1947

 

Prince Charles is not only an idiot: he’s an ignorant or wilfully blind idiot. Is it any wonder that Jews have the mocking term goyishe kop — “gentile head” — when gentiles like Charles appear before them and talk such nonsense? The slogan “Unity through Diversity!” might have come straight from the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). 
Apparently Charles never had chance to ask his beloved uncle Lord Mountbatten about the “Unity through Diversity” that swept former British India in 1947 when Mountbatten was the last Viceroy. Hundreds of thousands of people died in “communal rioting” between Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. 
Huge numbers also died when Bangladesh won its independence from Pakistan in 1971. Both Bangladeshis and Pakistanis were Muslim, but their racial and cultural differences were enough to create “Unity through Diversity,” that is, war, massacres and organized rape. 
And even without the massacres and war (yet), organized rape is now a prominent feature of today’s Britain as a result of the blessings of diversity created by Pakistani migration.

Jewish revenge on gentile monarchs

 
Lord Mountbatten himself became another example of “Unity through Diversity” when he was blown up by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in 1979. 
Yes, the relatively mild religious and racial diversity of the British Isles has been killing people for many centuries. For example, Oliver Cromwell strewed Ireland with Catholic corpses in the seventeenth century, but that isn’t surprising when you consider that Cromwell’s republican revolution was financed by Jewish bankers from Amsterdam. Jews hate the Catholic church and traditional Christian institutions like the monarchy (unless royals grovel before Jews as Charles does). 
For example, the execution of Charles I in 1649 may have been Jewish revenge for Edward I’s Edict of Expulsion in 1290.
Prince Charles should read M.R. James’ (1862–1936) fascinating short-story “The Uncommon Prayer-Book”, which discusses the overthrow of Charles, and learn something about British history and the harmful role played by Jews (see my discussion). He would also benefit from a look at the central Jewish role in the communist executions of his royal relatives, the Romanov family, in 1918. Jews do not like any kind of monarchy or aristocracy except subservient and stupid ones.
In fact, Jews have always made alliances with non-Jewish elites throughout history, continuing in the present age with figures like Boris Johnson and Prince Charles. This has repeatedly resulted in exploitation and betrayal of other segments of the population — most notably now the White working class.
Charles might realize the depths of his own stupidity by paying more attention to the Jewish Chronicle. His smarmy words about “this time of year, which is so special to Christians and Jews alike,” prove that he has been taken in by the Jewish pretence that Hanukkah is an important Jewish festival.

Dread in December

 
It isn’t: it’s a minor Jewish festival used to undermine Christmas, as the highly ethnocentric Jonathan Freedland admitted in the Jewish Chronicle in the same month as Charles’ sycophantic speech: “The timing of a pre-Christmas election shouldn’t bother too many JC readers. When it comes to preparing for the holidays, December is hardly Jews’ busiest month. Even so, the prospect of an election in the season of nativity plays and mince pies will, I suspect, be filling Jews with a special kind of dread.”

Freedland spoke of “dread” because he thought that either a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn or a “hard Brexit” under Boris Johnson would be bad for Jews. And what else matters in Brave New Britain but the welfare of Jews? However, Corbyn was clearly by far the bigger threat, as Freedland emphasized: “Witness the fact that Labour under Corbyn has become the first UK political party since the BNP to come under statutory investigation for racism by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (with its report expected in the spring).” 
The investigation into Labour by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is another example of how the mainstream media in Britain refuse to ask very interesting and important questions about Jewish power.

Controlled by Jews

 
After all, the EHRC is headed by two Jews: the lawyer Rebecca Hilsenrath and the homosexual-rights activist David Isaacs. Is it possible that their Jewishness could influence the investigation and its conclusions? Of course not: remember that Jews are saintly philanthropists who have no interests of their own (and especially not in demonizing the Labour party). 
But that question never even arose when the EHRC’s investigation was mentioned during the election campaign. 
The best that the Left could do was demand a similar enquiry into Islamophobia in the Conservative party. But Tories and their supporters express much scepticism about the validity of “Islamophobia.” As the supposed conservative Charles Moore wrote in the Spectator: “…the term ‘Islamophobia’ should be absolutely resisted. Unlike anti-Semitism, this is a concocted concept.”

The Bolshevik punim of Rebecca Hilsenrath

 

Moore is another Prince Charles who should pay more attention to the publication in which his own words appear. 
The Spectator staunchly defended the supposed philosopher Roger Scruton against accusations of bigotry early in 2019. Scruton was dishonestly accused both of Islamophobia and of antisemitism, and it was obvious that both terms are “concocted concepts.” 
A prominent Jewish MP called Luciana Berger accused Scruton of antisemitism without any criticism from other Jews, and the intervention of the Jewish Board of Deputies seems to have been decisive in Scruton’s dismissal from a government committee. 
Scruton was given his post back later, but neither he nor any of his defenders discussed the unjust accusations of antisemitism. After all, if they did that, they might have to admit the truth about Jews and they’re not prepared to do that.
 Instead, they perform the goy grovel, year in, year out, and Jewish power in Brave New Britain continues to be unexamined, unquestioned and unchallenged. Except here at the Occidental Observer, the Home of Hate.

Good reasons for optimism

 
Nevertheless, there are good reasons for optimism. If I’d been told at the beginning of 2019 that millions of Labour voters would finally abandon the party that long ago abandoned them, I wouldn’t have believed it. But that’s exactly what happened when solid Labour seats like Bolsover, Darlington, Sedgefield, Stockton South and Wrexham fell to the Tories in the general election. 
Of course, the Conservative party doesn’t care about its new supporters, but when they are inevitably disappointed, they will begin to understand how corrupt and undemocratic the politics of Brave New Britain truly are. 
And they may even begin to notice the central role of Jews there.
 
And if I’d been told at the beginning of 2019 that the term “Deep State” and the name Jeffrey Epstein would soon be all over the American media, I wouldn’t have believed it either. But again, all that happened. Things are moving in the right direction. The central role of Jews in anti-White activism and political corruption is slowly but surely becoming obvious to more and more people. And understanding will lead to action.
====================

The Irish Savant : What do Conservatives actually conserve?

What do Conservatives actually conserve?

 

The Irish Savant

http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2020/02/what-do-conservatives-actually-conserve.html

 

Tuesday, 4 February 2020

 

The Conservative Party in Britain has been returned to power with a massive majority. But how much of a victory does this represent for British, or more relevantly English nationalism? Well here's a clue. Look at those who occupy the three most powerful Cabinet positions, those controlling home affairs, foreign affairs and the Treasury. The rest of the Cabinet positions are in reality second-tier, all subject to the whims of one or more of the Big Three. (Maybe the Big Four if you include the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.)

So who are these patriots charged with leading Britain into the dangerous and unpredictable post-Brexit world? Presumably their every waking hour is taken up with furthering the interests of British factory workers, farmers and pensioners with whom they share a visceral love of country? Presumably they chill with a frisson of patriotism every time they hear God Save The Queen? Presumably they share a vicarious pride in Britain's glorious history, a history shaped by their ancestors over many centuries?

It's possible. But I doubt it. Because here are Britain's new de facto rulers:

Home Secretary:
Name:  Priti Patel
Ethnicity: Ugandan-Indian
Religion: Hindu

Chancellor of the Exchequer:
Name:  Sajid Javid
Ethnicity: Pakistani - although he looks like he's from another galaxy
Religion: Muslim

Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Name:  Rishi Sunak
Ethnicity: Indian
Religion: Hindu

Foreign Secretary
Name:  Dominic Raab
Ethnicity: Jewish/English
Religion: Unknown

Now Patel and Raab seem to be sounder on the 'national question' and other conservative touch-points than many of their Cabinet colleagues and were unwavering in their support for Brexit. At the same time you'd have to wonder when an Indian Hindu whose parents fled Uganda and a Jew whose father fled Czechoslovakia control, inter alia, the immigration spigot that threatens to irretrievably destroy Traditional Britain. And God alone knows what the two Punjabis in the Treasury will do when they get their hands on the loot. Javid had an undistinguished banking career before he was miraculously magicked to the top of the Tory pyramid while Sunak worked for Goldman Sachs in their notorious scandal-wracked Investment Banking arm.

So here's a closing thought: The British ruled over and transformed what's now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (current combined population 1.8 billion) for two centuries with a tiny number of administrators and soldiers. Surely this speaks volumes for the governance capabilities of the respective peoples? Is it not truly bizarre then that just a few decades after relinquishing this control the British have recruited their former subjects to rule over them?

Well it's not if you believe that a Greater Power is orchestrating the nation's affairs.

Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech, full text

Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech

This is the full text of Enoch Powell's so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech, which was delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on April 20 1968.


The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General's Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: "How can its dimensions be reduced?" Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week - and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country - and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words "for settlement." This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party's policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party's policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no "first-class citizens" and "second-class citizens." This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it "against discrimination", whether they be leader- writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another's.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her 'phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, "Racial prejudice won't get you anywhere in this country." So she went home.

“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house - at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. "Racialist," they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word "integration." To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population - that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man's hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

'The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.'

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
=============