The Brexit Vote Still Stands as a Massive Blow to Our Enemies

A Review of Niall Ferguson's 'The EU Melting Pot is Melting Down', published in the Sunday Times of June 17th 2018

There is a danger at the present time – more than two years after the historic Brexit vote – that the 17.4 million who voted out, including genuine patriots and racial-nationalists in Britain, could feel a sense of frustration. And that is exactly what the liberal establishment, still reeling from the 2016 referendum result, wants us to feel.

But behind all their talk of how impossible Brexit is going to be and their confusion tactics of “hard Brexit”, “soft Brexit”, “Customs Union” and so on (none of which were ever mentioned in the run up to the referendum) they are rudderless, adrift in a sea of their own despair.

This is the distinct message I have from reading what one of the leading pro-remain figures in Britain has just written in the Sunday Times of June 17th 2018.

Titled “The EU Melting Pot is Melting Down”, Niall Ferguson’s article displays a number of interesting insights into the mind of someone who is both a fanatical liberal and a believer in the innate superiority of international organizations like the so-called European Union over nation states.

He starts by enthusiastically telling us about the infamous play written by the “British” author Israel Zangwill called “The Melting Pot”, first staged in Washington and New York in the early years of the twentieth century.

Israel Zangwill
Israel Zangwill hated the White race

This play extols the virtues of racial suicide, at least for the White race, and looks forward to the day when the White race that created the United States has perished and all the other races of “mankind” have fused into a kind of multi-racial slush, where nobody has any sense of identity any more, and no ancestry to be proud of or even interested in.

This, of course, is the logical result of the multi-racial, multi-cultural, society. It’s what the global elite want to bring about. They and their descendants, who will have carefully avoided the fate of the White race and will have retained their own peculiar identity, so far as they have one, will be in a position of unassailable dominance over all other humans on earth. Their victims will comprise the millions, or billions, dispossessed of their own racial identity, and who comprise a bit of black, some yellow, some Arab, some native American Indian, some Asiatic, oh, and even in some cases a bit of White.

NiallFerguson Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Niall Ferguson and his wife Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Ferguson, described in Wikipedia as “a conservative British historian and political commentator”, seems to be personally involved in this. Having been married to a White lady, Sue Douglas (admittedly not a great choice – she “worked on a legendary anti-apartheid newspaper in South Africa and [has] been one of the few women in Britain to edit a national paper”), he now has a new wife in the form of a “Somali-born Dutch-American activist, feminist, author, scholar and former politician” by the name of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ali is also, it seems, the unfortunate subject of a fatwah for having strongly criticised Islam, in particular over its treatment of women.

So how does this relate to the current situation relating to the betrayal of 17.4 million Britons who voted for Brexit?

Well, to liberals like Ferguson, the wonderful thing about the EU is that it is fusing all the peoples of Europe together into one super-state, with no borders internally and only nominal borders externally. And it threatens to abolish the concept of the nation state. Just like what “The Melting Pot” envisages happening across the Atlantic. But there is a problem.

You see, where you have a European super-state with an “open border” policy, which broadly is what the EU is meant to have, you get millions of migrants from Africa and the Middle East flooding into the countries comprised in that super-state. These are mostly war refugees fleeing from the US-instigated carnage inflicted upon their countries (though whether Ferguson and his fellow liberals can connect the dots is questionable). And once they’re in then it doesn’t matter which country they first entered – they can travel, using the “free movement of labour” law, to whichever country best suits their requirements.

Why is that a problem? It’s not, of course, because these millions of migrants are non-White, because they will ultimately out-breed the native White population, or because the inevitable miscegenation will bring about the end of the White race and of civilization in those countries.

Though these things will inevitably happen if drastic measures are not taken, that’s not a problem to Ferguson and his fellow race-mixers. The problem to them is that the mass migration is on such a large scale and taking place so quickly.

With so many millions of alien peoples flooding into Europe (and the US, as we discuss below) in such a short period of time, there’s a real possibility that a critical number of White people will wake up to what’s really going on in the world. They’ll realise what their vassal politicians and liberal commentators and opinion-formers (like Ferguson, for example) have been up to. They’ll switch off the TV, cancel their season tickets to the football, and then who knows what will happen?

It would almost certainly mean the end of “that loose alliance between moderate social democrats and moderate conservatives/Christian democrats on which the past 70 years of European integration has been based”, as Ferguson so tactfully puts it.

And that’s what he and the rest of the liberal elite are afraid of. They would much rather have the process slowed down, so that the same result could be achieved without the danger of those beastly White folk acting to bring about the end of this little plan.

This may already be happening. Apart from the shock of the Brexit vote, we have the rise of populist parties across Europe opposed to further European integration and non-white immigration, and actually ready to take on the so-called “European Union”. These range from the AfD in Germany to the League and the Five Star Movement in Italy. Hungary already has a populist-nationalist government that is almost ready to defy Brussels and leave the EU. Poland could follow suit very easily, and other countries like the Czech Republic, Austria and Greece are close behind.

All the pro-EU governments such as that of Angela Merkel can do is to “limp onwards” (in Ferguson’s words), with coalitions of their centre-left and centre-right parties shoring up a crumbling edifice, devoid of any meaningful ideology or strategy. So, for example, we have the Conservative Party in Britain, more a coalition than a party, divided into Brexiteers and Remainers, and with little to keep them together in one party save for a mutual desire to carry on existing and enjoying all the trappings of office.

The trouble with national leaders like Angela Merkel, according to Ferguson, is not that they are opening the floodgates of non-white immigration into the European heartlands and endangering the future of the White race. It’s that they are doing it in such a way that they are almost bound to fail. They don’t really understand the issues. “European centrists are deeply confused about immigration”, he wails.

What he means, no doubt without realising it, is that they’ve had any concept of race brainwashed out of them. They ought to take a seat at one of the theatres showing “The Melting Pot” so they can adapt their strategy, employ more stealth, and deepen their deception of voters so as to accomplish the task of abolishing nationhood and murdering the White race without any effective opposition.

But Ferguson and his ilk are not the only people commenting on the situation in Europe today.

For example, take Pat Buchanan. He is a long standing conservative political commentator, author and former presidential candidate in the United States. He’s the author of “Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War”, “The Death of the West” and other books giving an alternative view of recent history. Writing in his blog on 19th June, two days after Ferguson’s article was published, he covers the mass non-white migration problem from a US perspective.

The US has had a similar problem for many years now. Millions of Mexican and Hispanic migrants are knocking at the door of the US every year demanding entry. American liberals are wringing their hands because young children are being parted from their parents during the process of detaining these illegal migrants under President Trump’s immigration policy.

A question has been raised. Is this cruelty caused by a desire to maintain the demographic make-up of the US (ie to keep it still mainly White)? Or is it caused by allowing a situation to arise whereby millions of non-white migrants take it upon themselves to risk being split up as a family in order to enter the US illegally and benefit from its superior welfare system?

In Europe, where recently a boat loaded with 629 illegal migrants from Africa was turned away by the Italian authorities and eventually allowed to disembark in Valencia, Spain, the issue is one of whether to allow illegal migrants to drown in the Mediterranean Sea or to allow them entry into Europe.

But the essential issue is the same. To be weak and “humanitarian” by allowing millions of third world migrants into an advanced, industrialised country that was built by White people for White people when they were a comfortable majority. Or to be strong and shut them out, protecting our White children and remoter descendants in the long term, but thereby causing distress and suffering to those would-be migrants in the short term.

Taking a sufficiently strong stand against the hordes of migrants now coming day and night into the US from Mexico and into Europe from Africa and the Middle East would unavoidably mean detaining them in camps pending removal. In many cases such detention would separate children from their parents. It’s easy to publish pictures of tearful children and grief-stricken parents, and to get the sympathy of people not directly affected by the migrant crisis.

But safeguarding the future of the White race and expelling all non-whites from White countries takes precedence over any such emotional issues. We have our grandchildren and their grandchildren, yes and their grandchildren too, all along down the line, to protect.

And we struck a massive blow for our national and racial survival with the Brexit vote. Perhaps some of us who have been in the vanguard of racial nationalism over the years can allow ourselves a little satisfaction at the small part we have played in alerting our fellow Britons of the dangers of internationalism and multi-racialism.

So let us take heart from all this. All these problems of migrants, detention centres, and camps are of the enemy’s own making. Whilst we cannot be idle in pursuing the world of our dreams, at the same time we may be able to pause for a minute to relish the despondency and misery that is currently flourishing in the enemy camp.

Does British Racial Nationalism Have Any Friends in the Establishment?

In the months since the historic Brexit vote on June 23rd 2016 there have been a surprisingly high number of establishment figures that have come out as being in favour of our withdrawal from the so-called "European Union". People such as Lord Lawson, Andrew Neill, Michael Caine and John Cleese, as well as many Tory and Labour MPs. In this thought-provoking post, Will Wright discusses whether this is a trend that is likely to grow as the British public gradually wakes up to the nightmare they are being sleep-walked into and start to do something about it.

Do we have friends in high places?

Does British nationalism have any friends in our county’s establishment? This might seem a strange question to ask. Some nationalists might have taken it for granted that everyone in the establishment and the political class is beyond redemption. Does it matter?

When a country has a revolution, or a fundamental change of government, many people recognise that one ruling group of people has been replaced by another. But, that’s not the full story. The country itself is still much the same. The civil service, the police and the military are mostly the same people as before.

Some senior people in those institutions find it fairly easy to go from supporting the old regime to supporting the new one. Some journalists, unless they are very ideologically committed, might carry on much as before. Revolutionary regimes tend to purge those they regard as ideological enemies, just as the previous order would purge those it considered dangerous revolutionaries – but most of the people in the country are the same people in the same roles.

Governments change when a new party wins an election, or in some countries, when there is a violent revolution. But something happens before that point. Something that is subtler. Some people who are very much part of the establishment, politicians, judges, senior civil servants and policemen and military leaders, gradually change their allegiances from the old order to the new.

It is this change before a revolution happens that enables it to happen. All new regimes had supporters in the old order. This seems to have been true of the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Nazi takeover in Germany.

There might be some in the British establishment who have always been patriotic and broadly in agreement with us. Such people might have been browbeaten into silence, at the moment, waiting for a patriotic mass movement to emerge. After all, shouldn’t we expect the military to be nationalistic? Shouldn’t we expect judges and policemen to believe in law and order? Shouldn’t we expect some common ground with journalists and politicians ‘on the right’?

When a movement is very certain about what it wants to achieve and very active and determined about achieving it, then something magical happens. The movement becomes very charismatic. The magnetic pull of the movement becomes ever greater and more and more people are attracted. Of course, people in establishment circles are not immune from this. Some of them prepare to make peace with a new regime and get ready to serve it.

So, does British racial nationalism have any supporters in the establishment? At the moment this is not at all clear. The conditions are not right to bring about open support – there is no charismatic mass movement. Anyone who declared any kind of support for nationalism would be purged.

During the nineteen-seventies, the National Front was numerically small compared to the established parties and those of the far-left. But, through a spirit of activism, lead by National Activities Organiser, Martin Webster, it was becoming charismatic. Some members of established parties defected to the NF. Many policemen, especially London policemen, supported the NF. So, too did prison warders and many London postal workers.

John Tyndall boasted, in Spearhead magazine, that the establishment would be frightened if it knew of the strength of support among those groups. Tyndall was probably too quick to mention this. The establishment did notice – and took steps to reverse the trend. The military, the police and the prison service all now ban nationalists from joining. In all the big public service trade unions, the far-left are in charge. They join the management in driving out nationalists.

All big public organisations have ‘Equality and Diversity’ courses for their employees. The unions state, “no platform for fascists and racists”.

So, is all lost? No.

Nationalists need to have a very clear vision of the future that we are going to achieve – long-term and well as short-term. There seems to be something mystical about thinking very long-term. Once a body of people has a vision they must be very active in pursuit of that goal. Then the charisma and magnetic pull takes over. People are attracted to conviction politicians – they can tell when someone is authentic. Once a mass movement is born, then the conditions are in place for friends in high places to declare themselves.

Most people pay lip-service to ‘Equality and Diversity’ but privately regard it as a form of brainwashing. The unions are in terminal decline. Not many people join or support them anymore. The old political parties have become alienated from voters – and alienated from their own rank-and-file members.

Banning nationalists from certain professions will be counterproductive in the long run. This practice might even be challenged in the courts if someone declared themselves to be a nationalist and then was refused a job. The establishment’s equality and diversity legislation can be used against it.

We need someone with vision to build the mass movement.

‘White flight’ plus immigration always add up to segregation

This report on White Flight by Alasdair Palmer & Karyn Miller was first published in the Daily Telegraph on 8th October 2006 (to read original source, click here - all emphasis on this page has been added). Nearly twelve years have now elapsed since that time, and the mass-influx of non-white migrants into our country, towns and cities continues unabated...

The call to prayer from the muezzin wafts down the streets five times a
day. Nearly all of the women are veiled in public. It is not easy to buy
alcohol or find an open pub. And, as one resident says: “You can walk
all the way to the shops – you won’t see any whites.”

But this isn’t an exotic city in South Asia or the Middle East. This is
Bradford. The old Victorian city has profoundly segregated
neighbourhoods: areas separated not simply by wealth but by ethnicity,
culture and religion.

Profound segregation along those lines could be the future for many of
our cities.

Graham Gudgin, of the consultants Regional Forecast, has calculated
what that level of migration means for the future of Britain’s cities. He
examined the population and complexion of the UK’s 37 largest cities.

To his surprise, he discovered that, after years of shrinking, many of
Britain’s towns are now increasing in size.

Yet the exodus of middle-class families that was responsible for many
cities falling in population has not ceased or even slowed. It is simply
that the rate of immigration from outside Britain has increased fast
enough to compensate.

Migrants from developing countries typically have more children than
indigenous Britons: they marry younger and start families earlier.

In 2001, the Institute for Economic and Social Research revealed that
the birth rate among Bangladeshi teenagers, for example, was 75 per
1,000, compared with 29 births per 1,000 white teenagers of British parentage. The Bangladeshi girls were almost all married and would go
on to have many more children, while most of the white teenagers
would not.

In the London borough of Newham, where a very high proportion of the
population is from South Asia, the average woman will have 2.5
children. The average number of children for women in Britain as a
whole is 1.8. Where wealth goes up, birth rates go down.

The exodus of wealthier whites and influx of poorer migrants with higher
birth rates means many of Britain’s towns and cities may soon have
majority populations made up of recent migrants. Indeed, Mr Gudgin’s
model predicts that many of them will soon be completely dominated by
new arrivals.

He has calculated what happens, on present trends, to the population of
a hypothetical British city that starts with immigrants making up just one
per cent of the population.

It takes, he notes, “45 years for that population to reach a proportion of
20 per cent of the total”. That, he says, is approximately the number of
years it took for the proportion of migrants to reach 20 per cent in the
British cities where it has actually done so.

It takes a further 20 years for the ethnic share of the population to
double to 40 per cent – the level achieved in London in 2001. But then
the ethnic proportion increases very rapidly, taking a further 12 years to
reach 60 per cent and just another five years to reach 100 per cent.

“Obviously,” says Mr Gudgin, “our cities are not going to be 100 per
cent ethnic in the near future, or probably ever. We have to assume that
migration policy and behaviour will change long before that point is
reached. The model simply shows what would happen if migration
policy and behaviour continued at the same rate as it is today.”

The assumption that policy will change to alter the rate of migration long
before any of Britain’s cities become “100 per cent made up of recent
migrants from other ethnicities” is surely correct. Yet the expectation is
that immigration will increase, rather than diminish, over the next
decade.

Mr Gudgin explains his projection’s rapid increase in the ethnic
proportion not just as the result of immigration itself but as the result of
its combination with “white flight” from cities.

The indigenous Britons who leave are those who have the opportunity
to do so, which usually means they have the economic resources to be able to move house. They are usually middle-class rather than working-
class, and often people who own their homes.

Does this mean that the middle classes want to be segregated from
ethnic minority migrants, and will move to ensure that they live in white
neighbourhoods: that they are, in a word, “racist”?

That is the allegation normally thrown at working-class inhabitants of
inner cities: the people who are “left behind”, who complain about “their”
neighbourhoods being “swamped by immigrants”, and who say that
“immigrants are claiming too many benefits and are allowed to jump the
queue for council housing”.

The depressing conclusion – that the middle classes are, despite the
rhetoric of inclusiveness, no more welcoming or inclusive than some of
their working-class compatriots – might turn out to be correct.

Extreme segregation is found in many American cities, where blacks
and whites are often separated in different residential enclaves. Is it the
future for some British towns?

Are we, in the words of Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission
for Racial Equality, “sleepwalking towards segregation”?

Some thoughts on the State of British Nationalism

Will Wright gives his thoughts on the current state of British Nationalism. This is, of necessity, a brief review, but perhaps it will stimulate thought and discussion via the Comments section below.

It is very clear that none of the three main parties will pursue policies to advance our survival as a nation, let alone our success. The British people need a political party dedicated to promoting their interests. Such a party needs to be racial-nationalist in character, democratic and with a proper legal constitution. At the moment I cannot see anything that fits the bill. But let us take a look at some of the groups and dead ends out there.

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) – has aimed for a level of professionalism on a par with the Establishment parties. It appears to have a constitution and a rule book and a ruling executive. It appears that Nigel Farage would have liked to have abolished the executive and have an even more personal leadership based on his own personality and power. UKIP did well to win most of the British seats in the EU Parliament. It also won about four million votes, which pressured Prime Minister, David Cameron into holding an In/Out referendum on EU membership.

But UKIP is far too worried about respectability and not being seen as a ‘far-right’ or racialist party. I believe that this timidity has limited its potential and more or less consigned it to being just another Establishment party. It has gone into decline after the EU referendum. It may have been used as a vehicle to draw support away from the BNP.

British National Party (BNP) – born of John Tyndall’s desire to have absolute control over any party that he led, it doesn’t have a proper democratic and legal constitution. It was stagnant for many years before Nick Griffin mounted a coup. It therefore did not even meet Tyndall’s needs. It started to grow and win local elections under Griffin. The political climate favoured its growth and the BNP worked hard to recruit people.

But Griffin squandered the opportunity to educate patriotic recruits and turn them into lifelong, ideological racial nationalists. Too many party people did not really know what they were fighting for, other than a vague notion that they were against political correctness. Griffin seemed to be too concerned about being seen to be respectable. He wanted a break with the past and that’s what the BNP got. For me, he broke the ideological link to previous nationalists going back to just after the Second World War. Many BNP members thought that their only enemy was Islamism.

Under Tyndall, the Party’s fault was a dictatorial leadership. Under Griffin this fault remained and he added a dilution of nationalist ideology to the problems.

English Defence League (EDL) – has many faults. If nationalists are going to win in Britain, then it needs to be done by a political party winning seats consistently and then winning power. But the EDL isn’t nationalist, or racialist, or even a political party. It was founded in Luton as a kind of crusade against Islamism. It sees its identity as ‘English’ rather than ‘British’ at a time when the continuance of the United Kingdom is under threat. On the surface, the EDL isn’t concerned about respectability. It attracts politically illiterate football supporters. They know something is wrong with the country and they want some kind of action. In the hands of a racial nationalist party they could be educated and turned into dedicated activists. Instead they hold disorderly street demonstrations and shout football terrace type chants. Oddly, the unrespectable leaders seem at pains to state that they are pro- Israel.

National Action – has been declared to be a terrorist group, by Home Secretary, Amber Rudd. This was because they applauded the assassination of the Searchlight/Hope Not Hate-supporting Labour MP, Jo Cox by a mentally unwell man. Masked men giving stiff right arm salutes is not the right path for nationalists. The Establishment is looking for any excuse to ban nationalist groups. Islamic terrorist supporters are crying out for ‘even-handedness’ – they want nationalist groups banned. It is idiocy to give the Government that excuse. In any case, terrorism cannot succeed. Only a mass movement and a political party can effect the necessary change to our country. NA is a dangerous dead end and authentic nationalists should avoid it like the plague.

Britain First – seems to have punched above its weight. This small group has a pair of very brave, very active leaders, Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen. Their skilled use of the internet to promote their activities has seen them get international attention. Provided they can recruit and educate nationalists, then they might have the beginning of a good nationalist party. They need to turn their publicity into election success. It may be that they are, like the BNP and the EDL, too focused on Islamism.

National Front – this is a well-meant attempt to resurrect the original party of the same name. This is a tiny party and some of its members are not old enough to remember the golden years of the nineteen seventies. At the time of writing, it is not making its presence felt on a big enough scale nationally. Has some good people, but not enough of them.

British Movement – this is supposed to be a revival of the original party of that name. In my opinion it is a complete waste of time and energy – a real dead end. It doesn’t fight elections or hold demonstrations. It is an inward-looking group of Hitler enthusiasts. Some of its people don’t even know much about Hitler. If you are an authentic British racial nationalist, then don’t waste your time with this group.

London Forum – is useful for getting nationalists together to hear speeches on various themes. The speeches can then be re-produced on You Tube for dissemination to a wider audience. Its success may be due to its being not party-aligned. If one party emerged as highly dominant on the nationalist scene, then that non-alignment ought to change. Everyone serious about success should then join that party – like what happened in 1967 with the National Front.

*****

Serious nationalists should consider how they are going to succeed. Here are some suggested guidelines.

1.       Know your ideology. Know national and international history. Read books by nationalists and, sometimes, our ideological enemies. Know what constitutes nationalist thinking – and what does not. But don’t be too keen to exclude people. Know what you are fighting for.

2.       Loyalty – be loyal to the Idea, the Cause. But be loyal to the movement, and importantly, be loyal to each other.

3.       Be brave. Physically and also psychologically. Nationalists will be assailed from all sides.

4.       Be self-disciplined.

5.       Don’t be overly bothered about respectability. But don’t go in the opposite direction and try to be politically extreme or sensationalist for its own sake.

6.       Recognise that our ability to persuade our fellow countrymen is the key to our success. Develop your skills as a persuader and a political propagandist. Read up on influence and persuasion techniques. Know your enemies’ arguments and hone your debating skills.

7.       Understand that winning a general election is the only way that a nationalist party can succeed in the UK. Shun any talk of infiltrating the Establishment parties or of armed revolts or terrorist activity.

8.       Unity. One big nationalist party may succeed – a myriad of tiny nationalist groups never will. Many of the groups mentioned have members that might make good members of a new reformed nationalist movement.

9.       Leadership. While we should reject dictatorship and personality cults, leadership is important to success. It comes in different forms and operates on different levels. There are organisers, speakers, writers, website-designers, administrators, fund-raisers and distributers of books and magazines.

 

The Assault on our Language and Culture

I remember hearing a Labour Party member saying in 1970 that coloured immigration (as “multi-culturalism” was then called) would benefit Britain by “enriching our culture”.

This was in the face of what even in those far-off days was considerable evidence that non-whites tend to debase and distort White culture by superimposing their own sub-cultures upon it.

In the intervening years this evidence has multiplied and now we only have to switch on our television sets or open a magazine to see what black sub-culture is doing to our music, art and way of life. Even the English language is not immune.

Blacks and asiatics are ceaselessly promoted in the mainstream media by the Jews and white liberals who for the most part control it. Blacks, in particular, are portrayed as “artistic” and “sensitive”, in the face of all the evidence of our own eyes and ears. The most cravenly childish and primitive forms of culture – whether crude paintings, sculpture, reggae or similar “music”, or attempts at acting, are thrust upon us as being somehow equal to or even superior to our own.

Black “entertainers” posture on our stages and screens gyrating and swaying, to the applause of white liberals and fellow blacks. Rap artists drone on with their mono-tone, staccato verbal diarrhea backed up by a bongo drum and an electric guitar (and, usually, several other blacks). Even the once staid “Songs of Praise” television program that used to grace our Sunday evenings on BBC1, with choral singing from some of Britain’s finest church choirs, has become largely a platform for black gospel singers shaking their ample hips and emitting sounds that used to be heard on TV in the 1960s in David Attenborough’s reports from African forest clearings.

One of the first casualties of our culture was our language, the English language, spoken by more people worldwide than any other. The language of Shakespeare and Milton, of Wordsworth and Dickens. From the earliest days after mass non-white immigration took a hold on our country alien words have entered our language. Words such as “chillin'”, “chillaxin'”, “dude”, and “holla”, are part of the black sub-language that is attacking the English language.

Other English words, often going back centuries, have been made to mean something different, often the opposite of their original meanings, such as “wicked” and “cool”. One of the most important words that blacks use among their own is “shit”, used to describe just about anything.

The English language word-ending “er”, as in “mister”, “player” or “gangster” becomes “mista”, “playa” and “gangsta”. Ironically, the word “nigger” also falls into this category. It was originally a term of affection used by Whites in the southern United States in the nineteenth century. Then it was made unacceptable in Western countries by the liberal media, who deemed it a “hate” word. Now it has become popular with blacks themselves when greeting each other. And, of course, they spell it “nigga”.

Black obsession with the sex act is reflected in most of their so-called musical efforts, as in “The pussy was da bomb, had a nigga on sprung” or “Bitches get fucked on the roof when I ain’t got no hotel dough”.

Another part of the human anatomy that endlessly fascinates black people is, apparently, what we refer to as the backside. Hence, to “drop it like it’s hot” refers to dropping one’s backside quickly to the rhythm of a song, and catching it just before it touches the floor.

All this is just a small part of the “cultural enrichment” promised us by establishment politicians in the early days of multi-culti. There are now thousands of ways in which the English language has been distorted through its use by non-whites. In fact the situation is now so bad that, according to Dr Dominic Watt, a sociolinguistics expert from the University of York, and the author of ‘The Sounds of the Future’ report, there will be significant and permanent changes to our language by the middle of the century. It goes without saying that these “changes” will invariably be for the worse.

For example, blacks and asiatics have difficulty in pronouncing “th”, as in “the”, “mother” and “think”. The sounds that come out are the more primitive sounding “da”, “muvver” and “fink”. “This” becomes “dis” and “that” becomes “dat”. These people also can’t pronounce the letter “u” properly. So, for example, “beautiful” (not that they tend to use such a word very often) becomes “bootiful” and “duke” becomes “dook”.

In other areas of pronouncement, “red” becomes “wed”, and “real” becomes “weal”. And then there’s the hundreds or maybe thousands of new, primitive words, blacks use in their rap outpourings and, more and more, in their day-to-day language.

So fast is the alien population growing compared to Whites that this deterioration of the English language is now the mainstream way of speaking in many of our large towns and cities, where blacks and asiatics outnumber White Britons. You can imagine the long-term effects all this constant degrading of our beautiful language will have on it, and on our culture in general.

‘The Sounds of the Future’ report also covers the effect of modern technology, and in particular Social Media, on the English language, perhaps in an attempt to prevent accusations of “racism”. You can read more about Dr Watt’s findings here.