‘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”?

Enoch Powell’s Wake-Up Call 20th April 1968 – Full Text

To mark the 50th anniversary of Enoch Powell's first "Wake-Up Call" speech delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on 20th April 1968 we reproduce below the text of that speech.

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.

Editor's Note: You will note that there is no reference in this speech to "rivers of blood", yet the controlled media have managed to have it branded as such. Enoch Powell may not have been a true racial nationalist, but posterity will recognise him for being an honest man who clearly tried to warn us of what was happening to our country.

Tyranny at Nuremberg

The following study was published in Paul Craig Roberts’ blog on Saturday 12th August 2017

Update Aug. 12, 2017: Here is David Irving’s account of his arrest, trial,
and imprisonment in Austria. His conviction was overturned by a higher
court, and he was released. http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Banged/up.pdf
The show trial of a somewhat arbitrarily selected group of 21 surviving
Nazis at Nuremberg during 1945-46 was US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson’s show. Jackson was the chief prosecutor. As a long-time admirer of Jackson, I always assumed that he did a good job.

My admiration for Jackson stems from his defence of law as a shield of
the people rather than a weapon in the hands of government, and from
his defence of the legal principle known as mens rea, that is, that crime
requires intent. I often cite Jackson for his defence of these legal
principles that are the very foundation of liberty. Indeed, I cited Jackson
in my recent July 31 column. His defence of law as a check on
government power plays a central role in the book that I wrote with
Lawrence Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

In 1940 Jackson was US Attorney General. He addressed federal
prosecutors and warned them against

“….picking the man and then putting investigators to work, to
pin some offence on him. It is in this realm — in which the
prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to
embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and
then looks for an offence — that the greatest danger of abuse
of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement
becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being
unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being
attached to the wrong political views or being personally
obnoxious to, or in the way of, the prosecutor himself.”
[emphasis added by MW]

Later as a Supreme Court justice Jackson overturned a lower court conviction of a person who had no idea, or any reason to believe, that he had committed a crime.

Having just finished reading David Irving’s book Nuremberg (1996), I
am devastated to learn that in his pursuit of another principle, at
Nuremberg Jackson violated all of the legal principles for which I have
so long admired him. To be clear, at Nuremberg Jackson was in pursuit
of Nazis, but their conviction was the means to his end — the
establishment of the international legal principle that the initiation of war, the commitment of military aggression, was a crime.

The problem, of course, was that at Nuremberg people were tried on
the basis of ex post facto law — law that did not exist at the time of their
actions for which they were convicted.

Moreover, the sentence — death by hanging — was decided prior to the
trial and prior to the selection of defendants.

Moreover, the defendants were chosen and then a case was made
against them. Exculpatory evidence was withheld. Charges on which defendants were convicted turned out to be untrue.

The trials were so loaded in favour of the prosecution that defence was
pro forma. The defendants were abused and some were tortured.

The defendants were encouraged to give false witness against one
another, which for the most part the defendants refused to do, with
Albert Speer being the willing one. His reward was a prison sentence
rather than death.

The defendants’ wives and children were arrested and imprisoned. To
Jackson’s credit, this infuriated him.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, General Eisenhower, and Winston
Churchill thought that surviving Nazis should be shot without trial.
Roosevelt laughed about liquidating 50,000 German military officers. Eisenhower told Lord Halifax that Nazi leaders should be shot while trying to escape, the common euphemism for murder. Russians spoke of castrating German men and breeding German women to annihilate the German race. US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau wanted to reduce Germany to an agrarian society and send able-bodied Germans to Africa as slaves to work on “some big TVA project”.
[emphasis added by MW]

Robert Jackson saw in these intentions not only rank criminality among
the allied leadership but also a missed opportunity to create the legal
principle that would criminalize war, thus removing the disaster of war
from future history. Jackson’s end was admirable, but the means
required bypassing Anglo-American legal principles.

Jackson got his chance, perhaps because Joseph Stalin vetoed
execution without trial. First a show trial, Stalin said, to demonstrate their
guilt so that we do not make martyrs out of Nazis.

Whom to select for the list of 21-22 persons to be charged? Well, whom
did the allies have in custody? Not all those they desired. They had
Reichsmarschall Herman Göring who headed the air force. Whatever
the valid charges against Göring, they were not considered to be
mitigated by the fact that under Göring the German air force was mainly
used against enemy formations on the battleground and not, like the US
and British air forces in saturation terror bombing of civilian cities, such
as Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, or by the fact that in
Hitler’s final days Hitler removed Göring from all his positions, expelled
him from the party, and ordered his arrest.

The Nuremberg trials are paradoxical in that the law Jackson
intended to establish applied to every country, not to Germany
alone. The ex post facto law under which Germans were sentenced
to death and to prison also criminalized the terror bombing of
German and Japanese cities by the British and US air forces. Yet,
the law was only applied to the Germans in the dock. In his book,
Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden (1995), Irving quotes
US General George C. McDonald’s dissent from the directive to
bomb civilian cities such as Dresden. Gen. McDonald characterized the directive as the “extermination of populations and the razing of cities”, war crimes under the Nuremberg standard.
[emphasis added by MW]

They had foreign minister Ribbentrop. They had field marshals Keitel and Jodl and the grand-admirals Raeder and Dönitz. They had a German banker, who was saved from sentencing by the intervention of the Bank of England. They had a journalist. They had Rudolf Hess who had been in a British prison since 1941 when he went to Britain on a peace mission to end the war. They wanted an industrialist, but Krupp was too old and ill. He was devoid of the persona of a foreboding evil. You can read the list in Irving’s book.

Göring knew from the beginning that the trial was a hoax and that his
death sentence had already been decided. He had the means (a poison
capsule) throughout his imprisonment to commit suicide, thus depriving
his captors of their planned humiliation of him. Instead, he held the
Germans together, and they stood their ground. Possessed of a high
IQ, time and again he made fools of his captors. He made such a fool of
Robert Jackson during his trial that the entire court burst out in laughter.
Jackson never lived down being bested in the courtroom by Göring.

And Göring wasn’t through with making his captors look foolish and
incompetent. He, the field marshalls and grand admiral requested that
they be given a military execution by firing squad, but the pettiness of
the Tribunal wanted them hung like dogs. Göring told his captors that he
would allow them to shoot him, but not hang him, and a few minutes
before he was to be marched to the gallows before the assembled
press and cameras he took the poison capsule, throwing the execution
propaganda show into chaos. To this injury he added insult leaving the
prison commandant, US Col. Andrus a note telling him that he had had
3 capsules. One he had left for the Americans to find, thus causing
them to think his means of escaping them had been removed. One he
had taken minutes prior to his show execution, and he described where
to find the third. He had easily defeated the continuous and thorough
inspections inflicted upon him from fear that he would commit suicide
and escape their intended propaganda use of his execution.

There was a time in Anglo-American law when the improprieties of the
Nuremberg trials would have resulted in the cases being thrown out of
court and the defendants freed. Even under the ex post facto law and
extra-judicial, extra-legal terms under which the defendants were tried,
at least two of the condemned deserved to be cleared.

It is not clear why Admiral Donitz was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
The chief American judge of the Tribunal, Francis Biddle, said: “It is, in my opinion, offensive to our concept of justice to punish a man for doing exactly what one has done himself.” “The Germans,” Biddle said,
“fought a much cleaner war at sea than we did.”

Jodl, who countermanded many Nazi orders, was sentenced to death.
The injustice of the sentence was made clear by a German court in
1953 which cleared Jodl of all Nuremberg charges and rehabilitated him
posthumously. The French justice at the Nuremberg Tribunal said at the
time that Jodl’s conviction was without merit and was a miscarriage of
justice.

The entire Nuremberg proceeding stinks to high heaven. Defendants
were charged with aggression for the German invasion of Norway. The
fact was kept out of the trial that the British were about to invade
Norway themselves and that the Germans, being more efficient, learned
of it and managed to invade first.

Defendants were accused of using slave labour, paradoxical in view of
the Soviets own practice. Moreover, while the trials were in process the
Soviets were apparently gathering up able-bodied Germans to serve as
slave labour to rebuild their war-torn economy.

Defendants were accused of mass executions despite the fact that the
Russians, who were part of the prosecution and judgment of the
defendants, had executed 15,000 or 20,000 Polish officers and buried
them in a mass grave. Indeed, the Russians insisted on blaming the
Germans on trial for the Katyn Forest Massacre.

Defendants were accused of aggression against Poland, and Ribbentrop was not permitted to mention in his defence the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that divided Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union, without which Germany could not have attacked Poland. The fact that the Soviets, who were sitting at Nuremberg in judgment on the Germans, had themselves invaded Poland was kept out of the proceedings.

Moreover, without the gratuitous British “guarantee” to Poland, the
Polish military dictatorship would likely have agreed to return territories
stripped from Germany by the Versailles Treaty and the invasion would
have been avoided.

The greatest hypocrisy was the charge of aggression against Germany
when the fact of the matter is that World War 2 began when the British
and French declared war on Germany. Germany conquered France and
drove the British from the European Continent after the British and
French started the war with a declaration of war against Germany.

Irving’s book is, of course, politically incorrect. However, he lists in the
introduction the voluminous files on which the book is based: Robert
Jackson’s official papers and Oral History, Francis Biddle’s private
papers and diaries, Col. Andrus’ papers, Adm. Raeder’s prison diary,
Rudolf Hess’ prison diary, interrogations of the prisoners, interviews
with defence counsel, prosecutors, interrogators, and letters from the
prisoners to their wives. All of this and more Irving has made available
on microfilms for researchers. He compared magnetic tape copies of
the original wire-recordings of the trial with the mimeographed and
published transcripts to ensure that spoken and published words were
the same.

What Irving does in his book is to report the story that the documents
tell. This story differs from the patriotic propaganda written by court
historians with which we are all imbued. The question arises: Is Irving
pro-truth or pro-Nazi. The National Socialist government of Germany is
the most demonized government in history. Any lessening of the
demonization is unacceptable, so Irving is vulnerable to demonization
by those determined to protect their cherished beliefs.

Zionists have branded Irving a “holocaust denier”, and he was convicted
of something like that by an Austrian court and spent 14 months in
prison before the conviction was thrown out by a higher court.

In Nuremberg, Irving removes various propaganda legends from the
holocaust story and reports authoritative findings that many of the
concentration camp deaths were from typhus and starvation, especially
in the final days of the war when food and medicine were disappearing
from Germany, but nowhere in the book does he deny, indeed he
reports, that vast numbers of Jews perished. As I understand the term,
a simple truthful modification of some element of the official holocaust
story is sufficient to brand a person a holocaust denier.

My interest in the book is Robert Jackson. He had a noble cause — to
outlaw war — but in pursuit of this purpose he established precedents for American prosecutors to make law a weapon in their pursuit of their
noble causes just as it was used against Nazis — organized crime convictions, child abuse convictions, drug convictions, terror
convictions. Jackson’s pursuit of Nazis at Nuremberg undermined the
strictures he put on US attorneys such that today Americans have no
more protection of law than the defendants had at Nuremberg.

 

Book Review – Brave New World

I’ve always been rather suspicious of Aldous Huxley, even though his semi-phrophetic Brave New World was a wake-up call of a kind to a world that even then, in 1931, was well on its way to disaster. His subsequent Brave New World Revisited, a non-fiction work extending and commenting on the ideas he introduced in the earlier book, was one of the eight books I had to study in the mid-1960s for my A level English course.

Born in 1894 into a famous scientific and literary family, Huxley became a member of the Bloomsbury Set, through which he met Bertrand Russell. He was a friend of D.H. Lawrence (one of whose books, Sons and Lovers, I had to endure reading through several times for the same cherished A level qualification), and actually taught Eric Blair (who wrote 1984 under the pseudonym of George Orwell) at Eton in the 1920s.

But back to Brave New World. In this short book (201 pages), Huxley postulates a nightmare world set not so very far into the future. In fact he set it at 600 years ahead when he wrote it in 1931, revising it to only around 100 years just 15 years later.

Huxley’s main thesis in this novel is that if we don’t control science then we will end up being controlled by it. In Brave New World there is a World Government with regional directors, which controls everything, from how many people are born and their genetic makeup and characteristics, to the activities carried out by everyone, whether industrial/productive or recreational.

The sole purpose, supposedly, of this set-up is to ensure that everyone is “happy”. And that is achieved by relieving everyone of any kind of hardship. All decisions, all challenges, all distractions, are eliminated, and if any of the mechanisms by which that is achieved fails, then there is always soma, the drug fed to everyone at regular intervals to keep them calm and relaxed. A kind of marijuana in tablet form, that induces a mindless contentment, and keeps the population docile.

Everything to do with the natural instincts towards proper social cohesion – marriage, family, childbirth in particular, is abhorred, and regarded as obscene. Sex is seen as a harmless pleasure to which everyone is entitled, even children, and has nothing to do with settling down and raising a family. Huxley certainly foresaw the permissive society of the sixties, with its sexual promiscuity, and its logical result.

Reproduction is purely a mechanical process of collecting ova and sperm from selected individuals and fertilising it all in a laboratory. Natural birth is outlawed and birth control compulsory. The individual, whose happiness is supposed to be the sole purpose of human existence is in fact of no significance whatsoever when it comes to the requirements of the World State.

We’re introduced straight away to the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre, where the Director himself is showing some new students around. The embryos are shunted along, day by day, and treated with all the chemicals required, at the appropriate times, to make them into ideal world citizens specially adapted for the tasks that await them.

The luckiest are the Alphas, who can expect to be among the elite of the ruling class, living a life of luxury, being waited on, and helping run the planet. The unluckiest are the Epsilons – the slave class of morons, who do all the monotonous, unpleasant, dirty jobs. They are produced usually by the hundred in the form of identical clones.

Uncannily accurate in a way. Today we have the Superclass of David Rothkopf, and a growing underclass of raceless, moronic hip-hop drug addicts who haven’t a clue how to behave in a civilised manner. The difference is, of course, that at least the Epsilons of Huxley’s Brave New World contributed their labour to society, whereas our own moron class contributes nothing, but is actually supported by productive, intelligent White people.

That brings up another point. Race is nowhere mentioned in the novel other than in passing references to negroes and nationalities here and there. In 1931 race wasn’t the issue it has been for many years now, but it does seem strange that it was so completely missed by Huxley. Perhaps that was intentional. But I digress.

Grown on a bed of peritoneum and injected at intervals with placentin, thyroxin, and any one of several other chemicals, the embryos of Brave New World are eventually “decanted” as babies, and mercilessly conditioned and brainwashed with sleep-messages, according to their predestined role in life. Those that will be tropical workers are conditioned to hate the cold and love heat, and innoculated against tropical diseases. Embryos of future moronic sewage workers, for example, are deprived of oxygen at times to ensure their intelligence is not too high for the destiny in store for them. Anything to prevent their unhappiness.

One problem that this horrific society has failed to solve so far is the wasted years of childhood. Whilst they can make children become sexually mature at four, and grown to full adult size by six and a half, they haven’t managed to make these poor children mentally mature as adults at an equally early age. What a pity!

The plot itself is really of marginal importance in a book like this, written as a warning to civilization, to all of us individually, of what we may be sleepwalking into if we don’t do anything to oppose it. It’s always extremely difficult for anyone, even someone like Huxley, who was well-informed of all the latest scientific developments of his day, to forecast the world of the future – how it will function on an everyday level, how people will travel and communicate, but that doesn’t really matter.

What matters is whether the warning is justified, and whether, if it is justified, any notice will be taken of it by anyone who is in a position to do anything to prevent it. And, of course, whether he is warning us of the real danger, or just one of its by-products.

Even now, our children are brainwashed into believing in organisations like the United Nations and the so-called European Union, both of them embryo World Governments. To make it worse, we do nothing while the more intelligent of us (Whites) fail to replenish our numbers generation by generation. Meanwhile, the least intelligent (non-Whites) nearly all have four, five, six children or more, all supported, financially and socially, by . . . the diminishing number of intelligent people.

This is the actual problem we have to deal with, rather than Huxley’s Brave New World nightmare, but it is no less horrific, and the price, for our grand-children, of our shrinking, cowardly, away from it doesn’t bear thinking about.

John Northwind