Tag: enoch powell

Immigration and the Conservative Party – they’ve lied since the 1950s

Immigration. After all those promises, the fruit of 14 years of Conservative Party rule is that immigration into the UK has hit an all-time high.
Martin Webster

These latest shocking immigration figures (according to a Daily Telegraph report linked to at the foot of this post) and the huge cost burden on Britain’s economy, built up after 14 years of Conservative Party rule.

The pro-Tory Party media assert “It might have been even worse had Labour been in power for the past 14 years”. But that is speculation. The fact is that it built up to current levels under a succession of Conservative Party governments.

Boris Johnson must take especial blame. Apart from not seriously attempting to “get Brexit done” as he promised  — he was so inactive on that front that he actually frustrated “a real Brexit”. He also ignored increasing immigration levels in order to please the Tories’ business backers who wanted, as ever, a constant supply of cheap labour.

Johnson still poses as a right-wing patriot, but in messages to London’s Jewish community in 2008, when standing for the leadership of the Greater London Council, he regaled them with details of his Turkish-Jewish ancestry and his ardent support for Jewry.

The by now traditional Conservative Party policy of betraying the British people over immigration was put into over-drive by Johnson’s successor, Rishi Sunak. He had made himself a billionaire as an executive of the Wall Street-based Jewish international usurers Goldman Sachs, and who is from an Indian-Hindu immigrant family. How could we expect a man with Sunak’s background to bear down on coloured immigration?

Out of office since last July, the Tories have recently elected an Afro-Nigerian woman, Kemi Badenoch,  — also big on anti-immigration promises — to lead them. In my first draft of this article I confused Badenoch with one of her competitors for the Tory leadership, the Asian Suella Braverman.

In a sense, my error made a point: The Conservatives are now so politically bankrupt and devoid of talent that in their recent leadership election they presented the membership with a choice between:

  • A Nigerian-African woman (Badenoch) whose husband is a Western Isles Scot;
  • An Asian woman (Braverman) whose husband, Rael Braverman, is a Jew. In a 2023 interview given in the HQ of the Jewish Community Security Trust (CST), Suella described her husband as “a proud Jew and Zionist”.
  • An apparently ethnically-British man, Robert Jenrick, who married an Israeli Jewess and whose children are being brought up as Jews. (This compares exactly with Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s marital arrangements); and
  • Tom Tugendhat, whose self-description is quoted in the left-leaning Wikipedia: “… a Catholic who identifies with Jewish people”. “Identifies”? What does that mean, exactly? His paternal grandfather was an Austrian Jewish émigré from Vienna, who converted to Catholicism — by no means the first Jew to do that, a fact which prompted the Roman Catholic Church in medieval times to create ‘The Holy Inquisition’, but I digress…

What a bunch!

This array of candidates perhaps explains a fact revealed in The Guardian’s 2nd November report of the Tory leadership election:

“The contest revealed Conservative party membership appears to have fallen by almost a quarter over the past two years with the 95,000 people who voted in this year’s contest a record low.”

MPs’ immigration vote stifled in 1950s

The Conservatives have been lying to the indigenous British people about “restricting” immigration since the days of the last Winston Churchill-led administration in the 1950s. By deploying a mixture of intimidation and bribery, that last Churchill government frustrated an effort by Sir Cyril Osborne MP to get the issue of coloured immigration debated in the House of Commons.

For full details of how they did that, see the last chapter of historian Andrew Robert’s 1994 book Eminent Churchillians. The chapter includes the memorable sentence:

“… and so the greatest demographic change in the entire history of the British nation was achieved without any democratic ratification whatever …”

I should add that Roberts — now ‘Lord’ Roberts — now wishes he had never written that book, as he has become a professional Jews’ lick-spittle and Tory Party toady.

During the 1990s Roberts was ‘right wing’ enough to entertain Ian Smith, former Prime Minister of Rhodesia, to dinners at his posh Chelsea home on occasions when Smith was in London. Smith’s government had in 1965 declared its ‘UDI’ in order to escape the catastrophe of Black majority rule since inflicted on South Africa.

I attach a photo of Roberts at a recent Hoover Institution panel in the USA, (2nd from left) along with like-minded other holders of the ‘Order of the Brown Nose’ such as British historian Niall Ferguson (4th from left), whose internationalist credentials include a black/Asian wife.

Plotting more immigration. L to R Peter Robinson, Andrew Roberts, Victor Davis Hanson, and Niall Ferguson at a Hoover Institution meeting in November 2024.
Plotting more immigration. L to R Peter Robinson, Andrew Roberts, Victor Davis Hanson, and Niall Ferguson at a Hoover Institution meeting in November 2024.

From the end of WW2 neither the Conservative Party nor the Labour Party has ever put into any of their general election manifestos a policy of turning Britain into a multi-racial society. So the British electorate has never been allowed to grant or deny a mandate for such a development. Thus the multi-racial horror that has been imposed on us has no democratic legitimacy. Moreover, laws were enacted to try and prohibit and criminalise trenchant criticism of multi-racialism.

What is democratic about any of that?

Allison Pearson gets ‘Knock-on-Door’

It is as a result of the attempt to criminalise “Racist Thought Crime” initiated by the Race Relations Act that the Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson got a ‘Knock on the Door’ from two members of Essex Police last Remembrance Sunday asking her to accompany them to the local Police Station.

The cops wanted her to make a statement concerning a Tweet she had posted a year ago on X which might have been a “Non-Crime Hate Incident”, or might even have been a full-blown act “… intended or likely to incite racial hatred, contrary to the Public Order Act as amended by the Race Relations Act…” — an ‘offence’ for which I was convicted on two counts and sentenced to six months in jail (suspended) by Mr Justice Figgis at Kingston Crown Court in 1978.

In her voluminous, self-congratulatory, writings about the incident, Ms Pearson does not indicate she has any awareness that the ‘Knock on the Door’ to which she was subjected was the inevitable (indeed, the “intended”) outcome of the thinking behind The Race Relations Act; or any idea that the Race Relations Act was:

  • a proposal circulated as a booklet during the 1950s under the title The Group Libel Bill by the Board of Deputies of British Jews; and then
  • developed by a team of Jewish lawyers into the first version of The Race Relations Act; and that
  • all subsequent amendments to that Act have all been drafted by Jewish lawyers with connections to the Board of Deputies.

Why, you may ask, are all these Jewish-connected matters so relevant to Ms Pearson?

This apparent ignorance of, or shyness about, the Jewish origins of the ‘Police State’ oppression about which Ms Pearson so rightly complains, is strange bearing in mind her close association with the Jewish community, as this item reveals.

When on 20th April 1968 Enoch Powell MP spoke up for the British people about immigration, the then Conservative leader Edward Heath sacked him from all his party posts and set about trying to get him de-selected from his Wolverhampton constituency. Eventually, Powell had to decamp to Northern Ireland to secure a Unionist-voting constituency to retain a place in the House of Commons.

Yet in the 1970 general election, when Heath became Prime Minister, the Conservative Party’s manifesto included six categorical promises to restrict immigration and regulate the settlement of those allowed to enter. Among these were that immigrants “would not automatically be granted permanent right of settlement” and would not be allowed to settle in places already over-burdened with immigrants.

Not the slightest attempt was made to implement any of those six promises — but then Heath was a notorious liar. How can we forget his assertion that “Membership of the European Common Market does not involve Britain in any loss of essential national sovereignty”! What is “non-essential national sovereignty”?

I should add that Powell helped me in May 1973 when I stood as the National Front candidate in a by-election for the West Bromwich constituency, achieving 16.02 per cent of the poll — the first time, before or after WW2, that a racial-nationalist candidate ‘saved a deposit’ in a UK Parliamentary election, which was then set at 12.5 per cent (nowadays it’s 5 per cent). Powell publicly refused an invitation to speak at a meeting held in support of the Conservative Party candidate who, like me, was beaten by the Labour Party candidate.

Thatcher’s “sympathy” for those who feared Britain was being “swamped”

In the run-up to the 1979 general election the Conservative leader Margaret Thatcher MP declared on TV how much she “sympathised with those who feared that Britain was being swamped by immigration”, thereby implying that if elected, she would take action to allay those fears. It was by that trick that she drew to the Conservative Party votes which might otherwise have gone to the National Front which had 303 candidates standing in that election.

Only seven weeks after the Conservatives’ election victory Mrs Thatcher allowed thousands of Vietnamese “refugees” to flood into Britain. So the first of the “boat people” arrived on Britain’s shores in 1979, not decades later, as many people imagine.

Thatcher justified this betrayal on the grounds that the Vietnamese were “entrepreneurs”. She was a one for cupboards full of cash!

On arrival, many of these Vietnamese did indeed turn to money-making enterprises: most notably — as numerous court reports bear witness — the factory-scale production of illegal drugs such as cannabis. They accelerated the growth of cannabis plants by using powerful lighting systems illegally linked to other peoples’ electric power supply! Very “entrepreneurial”!

Thatcher’s betrayal was perpetrated on the advice of civil servant Neville Nagler, head of the Home Office department which advised the government on race relations matters. On his retirement Nagler became the CEO of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

The British people must never again trust the Conservative Party on the issue of immigration. This is not a plea to support the Labour Party or the Liberal-Democratic Party. Far from it. All of these Establishment parties have conspired together, along with the mainstream media, international big business and sundry Socialist, Communist and Trotskyite parties, to convert our country into a multi-racial dump.

This is being done to Britain and other White-European nations not just to give international big business termite-style raceless, nationless cultureless colonies to exploit, but to achieve by means of immigration, race-mixing and miscegenation the elimination of White-European people as an ethnic group on this planet.

The big secret behind all this is that there is another ethnic group which sees itself as the rightful — indeed, the God-appointed “Chosen People” — to rule the world. They see White-European people as a threat to their destiny. Race-mixing — for all others, but not for themselves! — is their weapon of their choice.

A new and radical approach to reversing the treason and subversion that has been foisted on the indigenous British people — and White people generally — must be commenced, and very soon.

The questions arise: Does a vehicle exist to achieve that purpose – to stop immigration and commence orderly repatriation?

If not, how can it be constructed? What methods should it employ?

The Daily Telegraph report can be seen at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/28/net-migration-hit-nearly-one-million-last-year-170000-more/

 

A Race War Prophecy

Race War Prophecy

Ethnic Apocalypse: The Coming European Civil War
Guillaume Faye
Arktos, 2019.

"A confrontation has become indispensable if we are to resolve the problem, remediate the situation and free ourselves."

Guillaume Faye, Ethnic Apocalypse
This is a review by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D. of the last book written by the French “far-right” intellectual, Guillaume Faye, with the title of “Guerre civile raciale” (A Racial Civil War). It has a foreword written by Jared Taylor.

M. Faye sadly passed away in March 2019. He wrote this book knowing he had nothing to lose as he was dying anyway. It deals brutally with the nightmare that a growing number of European countries are gradually waking up to – the fact that when you have millions of Africans and Arabs, largely Muslim, of low IQ and with no record of stable civilisation, settle in White countries in numbers that are now outnumbering those of the native White population, then the result is not exactly going to be that everyone lives happily ever after.

Mr Joyce is in danger, in places in his review, of falling into the trap of summarising the book chapter by chapter, but that aside this review is essential reading for all genuine racial nationalists. We are obliged to The Occidental Observer for their permission in republishing this article, which was originally published at https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/09/08/a-race-war-prophecy/

The original post contained numerous footnotes that we have not been able to reproduce here for technical reasons. Readers are referred to the original post (link above) for those.

The celebrated French far-Right intellectual Guillaume Faye passed away in March, after a long battle with cancer, but not before leaving us a literary parting shot that deserves to be a bestseller. In his final book, Faye explores the demographic, cultural, political, and military degradation of France, drawing sobering lessons for the West as a whole. The book makes a number of stark and terrifying predictions that, when all current trends are taken into consideration, have an overwhelming probability of coming to fruition. Foremost among these predictions is that the West is now almost certainly destined to convulse with a savage and intense civil war (both civil and internal, both religious and racial) without parallel in the history of mankind. With all the dark candour one might expect from a dying man with nothing else to lose, Ethnic Apocalypse, or as it was published in French Guerre civile raciale (A Racial Civil War), is perhaps the most brutally frank, bitterly scathing, and searingly honest accounts of the current trajectory of the multicultural West that I’ve ever come across. The reader searches the text for euphemism, finding none. There are no evasions here; no duplicity in nomenclature. Faye doesn’t speak of cultural differences, or religious incompatibilities. He has little time for talk of assimilation and integration. The problem, he declares, “is neither ideological nor even religious in nature, but, in fact, anthropological. And so is the solution. The coming war will involve people who have nothing to say to one another and who should never have been made to live together”. A little over 50 years after Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech, Faye’s book is both a nod to Powell’s prescience, and a chronicle of the nascent ebbs and waves of a crimson tide that now seems fated to engulf us all.

The volume opens with a heartfelt preface by Jared Taylor, who appears to have been appropriately affected by its contents and describes the text as “certainly the darkest, bravest, and frankest book my friend has ever written. It is a brilliant analysis of the mortal threat to us of massive non-white immigration.” Arktos, the publisher of the English translation, then offer a brief note explaining the change in title from the “intentionally incendiary” French, pointing to the fact “the original title would render this book a magnet to our contemporary censors, who would work under the curious pretext, no doubt, that any book which speaks of a racial civil war in its title must surely be advocating the same”. It is a credit to Arktos that they haven’t changed anything other than the title of this book which, while not necessarily advocating for race war, certainly doesn’t shy away from considering or even desiring the positive results that might arise from such an eventuality. As Arktos make clear, “many of the ideas the reader will encounter herein are harsh and hard to look upon, but they are genuine and astute; they are a serious man’s assessment of what he regarded as a coming emergency of continental, if not global proportions”. And with the conclusion of these preambles, explanations, and caveats, Faye’s final book gets underway.

In the first chapter, “Diagnosis Before the Storm”, Faye outlines the fundamentals of the problem facing Europe and those of European origin. He begins with a list of murders and atrocities committed in France, including the slaughter of a priest by Muslims during Mass and massacres in Paris, Nice, and other provincial French towns. He points to an”ever-increasing criminality involving clearly identified perpetrators whose ethnic origins is often concealed by the official media”, and a “growing difficulty for the native population to coexist with African and Oriental immigrants who are increasingly aggressive, demanding and violent”. What surprises Faye is that “we have not yet registered any defensive reaction on the part of this formerly valiant people or that of other European countries, let alone the beginning of any sort of retaliation against Arab and black Muslims, who bear the sole responsibility for all of these crimes”. The response thus far has been that one “snivels and proceeds to place candles and flowers where massacres have occurred”, something that the author attributes to both a loss of collective energy (the lower socio-professional classes have been wearied by incoming populations whose “cruelty remains unequalled” and to a state that targets any identitarian awakening with repressive measures. Faye argues that Whites (he specifically uses the term throughout the text after stating “let us state the facts as they are”, are “leading miserable and exasperated lives, are weary of being deprived of their tranquility” but that “an unpredictable spark” may yet cause them in “a spirit of self-defence, to organise themselves and  ultimately launch a counter-offensive”.

Faye is unapologetic about speaking bluntly and specifically of race. He employs the term “as part of a sincere longing for accuracy”. Some people find the term disagreeable? The author responds:

Do you know what is really unpleasant, by contrast? Living your life surrounded by ten million, twenty million, or even a greater number of Africans and Arabs, with whom one never wanted to associate. What is very disagreeable indeed is acknowledging the thought that, soon enough, the people of our race, namely the Whites of Europe, will be a minority in their own lands. What is more unpleasant is our inability to describe the very horror of our situation without burdening our statement of the facts with foolish periphrases and politically correct words, all of which remain less expressive of what is crucial for us to say than of what one is required to say.

Again and again, Faye hammers home the racial reality of our situation, and is biting and scathing in his descriptions of those who have flooded Europe. He describes a reality where “our peaceful French men and women” are “mocked, attacked, raped and killed every day by individuals belonging to non-European races”. These “foreign and belligerent races” have “come to have their cake and eat ours”. They “want to reap the benefits of Western prosperity without having to make the same effort we have made in order to enjoy it, while simultaneously retaining their own identity and hating us most openly. They perceive us as being foreign and will continue to do so; it thus seems fair to me that we should regard them in the same manner”. For Faye, “these third-world immigrants are not worth a penny”, and African immigration to France, and more generally to Europe,”is an abomination and must be brought to an end as soon as possible”.

Faye reflects for several pages on the novelty of race war, remarking that while Europeans may in the past have driven back invaders and occupiers as part of a Reconquista movement that ended with the liberation of Greece in the early nineteenth century, these invaders “did not enjoy such demographic superiority” as they do in the present, and they were historically “perceived as foreign occupiers with their own army” rather than being embedded in our societies in the fashion they are today. Because of the overlapping elements (religion, race, and treason among Whites), Faye predicts that “this war will therefore be characterised by a very high intensity resulting from the multiplication of its explosive causes, since the conflict will simultaneously be a civil and internal one, an ethnic one, a religious one and a racial one. An unheard-of event in Europe”.

The author also remarks that the conflict is “probably inevitable”, due to the “huge and constantly accelerating wave of colonising immigration” and the fact most of these immigrants possess a “hatred combining resentment with a desire for revenge”.Tensions are building further because the secret services have designated the retaliatory actions of native groups, rather than Muslim or immigrant aggressors, as the main danger to French society, an aspect of what Faye calls the French state’s “Collaborationist Tropism.”.This is part of a much wider problem – the fact that in modernity “democracy imposes invasion upon peoples”. Citing Angela Merkel’s flooding of Germany with millions of non-Whites, Faye remarks: “The underlying purpose is for the system to impose upon ethnic peoples  – upon Whites, to be perfectly clear – an invasion at the hands of foreign masses of illegal immigrants and to force them to accept the destruction of their own living environment and culture.”Parliamentary democracy, in reality a “putrid oligarchy”, is “guilty of paving the way for an ethno-racial civil war not only in Western Europe (beginning with France itself), but perhaps also in the United States and Canada”.

Faye asserts that the worst possible progression would be that this mass invasion occurred “smoothly”, but that we have instead encountered “terrorist violence, delinquency and nuisance”. This has made it more difficult to disguise the fact “that a conflict with these foreigners is underway”. Conflict is therefore always preferable to “surrender without fighting – a progressive agony characterised by demographic and cultural disappearance, population replacement and Islamisation”. Faye is adamant in his insistence that

A confrontation has become indispensable if we are to resolve the problem, remediate the situation and free ourselves. In this regard, these Islamist provocations, whose purpose is to spark off a civil war, are dialectically positive for us Whites and perhaps even suicidal for them if the events result in our awakening. If one keeps pulling the sleeping tiger by the tail, it will awaken.

The book presents a racial civil war as potentially cathartic, solving “the generally delinquent, criminal, hostile, provocative and parasitic behaviour of a large part of these populations who, in all areas of our daily life, render all cohabitation unbearable” Faye argues:

It may turn out to be necessary to go through such events in order to salvage what is essential, because an ethnic and cultural war, in the event that we do emerge victorious, will rid us once and for all of the main problem, of the evil which, although never clearly formulated, is common knowledge to us all and has been gnawing at France and Western Europe: the immigration stemming from low-IQ Africa, the gradual colonisation of our territories, and the destruction of our identity. In short, our future disappearance from history books.

In the book’s next chapter, “The Conquest of Europe is Underway”, Faye surveys the recent influx of millions of Muslims into Europe, and points to some of those”degenerate whites and impudent Jews” who have orchestrated it and cheered it on. He describes the current phase of mass migration as “more important and much more serious than the two world wars of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 and Soviet Communism (1917-1991)”. These migrants “have no reason to be here at all yet are confident of their rights, turn out to be demanding and aggressive, never doubting the fact they shall remain unpunished, evade deportation and enjoy the assistance of both “humanitarian” associations and the state itself”. The author condemns the role of the Catholic Church in both offering and soliciting “humanitarian” aid for the migrants, and is clearly disgusted by the “complete traitor” Pope Francis, who is condemned in the text for his “complete lack of historical knowledge”, “Trotskyist views”,and “a rather delirious and insane conception of Christian charity”. Faye also presents the example of Jacques Attali, the economist and political advisor, as a demonstration of “impudent Jews” in action. He quotes Attali as writing the following for La Express in June 2018:

The only solution is for us to understand, as soon as possible, that it is in our interest to massively develop this neighbouring continent [Africa] and help accelerate its demographic transition; to organise the coming of migrants to Europe; and to create the necessary conditions [on European soil] to welcome and integrate millions of people into our cultures upon their arrival from this cradle of humanity.

In a chapter titled “The Omens of a Civil War”, Faye moves into an examination of instances in which low level ethnic conflict is already underway. This can be most clearly seen in the establishment of ethnic “no-go” zones in many European towns and cities, and their role as a hotbed for violence against police. Faye’s statistics for injuries suffered by French police in the course of deliberate ethnic ambushes and more general ethnic delinquency are sobering, running into the thousands every year. For Faye, these areas are not just “zones of lawlessness”, but in fact “invaded areas” that have been successfully conquered by foreigners, and are essentially no longer part of France. Although the security services have been successful thus far in preventing significant acts of French retaliation, Faye points to the June 2018 arrest of ten men and women (“for the most part family men, with no criminal history”) for planning attacks on mosques as an example of the fact that “tensions are indeed on the rise, as the country gradually turns into a powder keg”. In the author’s estimation, if such attacks were indeed to be carried out, “it would unleash a civil war upon us once and for all”.

The book’s third chapter, “The Ethnocidal Project Targeting European Peoples”, examines in more detail how life in White countries is being fundamentally changed for the worse. Faye defines ethnocide as “the destruction of a people through non-sanguinary, long-term and more pervasive processes, namely progressive immigration flooding; the destruction of one’s cultural identity and historical memory; repressive measures; spoliation; and, last but not least, the relegation of the indigenous population to a lower status”. Western governments are complicit in the ethnocide of their native peoples by refusing to act even in the face of “incessant neighbourhood riots”, “ritualistic and mass-scale car arsons”, “occasionally deadly attacks and ambushes targeting policemen, gendarmes, and firefighters”, “verbal or physical assaults committed against native French people”, “the violent harassment of White women in the streets”, “acts of aggression perpetrated against doctors”, schools falling “into the grip of daily violence”, and “the open and raucous appropriation of public spaces, followed by that of entire towns”. Faye asserts that the state and associated elites are complicit in the ethnocide of the European peoples because they desire to create a “new man”, “a necessarily anti-racist and mixed-race type of man”, and describes the figures behind this effort as “cosmopolitan elites” and “collaborationist court Jews”. Macron is specifically denounced as a Kalergi-praising product of “globalist support and Jewish funding”.

In predicting the battle lines of the future civil war, Faye asserts that the primary aggressors in Europe will be Muslims, with the main Muslim organisations coming to direct the activities of ethnic rioters throughout France. In the early stages, this camp will be assisted by collaborators in the form of leftist “journalists, officials or politicians at all national and local levels”, before support and financial aid is further provided by Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other countries “engaged in the Islamisation and colonisation of France”. Against this coalition, Faye posits that a substantial element of the police and gendarmerie will move into a retaliatory mode, joining “a growing number of exasperated Frenchmen with no ideological or political connections with the far Right, who could organise themselves into neighbourhood-based self-defence groups or structured militias”. After initial skirmishes, Faye asserts that a specific response to collaborationist efforts would be required and, in his discussion of “the origin of pro-migrant and anti-French elites”, Faye doesn’t shy away from explaining that Jews are a prominent collaborationist element in French society:

It must also be said that in both rightists and leftist parties, though admittedly far more often in the leftist spectrum, one encounters Jewish MPs, ministers, general councillors and mayors who, for the most part, define themselves as “citizens of the world”, or quite simply Jewish, rather than French. This is a rather unpleasant fact, since the nation they are supposed to love and serve with a patriotic heart is actually our own! As soon as the fate of Israel becomes more important than that of France in the words of the journalists, thinkers and politicians that are supposed to represent and be a part of our country, the result is a serious conflict of interest, one that I cannot fail to highlight.

The book’s fourth chapter, “Foreign Occupation”, is an extended indictment of multiculturalism from the point of daily, widespread ethnic delinquency. Faye rails eloquently against the “vindictive” state of mind of “the young Afro-Muslim population”, who comprise “entire groups of seasoned and trained juvenile delinquents that fear neither the police – whose members are highly demotivated, discouraged and spiritless – nor a lax justice system that finds itself unable to keep pace with them”. We learn that in France “90% of all minors and young adults involved in all conceivable forms of criminality stem from Afro-Arab immigration”. The young delinquents organise in a “primitive tribal pattern”, and “shall form the shock battalions of an already brewing racial civil war”. The majority of the White victims of these urban occupying tribes are young women, provoking Faye to remark, “In all cultures, the normal, vital reflex is to protect one’s women against any and all sexual assaults committed by foreigners. This, however, is not what we are witnessing in today’s Western Europe, whose members have now surrendered to complete mental weakness; it would indeed be racist and entirely reprehensible for us to ensure our women’s protection”. Faye rejects this weakness. For him, the matter is simple: any idea of a peaceful, multicultural living together with these groups is an irrational sham. “The only programme that one could envisage in their case is one where they would all travel back across the Mediterranean, regardless of any eggs broken along the way. A convivial living-together is only possible when it involves populations that are biologically and culturally related. Anything else is but a sham. We do not wish to live with these people. Period.”

The next two chapters focus specifically on the Islamic nature of the mass migration into Europe, and the Islamisation process as a whole. In Faye’s view, “Islam shall act as the sole banner, the sole emblem for the rallying, mobilisation and identification of non-European populations. It shall embody what some fight for and others against, even if – and because – what lies under its din and behind its blazing shadow is a haunting biologico-racial melody”. Faye clearly despises Islam, calling it “the poorest and the most mediocre of all human religions”, and jihad little more than a “form of delinquency”. He highlights the existence of an “Islamosphere” occupied not just by the Muslims themselves but by “French people who have chosen the path of collaboration”. These are leftists who “spread the idea that Muslims embody the new image of the oppressed”, and work in concert with Muslim, Black, and Jewish lobbying groups to “intimidate French people and discourage any and all French criticism and resistance against immigration invasion and Islamisation”. Such collaborators, including the Jews Edgar Morin and Emmanuel Todd, whom Faye briefly profiles, are “driven by a fierce hatred of France, its culture, its traditions, its deep-rooted provincial population, its ethnic people and its little white folk – described as a bunch of racist hicks - and have infiltrated our associations, our national education system (a very serious development indeed) and the media”. Although many of the immigrants are anti-Jewish, presenting something of a paradox, Faye reminds us that these Jewish activists have not “joined the pro-immigrational cause from rational reflection, but due to an emotional and irrational surge of hatred for their native France”. He continues, referring also to irrational support for Islamisation from feminists and the broader Left:

What particularly fascinates these dumbstruck Islamo-leftists, these defrocked Trotskyists, these intellectuals nursed in the lap of cultural Marxism, these old communists or crypto-communists that still hold Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin in high regard and venerate Mao, Pol Pot, the violence of the Reign of Terror (1792-1793), the Paris Commune of 1871 and the crimes committed by the Spanish Republicans, is something consubstantial with Islam, something that they have in common with the latter and that is the focus of their deference and adoration – the tropism of fanatical violence and totalitarianism, which remain correlated and inseparable. That is what they have been missing since the disappearance of “genuine” communism! And what Islam is now offering them is a similar dish, served bloody and on a silver platter.

In chapter 7, “As the Catholics Lose their Footing”, Faye takes aim at Pope Francis and institutional Catholicism which has acted as “the ferocious enemy of the ethnic identity of white Europe and the objective accomplice of the migrational invasion conducted under the banner of Islam”. Pope Francis is described as “both a traitor and a madman”. Particularly concerning is the existence of large numbers of otherwise right-wing and traditionalist Catholics who nevertheless waver on matters of race. For Faye, this is an unforgivable position that threatens to place such Catholics – prisoners of their own intellectualism and of an annoying sort of biological relativism – in an impossible situation in the eventual civil war. Faye explains:

It is all quite simple, actually: ask any patriotic Catholic if an African who also happens to be a patriot and has recently converted to Christianity should be sent home in the event of a mass de-migration process that would follow our side’s lightning-like assumption of power. You will see how long they hesitate before giving you an answer. There we have it! No, seriously now, hesitations of this order are no longer acceptable. We have no time to waste on such childishness. Foreigners are DIFFERENT FROM US and must return to their homeland as soon as possible.

The only dogma of concern to Faye is the simple fact that “in order to win a racial civil war, one must first be racist, regardless of whether one participate in it willingly or reluctantly. A racial AND civil war will involve violence, as well as terrible tragedy and injustice. An indigenous person must, however, choose other natives over all foreigners, rather than prefer some allogeneic “brothers in Christ”. In their desire to soften the hearts of the French people fighting them, many immigrants will attempt to play this card”.

The book’s eighth chapter, “The Jews Amidst the Racial War”, is the one I am most ambivalent about, and is perhaps the weakest in an otherwise outstanding volume. To begin with, it is one of the shortest chapters, and one senses that Faye was uneasy or uncomfortable tackling the subject “head on”, rather than in the asides and minor profiles he scattered throughout the book. The basic problem, as I see it, is that while Faye was rightly scathing of those who are so anti-Jewish (in a distorted fashion) that they see Muslims as their allies (he names Alain Soral as an example), he failed to see that he had actually fallen into the mirror image of that problem, despising Muslims with such tunnel vision that he came to see, and search for, Jews as allies – despite all the evidence of Jewish collaborationist activities that he himself would amass and discuss. This isn’t to say that Faye doesn’t hit some high notes in this chapter. He remarks that “the Jewish soul finds itself continuously torn between exacerbated particularism and a universalistic sort of tendency; between its ghettoised spirit and its conquering mindset”. He rightly concludes that “this results in a number of contradictory features: their seeking of peace and security while relishing the idea of being persecuted; their aspiration to dominate and proud acknowledgement of their intrinsic superiority, alongside their embracement of the image of a small people that is perpetually under threat”. But, showing remarkable ignorance of Jewish opinion polls and voting patterns that suggest overwhelming political affinities among Jews as a whole, he believes, foolishly in my opinion, that these Jews, “Court Jews”, can be quarantined from the rest of the Jewish population who are potential allies.

As for any idea that a Jewish Question exists:

There is, however, a serious analytical mistake made by numerous anti-Semitic writers, especially Kevin B. MacDonald – that of focusing on the psychological traits of Jewish intellectual movements that are in favour of cosmopolitanism, and of confusing these traits with the behavioural and mental patterns of the Jewish ethnicity. A growing proportion of “common Jews” are now rejecting both anti-racism and cosmopolitanism, partly in response to the Muslim-Arab invasion.

But Faye’s retort to MacDonald can only be regarded as, at best, anecdotal, and is flatly contradicted by, for example, my own analysis of Jewish representation in contemporary refugee and migrant organisations. MacDonald’s theory is also not of “the psychological traits of Jewish intellectual movements” (can intellectual movements have psychological traits?) but that a group evolutionary strategy in which the behavioural and mental patterns of the Jewish ethnicity can be observed in such movements. It’s clear that Faye was confused, and I suggest that his tunnel vision on the Muslim Question was the reason why. We might further consider his comment in the appendices of the book:

Judeocentrism [belief that a Jewish Question exists] is a hollow obsession whose causes, meaning and goals cannot be clearly defined. There are some who will claim that the reason I say this lies in my fear of the Jewish lobby, but I am not afraid of anything and am going to die soon. Over the years I have come to understand that the anti-Semitic reduction of all our current problems to the Jewish question is the most striking form of contemporary conspiracy theories.

And so, rather than reduce all of our current problems to the Jewish question (when has anyone on this site neglected to refer to Muslims, Blacks, or broader social decay including the failings of our own people?), Faye decided to reduce all of our current problems to the Muslim question. I must be clear in that I firmly believe that Faye is not guilty here of subversion or fear of the Jewish lobby. If I did, I would hesitate to recommend this book. Instead I see a paralysis-like error in thinking, brought about by a quite understandable reaction to the stark and visible Islamisation of France. This error (commonplace in countries with large and growing Muslim populations) comprises a small element of this excellent book, a few pages in a text more than 200 pages in length, and is in many places in the text quite contradicted by the “Judeocentric” material Faye himself cannot help but refer to. But I would neglect my duty as a reviewer for this website if I did not make it clear that one must have the flexibility of mind to be aware of all facets of the existing problem, and to avoid Faye’s potentially dangerous habit of seeing allies where they simply do not exist.

But this is a book about racial civil war, not the Jewish Question, and in the final three chapters Faye returns to this theme with a vengeance, producing some of the best content of the volume. In “Our Law Enforcement Organisations Are at the End of Their Rope”, the author explains that French police are already at the frontline of the earliest phases of the racial civil war. He relates a number of infuriating anecdotes, including that of a police officer disciplined and demonised for shooting an African in the leg to avoid being beaten to death by a 15-strong African gang, but particularly horrifying is the brutal June 2016 murder of a police couple, slaughtered by Arabs in their own home, in front of their child. Brushed under the carpet by the media and authorities, Faye sees the incident as a “barbaric assassination” that “takes on the symbolic meaning of a declaration of war, one that is obviously both ethnic and racist in nature”. Due to the refusal of the establishment to act in a rational manner against racial criminals, French police are resigning in large numbers, with almost 3,000 quitting the police force in 2017. Faye argues they “might end up joining a potential Popular Resistance in the coming civil war against the Occupation and its collaborators”. The rest, he asserts, “will have no difficulty in choosing sides”.

Chapter ten, “Race and Racism – At the Heart of the Coming Clashes”, concerns the total destruction of White lives under multiculturalism. Faye explains:

Maliciously targeted by Le Monde, Liberation, Mediapart, Telerama, and France Culture, these “petty Whites”, i.e. our people and indigenous lower classes, have been forced to embrace ethnic coexistence, an artificial living-together that our leaders themselves do not even practice. This fool’s bargain also implies a blatant disregard for democracy at the hands of this shitty republic’s governments – a republic that has, since 1974, been resorting to decrees to impose an immigration invasion upon the French people, going against the latter’s wishes and corrupting their dreams of tranquility.

Whites are saturated with the ideology of anti-racism which “is completely contradictory as a result of its bias and tendency to overvalue ‘coloured people’ to the detriment of Whites”, thereby contributing to “the profound racialisation of our society” and proving an “aggravating factor in an ethnic civil war characterised by its racial and racist dimensions”.  The increasing obviousness of racial antagonism in our societies is masked only via the efforts of Marxists in academia, government, and media who produce a steady stream of propaganda

for the sole purpose of intellectualising, blurring and thus rendering unsolvable the daily problems experienced by our French natives, who are forced to live among non-Whites. Our rulers impose immigration upon each and every one of us, as sociologists, psychologists, philosophers and other accomplices are seen on television in their fancy clothes and lovely little brown-nose glasses, telling us that it is all actually a blessing. The process of ethnic replacement is underway, but all is well, no problemo.

In the eleventh and final chapter, “How the War Shall Unfold – Possibilities and Predictions”, Faye uses the material discussed thus far to build a model of how a racial civil war will begin and proceed in France, and other nations in Europe. This is a thought-provoking and sobering piece of work. A brief summary here would inevitably do an injustice to Faye’s well-developed sequence of thought, but Faye certainly sees the origin of a future conflict in police confrontations, either involving Muslims claiming police brutality in response to their heightened delinquency or “following the death of some Black African scum”. Rioting is viewed by Faye as having every potential to bleed into sustained guerrilla warfare and, if it were to be prolonged long enough, Faye sees the potential for Antifa (leftist-anarchist troublemaker groups) to join forces against the police. The alliance will be short-lived since collaborators in the race war, even if the ethnic faction wins, will “not be given the position they hope for in this future society. Instead, what awaits them is death, humiliation, beatings and a state of modern slavery”.

Faced with an escalation of violence, including massive Islamic terrorist attacks funded and supported by Muslim countries, the only hope for Europe is that such events cause a shock “strong and traumatic enough to reverse mentalities”. In fact, Faye argues that this is the primary condition for possible victory, without which we are fated to slow replacement and ultimate defeat. He stresses the same precondition for the United States, which he warns will endure “severe turmoil, perhaps even partitions, in the course of the next century”.

Faye reflects for some time on the possibility that we would suffer defeat, and ponders what would become of the European peoples in the eventuality. I don’t want to linger on that here, though I encourage all those reading this review to read the book and let this particular section urge them on to renewed efforts for our cause. Instead, here, I want to focus on his more optimistic conclusion, “The De-Migration of the Afterwar”. Here the author offers a vision of White victory. He posits that the racial civil war would “through its unique violence, turn into an unprecedented collective trauma whose memory will echo across the centuries”. In other words, multiculturalism would never again be repeated by our descendants. There would be a “massive repatriation of African and oriental populations to their countries of origin”. It must be made possible, and must take place and commence very soon, because it is both necessary and vital. Let me state things clearly: whether willingly or by force, they shall indeed leave. This is not only my promise, but also my prognosis.

Despite his error on the Jewish Question earlier in the book, I leave the last words of this review to Guillaume Faye, who returns to the theme, despite himself and with wisdom, to close his magnificent book – a book I recommend to all readers of this site, and to whoever may encounter this review elsewhere:

These anti-racist and anti-White leftist Jews will have to watch their backs when the wind turns! They will have to consider the option of returning to the land of their ancestors once the just anger of European identitarians allows the latter to cleanse not only France, but also every other part of the West. This is not a threat, but a piece of advice.

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. NB This post was published in April 2018.

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.

Goodbye, England – The Crime Tsunami

Britain is being hit by a crime wave fuelled largely by highly organised gangs of lawless non-White youths, Eastern Europeans, South Americans and so-called “Travellers”.

Most of the victims are White – native Britons whose ancestors have lived in these islands for thousands of years.

Alarmingly, crimes involving physical violence, assaults, threats, and anti-social behaviour are spiraling out of control.

For example, on 4th April two men, part of a group of “travellers”, burgled a house in Hither Green, South-East London, where 78-year-old Richard Osborn-Brooks lived with his invalid wife. One of the men was Billy Jeeves, 28, and the other one Henry Vincent, 37. Vincent was killed with his own screwdriver following a struggle with the brave pensioner.

Both men were known to the police and had a string of violent offences to their names. What did the police do? They arrested Mr Osborn-Brooks on suspicion of murder! The subsequent public outcry forced them to release him and drop prospective charges, but only after they had kept him locked up in a police cell for two nights.

Now, because of threats received from the “travellers”, Mr Osborn-Brooks and his wife have had to abandon their home. They’ve had to accept being re-housed elsewhere, given a new identity, and living the rest of their lives under a cloud of fear that they may be recognised and suffer further violence or death.

“Hate Crime” Before Real Crime

The police now are more interested in political correctness, tackling so-called “hate crime” (a very nebulous and subjective concept), and placating ethnic minorities (apart from Whites) than in preventing real crime and catching real criminals.

Not so far away from Hither Green is the leafy suburb of Chislehurst, nestling on the border of North West Kent and South East London. This used to be a most desirable place to live, with its famous Chislehurst Caves and Chislehurst Common containing 180 acres of natural, unspoiled woodland.

But as the multi-racial nightmare enveloping London and other towns and cities throughout Britain has spread its tentacles further afield, so places like Chislehurst have been affected. They are now rapidly becoming areas where law-abiding citizens live in fear.

A recent development in crime is known as “spree burglary”, where criminals meticulously plan each burglary, following their intended victims on social media, and striking when the inhabitants, or most of them, are out or at their most vulnerable.

The burglary, often violent, lasts no more than 20 minutes or so because they know exactly what they are looking for. Three or four thugs carry out the raid, while a fifth sits in the getaway car. Their favoured method of breaking in is to smash their way in through the front or back door.

On one occasion the gang actually returned later to provoke the family and their friends, who were still at the front of the house waiting (and waiting) for the police to arrive. These people have no fear of being caught, or if they are caught, of being given any serious punishment.

In nearby Bromley there were 413 domestic break-ins in January and February 2018 alone. With no sign of the authorities doing anything about it these figures can only go up and up.

It’s not just burglaries, of course. All crime statistics now make for depressing reading.

Crime Rates Only Go Up

In 2017 youth homicide in London was up 70% on the previous year.

As at February 2018, knife crime is up 21% year on year, gun crime is up 44% since 2014 in London, and both robbery and reported rape are up 29% year on year in the country as a whole.

But the police have been busy. There have been around 3,400 arrests for “offensive” online comments in the last 12 months. So much for freedom of expression. But then we can’t have people making “offensive” online comments, can we? It might prompt ordinary White folk to get organised into getting rid of the politicians and taking their country back.

Of 40 categories of crime maintained by Scotland Yard, only six were marginally down in 2017. The rest have double digit increases over 2016.

According to ukcrimestats.com the total number of crimes “plus ASB” committed in England and Wales in January and February 2018 was 501,287. Note how anti-social behaviour is treated as if it’s not really a crime. There were 201,969 such cases in this period – over 40 per cent of the total.

But ASB isn’t top of the list of most-committed crimes. That coveted position is occupied by “Violent Crime”, with 243,408 cases – a mere 4,125 a day. “Violent Crime” is a comparatively new category of crime, separate from Robbery and Burglary, which themselves usually involve violence, or the threat of it.

Burglaries (including non-domestic), with 72,211 cases, looks to easily top 430,000 by the end of the year, even if there’s no increase in the monthly rate. Recorded sexual offences and violent crimes have more than doubled in three years. At the same time police numbers have continued to fall.

In the UK as a whole in 2017 there were 261,965 domestic burglaries. That’s over 700 every day. Only one in ten were solved. This is appalling. Burglaries were up 32% on 2016 in some places.

The Capital of Crime

In Greater London a majority of the population is now non-White. Violent crime there is even worse than in the rest of the country. As of 24th April 2018, at least 36 people have been fatally stabbed, and 62 overall unlawfully killed, in London since the beginning of the year. What has now become known as “knife crime” is endemic, with 12,980 such crimes having taken place in the capital last year – up 2,452 on the previous year.

Most of these crimes appear to be black-on-black. Of 35 named victims, only nine have English sounding names, and many of those may be black. London now has a higher murder rate than New York.

So how are the police proposing to deal with this nightmare situation and restore law and order? This is, after all, what they’re supposed to be there for. Well, new guidelines for the Metropolitan Police published in October 2017 say that, for example, burglaries should be probed only if the perpetrators use violence or trick their way into a property, while crimes involving a loss of under £50 should not be investigated at all unless there is an identified suspect.

Usually they don’t even bother to search for fingerprints following a burglary. I know that from when my house was burgled in 2015. They give you an incident number and then lose interest as other crimes are reported hour by hour.

The police tell us in all seriousness that crime levels now are lower then in the mid-1990s. Prime Minister Theresa May insists that “overall, traditional crime is continuing to fall”. Policing Minister Nick Hurd (Nick? Why not Nicholas?) claims crime has fallen but that the government is “very concerned” about the “uptick in the most serious violent crime.”

Welcome to Modern Crime

What, exactly, is “traditional” crime? Would it be where burglars sneak their way into a house while the occupants are out or watching television, creep around pocketing a few things, and finally creep back out again? Or where they run off at the sound of someone coming?

Well, if that’s “traditional” crime, and I suppose it was back in the 1960s or even the 1980s, then Theresa May is right. That kind of crime is now rare. Instead we have gangs of foreigners smashing their way into homes through the front door, sending shards of glass everywhere, and terrorising adults and children into telling them where the valuables are.

Then there’s the gangs of black and mixed-race youths creating “no-go” zones in daytime as well as at night in our towns and cities. Another new benefit of the multi-racial society is a knife-crime spree with blacks knifing each other and anyone else who gets in the way, with a complete disregard for life and limb.

We mustn’t forget the horrendous crimes committed by gangs of Asians against young, vulnerable White girls – rape, assault, murder by arson, sex trafficking (forcing them into prostitution), and more – in Rochdale, Dewsbury and elsewhere, which is too huge a subject to cover here.

To be sure, things were bad in the 1990s, but they are much worse now, and there’s no sign of any improvement. Police Federation of England and Wales General Secretary Andy Fittes (Andy? Why not Andrew?) says, “To say crime has fallen is smoke and mirrors.”

It’s no coincidence that the collapse of law and order and the descent of many parts of the country into complete chaos and anarchy is taking place at this time in our history. It’s some three or four generations after the “Windrush Generation”, which we’ve heard so much about recently in the mainstream media. If you plant millions of disaffected non-Whites in our formerly homogenous country, the result after seventy of so years cannot fail to be very different from what we have now. A society fragmented and disintegrating, drowning in black and mixed race crime.

When liberal bigots tell us blacks descended from immigrants who arrived in our country early on deserve “compensation” for imagined grievances they are adding insult to injury. If the descendants of these people, both black and mixed race, were removed from the population then the crime rate would plummet. We would all be able to live easier, more relaxed lives, able to go out once more at any time of the day or night and not have to worry about being mugged, raped, threatened, or having our homes trashed while we’ve been out. And our children would be much safer from the threat of drugs.

As it is, our larger towns and cities are rapidly become battle zones. Even the countryside is becoming a crime infested area, with farmers being subjected to theft of machinery and livestock, usually by night, and arson attacks on crops and haystacks becoming commonplace. Not many criminals are arrested for these crimes, but when they are they adorn our TV screens with foreign features and eyes full of defiance and hate.

No Escape from Crime

If the perpetrators are “travellers”, which in the countryside they often are, the police are scared to investigate. They don’t want to be accused of “racism”, and they shrink from the prospect of a pitched battle with dozens, or even hundreds, of “travellers”, if they try to recover stolen property from one of their camps.

This is modern organised crime. Cars, farm tractors and other such machinery, and valuable goods of all kinds are stolen to order and in many cases shipped out of the country within hours. The ringleaders are millionaires, feeding off law abiding citizens, and doing nothing to justify their existence.

Our great country and its indigenous Anglo-Celtic folk, whose ancestors have lived here for thousands of years and have defended our shores against those who would take our country from us, need protection.

But first we have to face truths which should be obvious to any thinking person. Such as that the multi-racial society, with its unlimited immigration and ghettos of non-Whites, travellers’ communities and no-go areas, spiraling black and mixed-race birth rates, shrinking White births, violence and astronomical expense, is a complete disaster and should be brought to an immediate end. It was never sanctioned by ordinary White folk in any event.

Who in their right mind can now deny that Enoch Powell, who 50 years ago foresaw what was going to happen, was wrong?

Establishment politicians and the mainstream media refuse to accept what ordinary White folk are realising more and more with each passing day. That wherever there are substantial numbers of non-Whites, especially blacks and “travellers”, there is crime. Predominantly it’s violent crime, hence the recent addition of this category alongside robbery, burglaries, and all the rest of them.

White-on-black crime is rare, but when it does occur it is played up in the mainstream media. We discuss this particular phenomena in this post. It’s all over the BBC and ITV News and in all the headlines of all the newspapers. Black-on-White crime is a daily occurrence, and much of it is horrific, such as at Rochdale and Dewsbury. But this is always played down by the media. They just don’t want us to know about it.

This is exemplified by the different ways in which the deaths of two young people, Stephen Lawrence in April 1993, and Richard Everitt in August 1994. Lawrence was black, murdered, allegedly, by a gang of Whites, and Everitt was White, murdered by a gang of Bengalis. Click here for a brief summary of the different ways in which these two deaths were treated by the mainstream media.

We need a declaration of war on crime. The MacPherson Report, which followed the Enquiry into Stephen Lawrence’s death, effectively disarmed the police in the fight against non-White crime. It should be dumped. Proper measures should be brought in to deal with the crisis. A new citizens’ militia should be formed, fully armed, to protect our elderly and other vulnerable folk.

But nothing will be done as long as establishment politicians are in charge. They aren’t racial nationalists. They don’t identify with the indigenous White British. They haven’t the will to deal with these enormous problems, and they don’t feel the need. As long as people continue to vote for them at election time then, living in their secluded, gated hideaways, and taking plenty of money out of the trough, why should they worry?

Muhammad tops London

The BBC and Other Media versus The Truth

This series of articles was first written in early 2018, so please bear in mind that some of the content may appear somewhat dated.
The following is an Open Letter to the BBC's Points of View on the Media Coverage of Black Crime from Will Wright

Subject: Race and immigration ... and a suggestion for an interview documentary

7th May 2018

Dear BBC

There have been quite a few stories about race or immigration in the news lately: the fiftieth anniversary of Enoch Powell’s speech, the twenty fifth anniversary of the Stephen Lawrence killing, the Windrush controversy, Boris Johnson’s suggestion of an illegal immigrant amnesty and Prince Harry to marry a mixed-race American citizen, among others.

One of the most controversial is the great many black-on-black knife murders in London since stop and search was abolished. On your website page at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-43491155/police-are-black-knife-deaths-being-ignored you write, “Knife deaths aren’t causing the outrage they should because the majority of victims come from black communities, a top UK officer says”.

It seems to me that this top policeman has got things the wrong way around. The reason the knife murders are not causing more outrage is because the majority of the killers come from black communities. It further appears to me that white liberals become very upset on the rare occasion that white people kill a black victim, as with Stephen Lawrence who is remembered twenty five years later.

What of all the young white men stabbed by blacks? Forgotten. All the black-on-black killings? White liberals would rather ignore this embarrassing phenomenon.

Mark Easton’s piece on 5th April is titled, “London killings: no easy answers to gun and knife crime”. I am inclined to agree with you that this is not easily sorted out. However, I would like to offer some unfashionable solutions.

How about the reintroduction of capital and corporal punishment? If someone was convicted of murder then they should hang. This should apply whoever the murderer is, whoever the victim is. There would be controversial cases when the murderers were of a different race to the victims. But a brave government would implement this and brave judges would pass the death sentence on murderers.

Furthermore, I would reintroduce stop and search. If someone was found to be in possession of a knife, then they should be birched.

None of this would be “easy” (I agree with your headline writer), but I believe that over time things would get better on the streets of London.

Moving on to something even more controversial – Enoch Powell’s historic speech. In that speech, Powell advocated repatriation of non-whites. Most commentators today seem to dismiss the speech as “extreme” and suggest that Powell got it wrong.

But did he? We have predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs in many northern towns and cities targeting under-age white girls. Does anyone in the mainstream media dare to suggest that this is racial hatred or pedophilia? They would if white gangs were targeting black or Asian girls.

Surveys have suggested that one in five Muslims in Britain have at least some sympathy with Islamic terrorist groups – that is about 400,000 people. Among the Muslim community are some who hate Britain and the West and would blow us up given the chance. But we don’t know who they are, where they are, or when they will strike.

Then there are the violent Afro-Caribbean elements already mentioned.

I expect that the BBC believes that there are no easy answers and I agree. But there is a difficult but necessary answer: Enoch Powell’s answer, repatriation.

It is my belief that if the United Kingdom does not stop all non-white immigration and start a programme of phased repatriation quite soon, then white people will cease to be a majority in our own country. Eventually we would become extinct. This would happen through immigration of non-whites, emigration of whites, a higher non-white birth rate and interbreeding among whites and non-whites. Worst case scenario – there could even be a massacre of a minority white population.

Repatriation of non-whites should begin with known terrorists and convicted criminals. In any sane country it would go without saying that all illegal immigrants are automatically criminals and should be deported immediately.

Those non-whites who have led law-abiding lives should be treated as humanely as possible. But there will be difficult cases and that should not deflect us, as a country, from doing what is necessary for our survival as a white country.

Liberals and cultural Marxists seem to want non-white countries to belong to their indigenous populations – but all white countries to become multi-racial. I believe that if the white people of the world perish then, in time, this will be followed by the death of modern civilisation.

Many believe that most BBC news and political journalists are left-wing. I believe this too. But I also believe that most are very professional and try to put aside their personal opinions and be objective. I do think, however, that it must be difficult to do this and get outside of the left-wing groupthink.

I recently saw a documentary, on RT, presented by George Galloway, about the “far-right”. I did not think that was objective or fair – but Galloway did interview Martin Webster, the former National Activities Organiser of the Seventies National Front. Webster was shown for a few minutes during a half-hour programme.

So how about the BBC interviewing Martin Webster about his views on repatriation of non-whites? It would be better viewing if the whole half hour documentary concentrated on an interview, rather than showing NF marches from the Seventies. The BBC must be able to do this better than Galloway and RT.

Will Wright

RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Twitter