Category Archives: invasion

Helping Boris Johnson to understand why foreigners “get all the jobs”

Mr Boris Johnson

Mayor of London

Greater London Authority

City Hall

The Queen’s Walk

More London

London SE1 2AA

Telephone: 020 7983 4100

Minicom: 020 7983 4458

Fax: 020 7983 4057

Email: mayor@london.gov.uk

17 5 2012

Dear Mr Johnson ,

Shortly after you were re-elected as Mayor you made a promise to conduct  “an honest and unflinching” investigation “ into why London jobs are overwhelming going to foreigners (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9249748/Why-do-foreigners-get-all-the-jobs-asks-Boris-Johnson.html).  Let me explain why it is happening.

1. Loss of control of Britain’s borders.  Britain has given away control over its borders through membership of the EU,  the signing of  treaties relating to the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on Refugees  and the passing of the  Human Rights Act.   Regain control of our borders and the problem is solved,  because then foreigners can be excluded from British jobs.

2.  The costs and control of workers. British Employers find foreign workers are cheaper to employ (see 3), easier to control and  less difficult to lay off.

3.  Immigrants generally have less responsibilities than  Britons.  The rapidly rising property prices and rents and falling wages  often make it impossible for a Briton who has social obligations such as a family to support to take those jobs because they  do not provide the  means to support a family.  Most of the immigrants who have come in in recent years, especially those from Eastern Europe,  are young men with no obligations beyond supporting themselves.  They are able , even on the minimum wage (many are working cash in hand and pay no tax and National Insurance) , to save a few thousand per year  and that money in their own country is worth multiples of  what it is worth in Britain.  Accordingly,  immigrant workers  can  work for a few  years in Britain and save enough to buy a property in their own country. (Give Britons the chance to go abroad and earn enough to buy a  house in Britain and you will be trampled in the rush). In short,   there is not a level playing field between British and foreign workers.

 4. Illegal immigrants. A  substantial proportion of the jobs, especially the low and unskilled,  are going to illegal immigrants who are even more  vulnerable to demands from employers .   As a retired Inland Revenue  officer I can vouch  from my personal experience  that there are huge numbers of  illegal immigrants working in London.

5. Foreign gangmasters . Where gangmasters  and their ilk are used  they are often foreign and only recruit people of their own nationality, race, religion or culture.

6. Foreign companies and multinationals  in Britain bring  in their own people . (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9111116/30000-foreign-workers-entered-UK-under-transfer-schemes.html)

7. Companies run by ethnic minorities in Britain. They have a strong tendency to bring in from abroad people of their own ethnic background. Especially strong instances of this are the London Rag Trade and ethnic restaurants.

6. Employment by word of mouth –  When foreign workers gain a foothold in a  business they recommend  people they know for jobs  there or encourage their friends and acquaintances to apply for jobs. Being foreign,  the people they recommend will normally be other foreigners, especially those of their own nationality.  It does not take long for a place of work to become largely or wholly foreign staffed with this type of recruitment.

Sometimes the employer colludes with the foreign staff to exclude Britons, for example, Pret a Manger, who have next to no rank-and-file British staff working in London use as part of their selection process a vote  by the staff of a shop where a potential trainee has had a trial as to whether the trialist  should be taken on.  It does not take too much imagination to suspect that foreign workers will work for other foreign workers if there is a choice between them and a Briton. (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-24030067-why-cant-a-brit-get-a-job-at-pret.do)

8. Corrupt practices. Agencies which supply foreign workers and the British people doing the hiring enter into a corrupt arrangement whereby the Britons ensure foreigners are recruited and receive a kickback for that from the agencies  who supply the labour. The  agency supplying the foreign  workers  gains through the fees for finding and supplying the foreign staff paid by the employing company.  Public service organisations and large companies  are especially vulnerable because of the numbers of staff they employ. ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094103/UK-unemployment-As-British-jobless-toll-soars-bosses-recruit-thousands-Romania.html)

Phone-ins, social networking and the individual experience of those around  us  tell the same story: there are very large numbers of Britons desperate for work, often any work,  who just cannot find any.  Again and again people who are articulate and sincere tell of how they have  tried  for dozens, sometimes hundreds of jobs without getting even an interview. Many of those looking for work are graduates.

Media reports of employers  getting large numbers of applicants for even menial jobs are a regular feature( http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/25-people-chase-every-job-in-some-areas-of-london/423.article).  Many new graduates are finding that they have been sold a pup about the increased employability of those with a degree and are lucky to find any sort of  job. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jan/26/fifth-graduates-unemployed-ons).

The claims by  British employers  that they are  employing foreign workers because they cannot find suitable people is hard to credit.  Even if there was a problem with the attitude of young Britons, for which I see no evidence  as a general problem, it would not explain why older workers with a good work history are being overlooked.   In particular,  it is implausible that foreign workers are better equipped for jobs dealing with the public because  experience tells any Briton  living in London  that many  foreigners  employed in such jobs have wholly inadequate English and a lack of knowledge about British culture.

During the Blair/Brown bubble years there may have been an element of Britons  being unwilling to do some of the menial low paid jobs, but in our present dire financial straits that cannot be the case now even for low-skilled workers.

As for people not being prepared to do run-of-the-mill jobs for all of their lives, this is what used to happen routinely and, indeed, many  people  continue to do just that  today.  Nor is this  something restricted to the  unskilled.  Any skilled craftsman – a builder, plumber or carpenter – or someone with a skill such as HGV driving  will do the same basic job all their lives unless they choose to go to another form of employment.  The fact they are skilled does not necessarily  make the job intrinsically  interesting , although it will be better paid generally than those in a low or unskilled employment.  It is also a mistake to imagine that skilled jobs which are  non-manual are generally fulfilling or prestigious.  A country solicitor dealing largely with farm leases and conveyancing or a an accountant spending most of their time preparing final accounts  are scarcely enjoying working lives  of wild excitement .  The truth is most jobs, regardless of their skill level, are not intrinsically interesting to the people who do them, the interest in working arising from the money reward and the social interaction which comes with the work.

Nor is it true that unskilled and low-skilled jobs are diminishing.  The large majority of jobs today, require little or no specialised  training.  Very few retail jobs involve a detailed knowledge of the product; driving a vehicle other  than an HGV comes with the possession of an ordinary driving  licence; undertaking a routine clerical task can be done almost immediately by someone who is literate.

The existence of low-skilled or unskilled work has a positive benefit beyond the work itself.  It provides a means of independent living for the least able. In Britain the average IQ is 100. Because of the way that IQ is distributed – in  a good approximation of normal distribution –  10% of the population has an IQ of 80 or lower. An IQ of 80 is thought by most experts in the field of intelligence testing to be the point at which an individual begins to struggle to live an independent life in an advanced industrial society such as Britain.  Without  low-skilled and unskilled work  the low IQ individual is left with no means to live an in independent life. That means in all probability a  heavy dependency on benefits with a likelihood of antisocial behaviour because they cannot live a life of normal social responsibility.  Full employment is a social good which goes far beyond the overt material product of the employment.

The first responsibility of a government in a  democracy must by definition  be  to promote the well-being of its  citizens above those of foreigners.  The most fundamental part of that duty is to ensure as far as is humanly possible that jobs are available to its citizens which  capable of supporting a person in a normal life,  including raising a family. To think of the world as a single marketplace with labour, goods and services drawn from wherever is cheapest or most immediately available, is to reduce Britain to no more than a residence of convenience which can be used for the purposes of the individual without any concern for Britain as a society.

Yours sincerely,

 

Robert Henderson

The really radical thing for the Tory Party to do – appeal to the English

The one-time Deputy Chairman and leader paymaster of the Tory Party Lord Ashcroft was pushing the pc bandwagon merrily along at a great rate of knots  in the Sunday Telegraph  of 29 April. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9234157/Lord-Ashcroft-Conservative-party-must-disprove-fears-that-it-only-looks-after-its-own.html). In it he urged the Tories to “reach out to ethnic minorities”. Here is a sample:

“…the Tories’ unpopularity among black and Asian voters is not simply a matter of class and geography. For many, though by no means all, there is an extra barrier directly related to ethnic background. If Labour helped their families to establish themselves in Britain and passed laws to help ensure they were treated equally, the Conservatives, they felt, had been none too keen on their presence in the first place.

Enoch Powell was often mentioned in evidence. The failure, on the Conservatives’ watch, properly to investigate the murder of Stephen Lawrence was also cited, as were other incidents.

Most thought the Conservatives had changed in recent years. But many – particularly people from a black Caribbean background – felt the Tories were still indifferent or even hostile towards them. Some felt the Tories, and David Cameron in particular, had unfairly blamed minorities for last summer’s riots. Many thought Conservative policies hit minority communities especially hard, and the Tories seemed unaware or unconcerned about their impact.

Ethnic-minority voters (perhaps uniquely) think the Conservatives have kept their promise to toughen immigration laws. Some saw this as a good thing. But they saw that since the Government could not restrict migration from within the EU, greater controls were being placed on immigration from outside Europe, most of which originated from Africa or South Asia. This made the distinction between EU and non-EU immigration look like different treatment of white and non-white immigration.”

Why did Ashcroft want the Tory Party to “reach out”.  Simply because it was costing  the Party seats  –  I did search for a moral as well as this  venal motive in the article but was unable to find one. But even at the venal level Ashcroft is baring up a very misleading  tree. The most the Tories could gain from persuading ethnic minorities to vote for them in large numbers – a most improbable eventuality – would be a small number of seats,  not least because ethnic minorities are overwhelmingly seats which are naturally labour regardless of the ethnic minority share of the electorate.

The really radical thing for the Tories to do would be to appeal to the majority, namely, the English.  I have sent the Sunday Telegraph this letter:

Sir,

Lord Ashcroft (29 April) urges  the Tory Party  to appeal to ethnic minorities – a small proportion of the country – to gain a few extra seats. I suggest that the Tories appeal to the large majority whose interests are neglected, namely, the English, to gain many extra seats.

The Tories should stand on a platform of an English parliament; an end to the massive subsidies to the Celtic Fringe; the recovery of our sovereignty through leaving the EU; the end of mass immigration; the maintenance of strong defence forces designed to defend Britain  not the New World Order; a pledge to get involved in no new foreign escapades driven by the USA or the EU; the cessation of foreign Aid; an end to the green agenda which is costing billions a year; sensible policies to promote food and energy security and the stripping of every vestige of political correctness out of British life.

That should do the trick.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

The Archers – an everyday story of simple politically correct folk part 2

Robert Henderson

Ambridge is becoming  even more diverse. The “dual heritage” daughter of the white vicar  who was married to a black Jamaican (now dead) and is now married to a Hindu is being given much more prominence. She has acquired a boyfriend Carl, who has just made his Archers debut. Carl is black. Not that you would know this from any reference to his race because direct mention of  the race of a character is never permitted in Ambridge.  But although no mention of race is permitted , the producers of the Archers want  listeners to know  when any member of an ethnic minority appears .  In the case of Asians this can easily be done with the names. Blacks are more problematic because many of them have British names.  To identify them they use someone with an unmistakably black voice, whether that be black South African as in the case of Kate Aldridge’s husband or black British .  As he is black Carl  is of course represented as immensely handsome, intelligent, witty and polite, as all ethnic minority figures are in Ambridge. Well, that is what the crazed feminists who control the Archers tell you. The actor’s performance is rather different, Carl being as mobile and characterful as a block of teak.

We have also just been prepared for the introduction of another Asian, nickname Ifky, who will be coming to coach the younger members of Ambridge cricket club

Young Jamie Perks approached the vet Alastair,  who is captain of the Ambridge cricket team,  and lamented   that he is not sure he will be able to come every week to cricket practice run by Ifky because of his girlfriend. Alastair sympathised saying, well, it is a regular commitment  which would mean Jamie could not be with the girlfriend one day a week, assuming that the girlfriend objects on those grounds. In the real world that would be the case, but in the politically correct fantasy of the Archers the girlfriend was  annoyed about the practice because -wait for it – she wanted to play as well and could not understand why it was only for boys.

A later conversation about Ifky produced the following gem:

Linda Snell “Where’s he from?”

Alastair: “Darrington”

Linda Snell: “No I meant ….er…er.. no it doesn’t matter”.

Ifky  has yet to have a speaking part but has appeared in virtual form. Being from an ethnic minority he is of course also immensely handsome, so much so that not only have all the women and girls in Ambridge flooded to cricket practice to gaze upon his God-like countenance, but the only two gays in the village, Adam and Ian, have come along to openly ogle him.

There is also the possibility that the Albanian care home worker Elona will bring her relatives over in the not too far distant future. She has a partner in an  Englishman  Darren who, guess what,  has just come out of prison after he “got in with the wrong sort”.

I can’t help wondering how long it will be before the native English inhabitants in the village will qualify for ethnic minority status.

There is one strange omission from the ever more politically correct village. There are no lesbians. Time for some girl-on-girl action shurely ? (ed).

See also

http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/the-archers-an-everyday-story-of-simple-politically-correct-folk/

Politically incorrect film reviews – Outlaw and Made in England

Nick Love and Shane Meadows, two directors of white workingclass origin who like nothing better than to tell the world how much they empathise with the white workingclass world they grew up in. In pursuit of this they make films such as Football Factory (Love) and 24/7 (Meadows). As films their products are watchable but they are also profoundly dishonest. The problem is that both Love and Meadows have donned the liberal bigot coat of many pc colours and the white workingclass world they show is robbed of one essential ingredient: an honest portrayal of the racial friction between workingclass whites and black and Asian immigrants and their descendents.

The dishonesty takes one of two forms: race is either completely ignored (Football Factory) or the story is skewed so that (1) non-white characters are included in an attempt to show workingclass whites and nonwhites “living in harmony” and (2) to allow some of the white characters to be represented as racist boneheads and some to display a white liberal’s appreciation of “the joy of diversity”. Outlaw and Made in England display these latter traits.

Outlaw could have been an English taxi driver. It has a first rate cast which includes Sean Bean, Bob Hoskins and Danny Dyer. The story is of a group of men who form a vigilante gang in response to the supposed crime wave politicians are always feeding the populace. Bean as the leader of the vigilante group gives a dynamic charismatic performance as a workingclass northerner Royal Marine just returned from Iraq to London. . The rest of his gang bar one are entirely plausible, being white and working class Londoners. The “bar one” is a posh black QC who supposedly joins the group because his wife is killed by gangsters on behalf of a Mr Big whom the posh black QC is prosecuting for the Crown. The killer is inevitably white.

The sheer improbability of this scenario – white workingclass lad, posh black QC – alone made the film ridiculous. The clunking political correctness makes it wearisome : the Hoskins character (a serving detective) fawns over the black barrister whom he is part protecting part driving around, utterly robs Hoskins of his normal upfront bluntness, while the rest of the gang never think to say “’ere, what’s this posh black geezer doing with us?” The clear message of the film is that this is that race is utterly unimportant and that everyone no matter what their background is perfectly happy to muck in together and violent crime is really a white thing – none of the characters the gang attacks is non-white. The film is worth seeing for one reason as a film – Bean’s performance.

Made in England is rather more subtle. Here we have a skinhead gang in Lincolnshire around the time of the Falklands (1982). The gang , led by “good guy” Woody ( Joe Gilgun) adopt an eleven year old boy Shaun (Thomas Tugoose) whose father has been killed fighting in the Falklands. The gang, despite being skinhead, has a black member (natch). Meadows attempts to justify this improbable scenario by claiming that the roots of the skinhead phenomenon lay in white boys taking a liking to black music in the late sixties. Whether that is true or not, by the early eighties skinhead culture was resolutely anti-immigrant and the existence of a gang of skinheads who not only have a black member but never mention race even when the black member is not with them, is improbable in the extreme.

All goes along swimmingly in a multi-culti fashion until an ex-con Combo (Stephen Graham) returns from prison and tries to take over the gang and inject a racial element into it. He merely splits the gang between himself and Woody. Bingo! We have the “good” skinheads (Woody) and the “bad” skinheads Combo and the trite little pc agitprop piece is then played out to show how the “bad” skinheads are violent thickos and not at all representative of England while the “good” skinheads are the real English deal, all bubbling with enthusiasm for “the joy of diversity. The film ends clankingly with the Shaun symbolically tossing his flag of St George into the sea. Despite its agitprop by numbers nature, this film does have some very strong performances from the main actors, especially Tugoose who gives one of the great child actor performances.

The PC lesson to draw from the two films is simple: the white workingclass’ real problem is not race or immigration or a lack of national expression it is their social circumstances.

The Effects of Mass Immigration On Canadian Living Standards and Society

The Effects of Mass Immigration On Canadian Living Standards and Society

Edited by Herbert Grubel  – a compilation of essays by  12 authors

Published by the Fraser Institute of Canada  in 2009 ISBN 978-0-88975-246-7

Robert Henderson

Massive numbers of immigrants who are either unable or unwilling to integrate with the society into which they come; cities increasingly dominated by ethnic and racial ghettos;  laws which grant immigrants rights which make it next to impossible to stop them entering the country or to deport  them once they are there;  employers greedy for cheap labour;  immigrants depressing wages and forcing up native unemployment; immigrants taking more out of the communal national pot in benefits than they put in through taxes;  a political elite which is  sold on the idea that immigration is an unalloyed good at a naïve best and a source of new voters  for parties which support mass immigration at  a venal worst; a bureaucracy which religiously carries out the politically correct  dictates of  the elite embraced  multicultural ethos ; the development of  an “immigration industry” comprised of vested interests such as lawyers, pressure groups, charities; public servants  appointed to act as what are effectively political commissars for multiculturalism; a mainstream media which ceaselessly propagandises on behalf of the wonder of multiculturalism and value of immigration whilst censoring any opposition;  a rabid state-inspired  suppression of  dissidence at any level by a mixture of  laws banning honest discussion of immigration and its consequences  and the engendering of a public culture which puts  anyone who voices anti-immigration views, however cautiously, at risk of losing  their job or political position and to  ostracism from their social circle  if they are judged to have committed a “crime” against multiculturalism.

Welcome to the Canadian experience of the joy of mass immigration. Sounds familiar? It certainly will to British ears, but the same could broadly  be said of any First World country for the globalist ideology has become the creed of elites throughout the First World.   This makes the book generally valuable as a primer on the dangers of mass immigration.  This utility is enhanced  by significant reference being made to immigration as it affects  the  USA, Britain and France.

There are of course differences of detail  between the Canadian and British experience.  Canadians   traditionally have seen themselves as a nation of immigrants whereas the British  have not and do not.  This means that  Canadians have, like Americans,  at least the residue of the sentimental  idea that immigration should be the natural order of things and  that it is somehow wrong to deny  to others what they or their ancestors enjoyed. The Canadian elite have taken this to extremes  according to   Stephen Gallagher of the Canadian International Council because “….more than any other country  Canada has bought into the  cosmopolitan logic that there can exist a ‘civic nationalism in the absence of any ethnic or cultural majority, shared roots or social coherence” (p188). His claim is borne out by the objective evidence of modern Canadian immigration policy and its consequences.

The problem with the “civic nationalism” mentality is it is one thing to have immigration consisting overwhelmingly of people who are broadly  similar in race and culture into the receiving society  – as happened throughout most of Canada’s history  -who  can  assimilate rapidly; quite another to import immigrants in large numbers  who are radically different in race and culture and either cannot or will not assimilate.  That is what has happened to Canada in recent decades.

Over the past quarter of a century  immigrants to Canada have come  overwhelmingly from Asia. The result is that at the last Canadian census  5 million  (16 per cent) out of the Canadian population of 16 million  were  “visible minorities” (p5).   The size of the overall population also counts hugely:  16 per cent of 33 million is considerably more concerning than 16 per cent of, say, Britain’s currently  estimated 62 million.

It might be thought that the geographical vastness of  Canada   would mean there is  not the same sense that the country is being  physically swamped as there is in a geographically small country such as Britain, but  Canada  is a very urbanised country with   25 million Canadians  living in towns or cities and most  immigrants  are concentrated  in a few places.   60 per cent of the  5 million “visible minorities”  live in the Metropolitan areas of Toronto and Vancouver (p5).  In Toronto  in 2001  those classified as  “English (Anglos ) “only  formed a majority in  in a quarter of metropolitan “census tracts” (p180).  The sense of conquest by stealth is as apparent in those particular places as it would be in London or Birmingham.

Reckless Canadian immigration  took off in the  1990s. In 1990 the annual limit was raised to 250,000 by  a Progressive Conservative government with the  Minister responsible, Barbara McDougal, arguing that this would help the party with the ethnic  minority vote, the clear implication being that a large portion of the additional immigrants would be black or Asian (p4). Since then  immigration has averaged nearly 1 per cent  of the population (p4. )Things worsened after the 2001 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was passed.  This  set selection criteria for immigrants without putting any limit on the numbers who could come in. As there were vastly more people who could meet the criteria than  Canada  could readily accommodate and there was no flexibility to adjust to changes in economic conditions generally or to  the Canadian labour market in particular, the system soon ran into trouble. A backlog of would-be immigrants waiting to be processed formed which is estimated to reach 1.5 million by 2012 (p7) to which did not include refugees who number is considerable.  Canadian asylum policy became so lax in the 1980s that over the past 25 years more than  700,000 asylum seekers were admitted (p14).  Canada has taken steps to amend the  Immigration Act,, but even if those are effective the existing backlog of 1.5 million will be processed under the old rules (p5).

All but one the most sacred cows of the pro-immigration, pro-multicultural lobby are precisely dissected before being put out of their misery.  Overall, immigrants  do not add to Canada’s per capita wealth (p104), not least because less than 20% of immigrants come in based on their work skills or training (p3);  cultural diversity does not equal an enhanced  society  but a divided one with an ever weakening national identity and  bringing in huge numbers of  young immigrants will not solve the problem of an ageing Canadian population – Robert Bannerjee and William Robson (chapter 7)  estimate that to even stabilise the  Old Age Dependency ratio – the ratio between those of working age  to those over retirement age – and those   from what it is at  present would take decades of annual  immigration amounting each year to 3% of the Canadian population (p142). The effect of that would be to effectively end any concept of a Canadian nation as it has been and still largely is.  It would be a classic case of  the transformation of quantity into quality.  A place called Canada might still exist but  he  existing Canadian nation would be no more.

The sacred cow which remains standing if more than a little nervous,  is the question of the incompatibility of races.  Nonetheless ,  some of the contributors (especially those in chapters 9-12)  come close to venturing onto this currently forbidden territory, for example :-

“..the analysis of Sammuel Huntingdon (2004), who argues that a nation is the function of the identity of its majority population  and in the United States this identity is rooted  in the original founding Anglo-Protestant  culture and a value system described as the American Creed.” (Stephen Gallagher P188).

“What guarantee do we have that diversity in itself is a desirable objective? At what point does diversity mutate into a form of colonisation? (James Bissett p6).

The book is also good at flagging up consequences which are not immediately obvious. For example, Marcel Merette  makes the important point that as higher skilled immigrants increase the differential in wages between the skilled and the unskilled shrinks  (p159). This discourages  Canadians from taking the trouble to acquire skills because the advantage of doing so would be lessened.

Nor is any change in the type of immigrants without ill consequences. For example, if immigrants are restricted to the young (which might be thought a god thing in an ageing society) that  disadvantages the native young because it means they face greater competition for jobs from the immigrants in their age group.

There is also the effect on the one long-standing substantial Canadian minority, the French-speaking  Quebeccers . They are increasingly finding their language and culture undermined both by the presence of immigrants who will not integrate and by  having to compete for attention and privileges from the majority population with the new minority groups.

Rather touchingly, Gordon Gibson (chapter 11)  imagines that the position is much healthier in Britain because there is at least growing public discussion here and  an organisation such as MigrationWatch UK  to ostensibly provide a  focus of concern about immigration (the  final  essay in the book is by the head of MigrationWatch UK  Sir Andrew Green).   But public debate can be not merely useless but positively harmful if it is controlled.

It is true that there is vastly more  public discussion in Britain now than there was under  the Blair Government when any many of immigration and its consequences brought squeals of “racism” from politicians, the left-liberal dominated media and any pressure group or individual  able to climb onto the “anti-racist” bandwagon.   But public discussion does not equal action and  despite Cameron’s  Coalition  Government’s rhetoric about cutting net immigration to Britain “from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands a year” , the  numbers remain much the same as under the Blair and Brown governments.

The extent of  the growing disquiet amongst Canadians is indicated by the very existence of the book.  The editor has brought together a  wide-ranging group of contributors:  economists, political scientists, think tank members and retired ambassadors. These are not the class of people who would  commonly be found  publicly expressing  concern  about immigration,  for they are by background part of the broad elite which has embraced the multiculturalist  ideal.  That they are willing to write pretty forthrightly about the dangers speaks volumes in itself.  The message it sends is that they are so worried by the observable effects of mass migration that they are willing to put their heads above the parapet  and risk, at the least, social, political and academic ostracisation.

The failure to address the question of race as a social separator is frustrating but understandable in the present politically correct circumstances, but it cannot be ignored forever. Those who say physical differences in race are unimportant and  that race is merely a social construct should reflect upon the fact that if there was no natural mechanism to stop humans of different physical types breeding as  freely together  as those of a similar physical type then there would be no broad physical groups which we call races . These group separations cannot be ascribed to humans evolving in separation from one another  because  throughout history there has been an immense amount of movement of peoples  with every  opportunity for inter-breeding. We see the same thing happening today in places such as London where,  despite the open invitation to inter-racial breeding and the incessant multi-culturist propaganda over several generations, a surprisingly  small percentage of the population does interbreed.

I can unreservedly recommend this book because it provides almost all the ammunition needed to  refute the multiculturalist propaganda . It is not the easiest of reads  because most of the contributors take an  academic approach, which means a fair number of  charts and tables plus a decent dollop of jargon. But the book is  not very heavy going and its message is  the most important which can be given to the developed world at present: guard your own societies against this surreptitious form of conquest or  they will die.

The claustrophobia of diversity

Robert Henderson

In November a 34-old woman Emma West was recorded on a tram in Croydon (near to London) expressing her very no-pc views of  the effects of immigration on England even though she was surrounded by ethnic minorities.   Since her public complaints were recorded by a passenger and put on YouTube other instances of such behaviour have come to light, the most recent to hit the national media being another youngish white woman (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097142/Woman-filmed-hurling-racist-abuse-Tube-passengers-ANOTHER-video-rant-London-transport.html#ixzz1lgvuUjuO).  I put a few URLs for videos of such behaviour  from England at the end of the article. The examples are all of people who are under the age of 40. Nor does it take long for instances of such behaviour in the USA to be found on media hosting sites.  This goes against the oft made claims by liberals that what they term racial prejudice is restricted to the older generation,  who it is implied “don’t know any better”, while the young are race-blind.

Such outbursts are surprising  because of the risk they carry of assault by the ethnic minorities listening to them. They are doubly unexpected because present day England (and Britain)  is rigid with political correctness.  As  Emma West’s case vividly shows, the authorities are ever more penal in their  repression of dissent.  After her arrest in December 2011  Miss West was kept for weeks on remand in a high security prison for what the authorities coyly called “her own protection” http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/emma-west-immigration-and-the-liberal-totalitarian-state-part-2/) . She  has since been charged but not as yet tried (she appears at Croydon Crown Court on 17 2 2012) with a serious criminal offences  which carry a potential jail sentence of two years. (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/emma-west-immigration-and-the-liberal-totalitarian-state-part-3/).  All of that for simply expressing her anger at the consequences of mass immigration.

But even if people are not charged with criminal offences, to be publicly labelled a racist in England is to risk the loss of a job or accommodation if rented, a campaign of media abuse and social ostracism.  The risk of losing a job is particularly high for public service employees.  In extreme cases such as those accused of  the murder of Stephen Lawrence the persecution may be officially generated and sustained and  last indefinitely and include  the holding of trials which are manifestly unfair because of  hate-campaigns conducted against the accused by both politicians and the mainstream media. (http://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/stephen-lawrence-gary-dobson-david-norris-and-a-political-trial/).

With these very considerable disincentives to expressing honest views about race and immigration under any circumstances, what is it that drives people to express them uninhibitedly in situations which objectively place them in physical as well as legal danger?  After all the instinct for self-preservation lies at the core of human behaviour   and people are generally media savvy enough these days to realise that  anything they say in public is likely to be recorded and placed on sites such as YouTube.  So why do people like Emma West ignore all these formidable barriers to behaving in this way? Drink or drugs you may think, yet the noteworthy thing about most of the examples caught on mobile phones is that they  show no signs of being seriously intoxicated by either.  These are people who are doing it in the full knowledge of what they are doing and its likely effects. But  even if they were intoxicated with drink or drugs all that would mean is that the brakes of sobriety were removed and the true feelings of the person released.

A clue to what is happening can be found in the fact that their complaints gather around the same theme: that England is being invaded and colonised to the point where, in places such as parts of London,  it  scarcely seems to be England in anything in name.  Their  complaints are not about the particular ethnic minorities with which  they are surrounded when they make their public complaints or against individual immigrants generally,  but the general effects of mass immigration.

These people are suffering from what I call the  claustrophobia of diversity.  They feel that they are being oppressed by immigrants, that the land which is ancestrally theirs  is being colonised to the extent that parts of the country seem no longer to belong to England. Worst of all they see themselves as helpless to prevent it because the colonisation is being facilitated and encouraged by their own elite who  all, whatever their ostensible political colour,  subscribe to the treason and viciously support the suppression of  dissent to the betrayal.  This mixture of the act of elite-sponsored colonisation by foreigners, the failure of democracy through the tacit conspiracy of the political elite  to ensure that no meaningful alternative policy on  immigration is offered by any party capable of forming a government and the inability of the native population to even voice their  protest at this betrayal of their most pressing interests  in the mainstream media produces an ever growing sense of rage, a rage made all the more terrible and onerous  by  the feelings of impotence engendered by the ever more oppressive  restrictions on public expression which British governments have imposed.

These feelings are with the English all the time. If someone  English lives  in an area which  does not have a large ethnic minority population the anger and frustration may  remain bubbling below the surface most of the time, although they will be exacerbated by reports of their fellow county men and women elsewhere being harassed and bullied by the liberal elite into towing the multiculturalist line while ethnic minorities are pandered to ever more grotesquely  with bizarre interpretations of what constitutes a human right and  the constant growth of  interest groups which cater solely for ethnic minorities, for example,  the Refugee Council (http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/about/board).

But those who live in an area which is heavily populated  by ethnic minorities  will face constant triggers for the anger and frustration to come to the forefront of their minds. Every time someone in such an area walks the streets they will be reminded of how the demographic balance has changed and is changing. Every time a native  English  parent seeks a school for their children they will be faced often enough with choices of schools where many, quite often a majority, of the pupils are from ethnic minorities.  A visit to their GP or hospital will find them sitting in waiting rooms outnumbered by ethnic minorities.  When they go for a job, especially if it is low-skilled or unskilled, they are likely to find themselves being asked to work, if they can get such work at all,  in a situation where they are in the ethnic minority and English is  not the common workplace language.  If they go into a shop, cinema or café they are increasing likely to find themselves being served by foreigners with inadequate English for the job.

Everywhere the white English man or woman in an area with a large ethnic minority population looks  it seems that their world is being changed utterly and that they can do nothing about it because of the elite complicity in what has happened and is happening. That is why the public outbursts of frustration such as that of Emma West occur.  They are the bursting of the emotional  dam.  The fact that the episodes recorded so often occur on  public transport  is  unsurprising because it is here that the proximity with those who trigger the feelings of rage and  betrayal is greatest and there is the  least opportunity to escape from these reminders of the surreptitious elite-sponsored conquest of England. The physical claustrophobia of being on a crowded train or bus marries with the social claustrophobia of diversity.

The people recorded in the urls at the end of this essay are white  working class Englishwomen. They of course are  from the class  who had to and have to suffer the main brunt of  mass immigration. They live cheek-by-jowl with the immigrants and their descendants. They send their children to schools where their child may be the only white English child in their class. They live in the tower blocks where they are the only white English family in the block. Not for them the middle class white liberals escape through white flight to the suburbs or countryside or the gentrification of once working class areas such as Islington. It is small wonder that people such as Emma West should feel deserted and betrayed and eventually lose all patience with public silence.

But uninhibited racial language and complaint is not restricted to those without status, wealth, influence and power. Two well know and recent examples are the fashion designer John Galliano  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CQO8q3FSH0) and the actor and director Mel Gibson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50_qMJSPtqY&feature=relatedso – go in at 1 minute 17 sec). There is far more to these public displays of anger at the fact of mass immigration and the behaviour of the political elite  than simple desperation. It is entirely natural behaviour.  Public expression of dissent can be  partially successful but it will never be entirely complete. Even in extreme autocracies such as the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany there were still voices raised in  opposition. The English have been subject several generations of ever greater elite propaganda and censorship of dissent about immigration and its effects but this has not made them race or ethnicity blind, merely increasingly reticent, fearful and stressed  about immigration and its consequences.  Not only that, but the oppression arising from mass immigration is different in quality from the oppression  of a native  elite which merely tries to enforce its will on the masses. The effects of mass migration are around people all the time. There is no respite.

When people are asked to  suppress their normal feelings  stress occurs. Where the suppression of feelings relates to the most fundamental social and psychological structures  stress is at its greatest. That is what happens when an elite tries to  recreate society by asking the population to override the behaviour which makes a society strong and stable.

Social animals have two universal features: they form discrete groups and within the group produce hierarchies – although both the group and the hierarchy vary considerably in form and intensity.  Why they do this is a matter of debate but it is a fact that this what invariably happens.  Human beings are no exception; whether they are hunter-gatherers or people populating a great modern city they all have a need to form groups in which they feel naturally comfortable and within that group form hierarchies.

But the sense of being separate, of belonging to a discrete group with identifiable characteristics is of a different order of complexity than it is for any other social animal because homo sapiens is high intelligence, self-awareness and most importantly language.  Where an animal may simply accept another member of the species as part of the group through simple and obvious triggers such as scent, markings or imprinting, human beings judge by wide variety of criteria who is and is not part of the group, the most potent of which are racial characteristics and cultural differences. In some ways that makes acceptance of the outsider easier – at least in theory –  but in  others much more difficult than it might be for an animal,  for there are  many more reasons for human beings to accept or not accept someone into the group than there are for a non-human social animal.

Social animals form hierarchies  almost certainly because otherwise there would be no way of the society organising itself to accommodate the differing qualities and abilities  of individuals which arise in any species. Societies which consist of various human groups that  see themselves as separate  from each other disrupt the creation of a healthy hierarchy. Instead of there being a single hierarchy within an homogenous group (defining homogenous as a population in a discrete territory  which sees itself as a group), there are  hierarchies formed within each group and a further overarching hierarchy formed from the various groups themselves with  each group hierarchy competing within the population as a whole.

Man is also a territorial being.  Homo sapiens  need the security of a homeland. Remove that and insecurity is perpetual.  That is why mass immigration is the most fundamental of treasons.  That which  is called racism by liberals and their ethnic minority auxiliaries is simply  political protest of the most fundamental kind. When someone resorts to complaint  based on race, ethnicity or nationality  in their own country they are saying “This is my land, you will not steal it from me without a fight”.  The time to worry is when there are no public demonstrations of dissent to the policy of mass immigration and its consequences.

The package of emotion transmuted into conscious thought we call  patriotism is an essential part of maintaining a society (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/patriotism-is-not-an-optional-extra/).  A society which forgets that is doomed.

———————————————————————————————–

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pONVYjAd1wc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTocvGIEqOU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfGqwtn3GZY

Diane Abbott, racism and “positive discrimination”

Robert Henderson

The black shadow minister and  Labour MP for Hackney Diane Abbott has  been up to her racist tricks again labelling whites as being those who wish to keep blacks down through a policy of divide and rule.  Replying  on Twitter  to a black correspondent  who complained about the lumping together of all blacks  in Britain with phrases such as “the black community”  Ms Abbott replied that wicked ol’ whitey  just loves playing “divide and rule” and that was why a united black front should be presented:

This immediately prompted cries for her to resign from conservatives on the grounds that she was obnoxiously stereotyping whites (http://www.mirror.co.uk/2012/01/05/labour-mp-diane-abbott-faces-calls-to-resign-over-racist-tweet-storm-115875-23681033/). But white liberals and their non-white auxiliaries were strangely tolerant of her racism.  Her fellow black Labour MP David Lammy was positively outraged that  anyone should have accused Abbott of racism when her  mistake was simply “ Forgetting to add the word “some” [before white in her offending tweet]  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8999638/Posturing-and-indignation-do-nothing-to-curb-racism.html).  To put the cherry on the top of the forgiveness cake,  the leader of the Labour Party  not only failed to withdraw the Labour whip from  Ms Abbott but allowed her to remain in his shadow cabinet as his spokesperson for Public Health.

All this liberal forgiveness meant Ms Abbott  was consequently allowed to escape with no more  than a non-apology   -“I apologise for any offence caused. I understand people have interpreted my comments as making generalisations about white people.”  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8998430/Diane-Abbott-and-Luis-Suarez-are-not-really-apologising.html )- and,  unlike so many white people these days,  she escaped the attention of the Metropolitan Police whose representative  dutifully said  “The service was contacted by members of the public in relation to the comments made by Diane Abbott.”

“We reviewed the circumstances of the comments and having considered all of those circumstances and the information available to us, we do not believe a criminal offence has been committed.” “http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9001757/Diane-Abbott-will-not-face-police-action-over-racist-tweet.html

To add insult to injury, after the storm broke  Ms Abbott offered a  gross misrepresentation of what she had tweeted.  She tried to claim that the offending  remark referred  to the distant colonial past.   ”Tweet taken out of context. Refers to nature of 19th century European colonialism. Bit much to get into 140 characters.” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/05/diane-abbott-accused-racism-twitter). As can be seen from the tweet I reproduced above this is nonsense.   “White people love playing “divide and rule”   is a simple unqualified statement  which refers to whites generally and in the present.   The hash tag “tactic as old  as colonialism”  merely states that whites have used the tactic from the time  they gained colonies. In short, Ms Abbott was making a statement attributing a quality and mentality to whites as a group throughout the centuries up to and including the present.  Moreover, even if the statement had been made about the colonial past,  it would still have been racist because it assumed that all white people had felt the same during colonial times. Clearly they did not,  as the British anti-slavery movement and the  later critics of Empire show.    It is also worth noting that she did not use her full 140 characters in the original tweet.

Ms Abbott has “previous” on the hating whitey front.  In 1988, a year after being elected an MP, she claimed Britain invented racism (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082527/Diane-Abbott-Twitter-race-row-MP-faces-calls-resign-racist-tweet.html ).

In 1996 she delicately  said that she disapproved of her local hospital employing “blonde, blue-eyed” Finnish nurses’ rather than  black West Indian ones (John Rentoul Independent Friday, 29 November 1996  Diane Abbott is sorry (For the record Miss Finland is also black – go to  http://www.theapricity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-20066.html and scroll down), which elicited another feeble apology but no withdrawal of the Labour whip.

In that fracas she received the robust support of her now dead fellow black MP Bernie Grant ,  a man who came to public prominence in 1985 when he greeted the murder of Pc Keith Blakelock  by near decapitation during the  Broadwater Farm  estate  black riot  with a jolly “The police got a good hiding “ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/706403.stm).  In the matter of the “blonde, blue-eyed” Finnish nurses’ Mr Grant offered a judicious  “”She [Abbott]  is quite right… Bringing someone here from Finland who has never seen a black person before and expecting them to have some empathy with black people is nonsense. Scandinavian people don’t know black people – they probably don’t know how to take their temperature.”   (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-20066.html). Mr Grant, like Ms Abbott, did not have the Labour whip removed from him.

In 2010 Ms Abbott had  further bites  at the racist cherry. She was having a little local difficulty on the BBC Late Night show with the political commentator Andrew Neil. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289868/Diane-Abbott-fumes-branded-racist-TV-This-Week-host-Andrew-Neill.html#ixzz1iQ5ZvyRW). The subject was her son’s education. Ms Abbott had always been a strident critic of private education and frequently publicly criticised  Labour politicians who sent their children to private schools or even worked the state system, like the Blairs, to send their children to state schools which offered a similar educational experience.  In 2010 she suddenly announced that her son would attend the £12,000-a-year City of London School.

Neil attacked her hypocrisy.  Abbott defended herself  with : ‘West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children.’  This led to the following exchange:

“Mr Neil hit back by demanding: ‘So black mums love their kids more than white mums, do they?’

Furious Ms Abbott said: ‘I have said everything I am going to say about where I send my son to school.’

Mr Neil persisted: ‘Supposing Michael said white mums will go to the wall for their children. Why did you say that? Isn’t it a racist remark?

‘If West Indian mums are as wonderful as you say, why are there so many dysfunctional West Indian families in this country? And why do so many young West Indian men end up in a life of crime and gangs?

‘You didn’t want your son to go to a school full of kids who have been brought up by West Indian mums.’

As Ms Abbott repeatedly refused to reply, Mr Neil asked: ‘Would you like to make it clear that West Indian mums are no better than white mums or Asian mums?’

When Ms Abbott, squirming in her seat, replied, ‘I have nothing to say,’ Mr Neil taunted her:

‘You don’t want to do that – you still think West Indian mums are the best?’” (ibid)

Ms Abbott also referred to David Cameron and George Osborne as ‘two posh white boys’ in 2010 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280358/Diane-Abbott-race-row-calling-Cameron-Clegg-posh-white-boys.html).

Since her “divide and rule” tweet  Ms Abbott has been working hard on her  “hate whitey” credentials .  Again on Twitter she  accused tax drivers of routinely ignoring black people hailing cabs ‘Dubious of black people claiming they’ve never experienced racism.  ‘Ever tried hailing a taxi I always wonder?’  (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083252/Diane-Abbott-sparks-ANOTHER-Twitter-race-row-branding-taxi-drivers-racist.html).

A 25-year-old black politics graduate Jade Knight has also added to our knowledge of  Ms Abbott’s attitude towards Britain and its white population. Miss Knight   had the temerity to approach Ms Abbott  in a Boots store and engage her in conversation. After describing her conservative with a small c politics and saying  she admired Abbott and  desperately wanted to work for her , Ms Knight encountered this response :

‘She [Abbott]  said, “You’d be better off working for a white Conservative. You’re a black conservative, you don’t do the black thing.” I couldn’t believe she had said it.

‘She was basically accusing me of selling out, which is not true. I told her being a conservative wasn’t going against my heritage. Anyone who understands black culture knows black culture can be very conservative. I thought she would understand that as she is educated.’  (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086722/Work-white-Conservative-What-Abbott-told-Tory-voting-graduate-asked-job.html#ixzz1jYOlQf4K).  Note  the reference to “white” rather than just conservative.

There are several things interesting  about  Diane Abbott’s frequent and casual racism. She clearly sees herself as living as in a country  divided into “them and us” with her  ‘us’ being the black population and her ‘them’ is the white population.   She has no sense of being part of a society entitled British or English. Her world is black “us” and  white  “them”.  Her use of “blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls”  suggests that she has an  active hostility to white physical attributes.  Had she wished to merely complain about cultural differences between Finns and West Indian nurses there would have been no reason to mention the physical differences between the two.  It is rather  difficult to see how someone with  her mentality could represent her constituents or the interest of  British society generally without racial fear or favour.

An anti-white racist she may be, but if  other things were equal I would enthusiastically defend Ms Abbott’s right to say whatever she wants  because  I truly believe in free expression for everyone except those who would deny it to others.  But in politically correct modern Britain others things are not equal.  Whites who made the sort of statements that Ms Abbott has made would have been treated very differently.  If they were politicians the media would have bayed unceasingly for their blood.  They would have lost any position held within the government or on the opposition front bench. They would probably have had the whip withdrawn or,  if that did not happen, been deselected as a candidate by their party before the next election.   Indeed, they could have suffered such things for far less obviously racist than any of Abbott’s remarks. The Tory MP Patrick Mercer was sacked from his shadow cabinet post by simply being  honest about his experience of black soldiers when he was a serving army officer: “”I came across a lot of ethnic minority soldiers who were idle and useless, but who used racism as cover for their misdemeanours “  (http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2007/03/patrick_mercer.html).

More generally, any white person who made similar statements to Ms Abbott could expect to  be the subject of disciplinary action by their employer up to and including the sack; suffer  media vilification and,   increasingly,  find themselves involved in a criminal prosecution, for example,  the England football captain John Terry (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/21/john-terry-racism-case-cps).     Even putting golliwogs for sale in a shop window can result in a visit from the boys in blue (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-452477/Police-order-shopkeeper-remove-golliwogs-window.html).

Racist blacks and Asians generally are treated very leniently .  Even where the racism is violent and unambiguously  directed at whites,  it is treated very different to racism by whites against non-whites.   Recently four Somali Muslim girls  – Ambaro and Hibo Maxamed, both 24, their sister Ayan, 28, and cousin Ifrah Nur  28 – viciously attacked a white British girl Rhea Page, 22.  They  were charged with Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH),  having torn part of Miss Page’s  scalp away, knocked her to the ground and repeatedly kicked her, including kicks to the head  and repeatedly screamed racist abuse at her (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html#ixzz1flw8TY6p). The Somali girls were not only not convicted of a racist attack but were given non-custodial c sentences.

There is a strong argument for disregarding the  motivation for a crime in sentencing. A crime is a crime. Allowing motive to intrude provides a lever for subjective likes and dislikes to be given the force of law. However, as with the prosecutions for “inciting racial hatred”  and their ilk, while such laws are on the statute book they must be applied even handedly to preserve the rule of law.

The ideal thing would be for all criminal restrictions on speech  to be lifted  and motivation to be ignored when prosecuting.

Diane Abbott and Cambridge

The special treatment Ms Abbott  has received extends to other aspects of her life.  She is a history graduate having studied at Newnham College, Cambridge.  In 2003 she  wrote a piece for the BBC’s Black History Month  entitled Multi-racial Britain. It  contained this gem:

“From the days when the Norman French invaded Anglo-Saxon Britain, we have been a culturally diverse nation. But because the different nationalities shared a common skin colour, it was possible to ignore the racial diversity which always existed in the British Isles. And even if you take race to mean what it is often commonly meant to imply – skin colour- there have been black people in Britain for centuries. The earliest blacks in Britain were probably black Roman centurions that came over hundreds of years before Christ.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/dabbott_01.shtml).

For any educated person brought up in Britain the belief that the Roman legions came to Britain “hundreds of years before Christ”  would be to put it mildly surprising for the dates of 55 and 54 BC for Julius Caesar’s  two expeditions  to Britain (the first Roman military action in Britain) and  43 AD for the Roman conquest of Britain are iconic  dates in British history. For a history graduate from one of the two leading British universities to make such a howler is astonishing for it  shows a disturbing  lack of historical perspective and absence of very basic general historical knowledge.

But that is not the only startling part of the passage. Ms Abbott also says  “The earliest blacks in Britain were probably black Roman centurions”.  Why on earth should she imagine that if blacks did come to Roman Britain they would all be centurions?  That is not only historically dubious in terms of blacks coming to Roman Britain in ant guise, but absurd in its conception that the blacks were  probably all drawn from the centurion class.  That is a simple failure of intellect.

In the light of  the mental capacity revealed in  Multi-racial Britain, it   would be interesting to know exactly how and why Ms Abbott was selected for a much sort after place on a popular degree course at one of the two most prestigious British universities and once there how she managed to take a history degree. Could it be that an informal “positive discrimination”  was exercised in both the granting of the place at Newham and her completion of her degree course?

Diane Abbott and Is it in the blood?

In 1995 I wrote an article for a specialist  cricket magazine Wisden Cricket Monthly. This dealt with the use by the England cricket team of many black and white immigrants. In the article I argued that this made a mockery of the very idea of national sporting teams.  This created a vast media outcry. Ms Abbott sent me an unsolicited letter which I reproduce below together with my reply to which Ms Abbott did not reply.

Her comments  “You show no appreciation of acceptable terminology or mores” and “I believe that we have a duty to write on subject we know about”  prompt a smile at her lack of self-knowledge, but the most important aspect of her letter is the quiet desperation of her “Black and Asian culture is now an integral element of British society. I have always thought that the best thing about British culture is its diversity and receptiveness to new, creative influences.”    Of course, if that were the case there would be no need to say it.

————————————

DIANE ABBOTT, M.P.

Labour Member of Parliament for Hackney North & Stoke Newington

Our ref: DPV/Rcm

Date: 3 August 1995

HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON SW1A 0AA

Tel: 0171 219 4426 Fax: 0171 219 4964

 

Dear Mr Henderson

A constituent of mine has sent me a copy of the article you wrote for Wisden Cricket Monthly entitled, “Is it in the Blood?”

I was rather saddened by your article. You show no appreciation of acceptable terminology or mores. I know that your article was focusing on cricket. But it shows a level of ignorance which is pervasive in many walks of British life. Imagine a young white man born in England, one parent English, one parent Spanish. Is it unnatural for him to express an interest in his Spanish origins. Does it make him any less British? No.

Black and Asian culture is now an integral element of British society. I have always thought that the best thing about British culture is its diversity and receptiveness to new, creative influences.

As an ex-journalist, and someone who still dabbles, I believe that we have a duty to write on subject we know about. And if we are not fully conversant with the topic to undertake the necessary research. I believe that if you had undertaken the appropriate research you would find that your assertions are flawed.

I hope that you will give my comments some thought.

Yours sincerely

DIANE ABBOTT MP

————————————

Miss Diane Abbott MP

House of Commons, London SW1

13/08/95

Dear Miss Abbott,

If you take the trouble to read the enclosures you will see  that I am more than ordinarily qualified to deal with the  subject of coloured alienation. (I wonder if you could claim  such a comprehensive experience of white or indeed Asian  society?) Moreover, even the proverbial visiting Martian  could see the illogic in the claim (incessantly made by ”anti-racists”) that English bred blacks and Asians are both  alienated from and unquestioningly loyal to England.

The evidence of coloured alienation is mountainous. The tape  I enclose of the BBC Radio 5 programme “Word Up” is of  particular interest for it contains both the visceral hatred  and irredeemable resentment of your colleague Bernie Grant  and the uncommitted  internationalism of self-described black  professionals, whose adamantine smugness achieved what I  would have thought impossible, a fleeting moment of sympathy  in me for Mr Grant when he railed against their selfishness  and lack of concern for the working class. You might also  wish to note Mr Grant’s comments about the House of Commons.

I am undecided as to whether you were disingenuous or naive  in your example of the white man with a Spanish father. It is  true that such a person might have some feelings for his  father’s homeland. However, his potential circumstances are  vastly different from those of the son of a coloured  immigrant, for if he chooses the white man may be accepted  without question by the host people. Do you seriously wish  to maintain that there is no difference in the lots of a  white and a coloured person in this country? If so, why do  you join in with the “anti-racist” shouting?

The most disturbing message of your letter is your rejection  of the right to free expression. Both “You show no appreciation of acceptable terminology or mores” and “I  believe we have a duty to write on subject (sic) we know  about” are attempts to suppress my right to free expression. This is a supremely dangerous thing for once you try to take  away my right you have no moral argument to repel those who  would suppress your right. I suggest that you study the short  essay ‘The fulcrum of freedom’ to see exactly how dangerous  the absence of free expression can be to a society. Free  expression is not merely a civil right designed to improve  the amenity of a man’s life, it is the surest guard against  tyranny. You might also wish to reflect on the fact that you  are willing to sit in the Commons with a colleague who  gloated over the near decapitation of a white policeman by a  black mob which had shed every vestige of civilised  behaviour. I presume Mr Grant’s behaviour after that event  comes within your definition of “acceptable terminology or  mores”.

You, Miss Abbott, have been sold a most monstrous pup by the  white liberal establishment. All your life (or at least your  adult life) you have allowed yourself to believe that the  liberal view of Race was the only reasonable view on Race.  You have luxuriated in the fool’s paradise of believing that  the remarkable international security and stability enjoyed  by Europe since the war – the only circumstances in which  liberals could have held such sway – was the natural order of  things. In fact, it has been an abnormality.

The age of liberal internationalism is drawing to a close,  perhaps in five years, perhaps in ten. Nothing anyone does  will prevent this process. What we do have is the choice  between a benign nationalism and authoritarian government,  probably fascism. If we are to save ourselves from fascism  all races must begin to talk honestly. That is what I am trying to achieve, the honest discussion of Race. (Do not  think, incidentally, that Britain can live in a cocoon  shielded from the racial events on the continent,  particularly in Germany – within ten years Germany will be  displaying all her old racial arrogance. You are, I presume,  aware that de facto black and Asian British citizens already cannot travel freely throughout the EU).

Your friend, Darcus Howe, recently wrote to me offering a  chance to discuss the subject of coloured loyalties. This I  have turned down for the moment because of my health.

However, I may well be cured within the next six to nine  months through a revolutionary treatment. I have written to  Mr Howe suggesting that in the event of my recovery I would  be willing to take part in a programme debating the subject  of black and Asian commitment with one other. I enclose a  copy of my letter to Mr Howe detailing the conditions under  which I would take part. If you are interested, why not  suggest to Mr Howe that you be my protagonist?

You asked me to think about your comments. I would ask you to  do the same with mine. In particular ask yourself whether if  racial shove comes to racial push you can imagine the likes  of Tony Blair risking anything substantial for blacks and  Asians. Remember Blair has overturned one of the main planks  of Labour policy simply to serve his own petty convenience in  the choice of his children’s schools. Do you think such a man  would risk his life for blacks and Asians? He would not even  risk his comfort.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

Emma West, immigration and the Liberal totalitarian state part 3

Robert Henderson

Emma West appeared at Croydon magistrates court on 3rd January.  She  will stand trial  on  two racially aggravated public order offences, one with intent to cause fear. She will next appear in court  – Croydon Crown Court –  on 17 February 2012.

The  charge with “intent to cause fear “ arises because a passenger, Ena-May Eubanks, claims Miss West  hit her left shoulder  with a closed fist.   This charge comes under section 31A  of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/31). It carries a potential sentence on  conviction on indictment of  “ imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both”.

Anyone who has watched the video on YouTube will think the idea that she intended to cause fear when she was a white woman surrounded by hostile ethnic minorities laughable. ”   The CPS are clearly playing the pc game by hitting her with the most severe charges possible.  (The official line on what is a racially aggravated offence can be found at http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/racially_aggravated_offences/).

Miss West has yet to plead,  but the fact that she  has opted for a  Crown Court trial (which will mean the case is heard before a jury) rather than a hearing in a magistrates court strongly suggests  she will plead not guilty ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/03/woman-accused-tram-race-rant).   This is because she  risks a heavier sentence in the Crown Court and it would make little sense to opt for  the case to be heard in the Crown Court if she does  not intend to plead not guilty.  There is of course the danger that she may be intimidated into pleading guilty by the promise of a lighter sentence.

Her bail conditions are  that ” she does not travel on a tram within Croydon and Sutton, lives and sleeps  at her home address and does not comment on the case. ” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16394046).

Bearing  in mind that Miss West was remanded in custody against her will for “her own safety” , it does seem rather rum that the same court is insisting she stays in her own house when her address was read out in court.

The ban on travel on the local tram system could  be pretty penal because she has two small children and the tram system may be the only means she has of taking them with her when she has to leave her house.

Her  blanket gagging so she cannot comment on the case is remarkable.   Engaging in any of the following can  breach the sub judice rules and constitute  contempt of court:

1. obtaining or publishing details of jury deliberations;

2. filming or recording within court buildings;

3. making payments to witnesses;

4. publishing information obtained from confidential court documents;

5. reporting on the defendant’s previous convictions;

6. mounting an organized campaign to influence proceedings;

7. reporting on court proceedings in breach of a court order or reporting restriction;

8. breaching an injunction obtained against another party;

9. anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome; or

10. revealing the identity of child defendants, witnesses or victims or victims of sexual offences. (http://www.out-law.com/page-9742)

Only   4, 6, 7, 8 would seem to have any application in the context of banning her from commenting on the case.  Number 9 might  seem to have relevance,  but by pleading one way or the other the outcome of a case is anticipated. It would be absurd if it applied to a defendant.

Nos  4,6, 7,8 could have been dealt with by banning those specific acts, although it is unlikely she would be in a position to do these things. For example, it is wildly improbable  she could mount an organised campaign to influence proceedings.   It is also true that cases can be discussed while a case is active in the context of a discussion of public affairs, for example, it would be acceptable to discuss Miss West’s case as part of an examination of how the justice system treats the treatment of black on white offences compared with white on black offences.

What does her  general gagging  tell us?  Simple. The liberal elite are truly terrified that the politically correct house of cards they have built will be blown over if any of the vast resentment and anger at mass immigration and its consequences  within the native British population is allowed into the public fold.

Emma West, immigration and the Liberal totalitarian state part 2

Robert Henderson

Emma West has been remanded in custody until 3rd of January when she will appear at Croydon Crown Court (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/tram-race-rant-woman-court-052333359.html).  By 3rd January she will in, effect , have served a custodial sentence of 37 days,  regardless of whether she is found not guilty or found guilty and given a non-custodial question.  37 days is  not far short of being the equivalent of  a three month sentence which, in England,  automatically attracts a 50% remission.  It often takes burglars in England to be convicted three or even more times of burglary before they receive a custodial sentence.

Miss West has also been separated from her children who may well have been taken into care and will have the great trauma of both wondering what is happening to them and whether they may be taken off her by our wondrously politically correct social services.

Bizarrely, Miss West is being held in a category A prison HM Bronzefield  in Middlesex. A Category A prison is the highest security prison and is reserved for “prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or national security”.  For someone charged with an offence which could have been dealt with in a magistrates court  to be remanded to such a facility  is truly extraordinary.

The court’s excuse that she was being held in protective custody to protect her from attack is both sinister and absurd.  Unless Miss West is kept in solitary confinement,  she will be  in more danger in the prison than she would be on bail because there will be black and Asian prisoners in the prison who will be violent because  any  category A prison will contain such prisoners . If she is being kept in solitary, that would be unreasonable because it will adversely affect her  mental state and be a de facto punishment in itself.   The general Category A regime is also severe . Both the imprisonment of Miss West and the use of a Category A prison suggest a deliberate policy of intimidation by the authorities designed both to undermine her resolution and send a most threatening message to every white Briton.

Compare and contrast her treatment with that of a criminal case which was decided on the same day that Miss West was further remanded. Four Somali Muslim girls  – Ambaro and Hibo Maxamed, both 24, their sister Ayan, 28, and cousin Ifrah Nur  28 – viciously attacked a white British girl Rhea Page, 22.  They  were charged with Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (ABH),  having torn part of Miss Page’s  scalp away, knocked her to the ground and repeatedly kicked her, including kicks to the head (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html#ixzz1flw8TY6p).  Miss Page was left traumatised and lost her job as a result of the lasting effect the attack had on her.

The maximum penalty for  ABH is five years. The judge  Robert Brown sentenced  the attackers to six month suspended sentences plus 150 hours of unpaid community work for all but for Hibo Maxamed, who needs dialysis three times a week for a kidney complaint and  received a four-month curfew between 9pm and 6am.   The sentence was absurdly light for a serious case of ABH. Indeed, the crime could well have been judged to have been the more serious Grievous Bodily Harm.

Despite the fact that they were screaming white bitch” and “white slag at Miss Page, the attack was not treated as a racially motivated and hence aggravated crime. Had it been treated as racially motivated the sentence would have been more severe.

The judge is reported as saying that he took into account the fact that Miss Page’s partner  Lewis Moore, 23, had used unreasonable force to defend Miss Page.  No details of this “unreasonable force” appear in media reports, but the mind does boggle a bit at what could be considered “unreasonable force” when four girls are savagely attacking a man’s girlfriend .  The judge also made allowances for the fact that the girls had been drinking and had behaved as they did because as Muslims they were unused to alcohol (I am not making this up honest”).

There was an attempt by Nur to claim that Mr Moore had been racially abusive. The prosecution did not accept this. However, let us suppose that he had been racially abusive in such  circumstances could any rational person think it was unreasonable?

The Mail reports  that “After the sentencing, Ambaro Maxamed wrote on her Twitter account: ‘Happy happy happy!’, ‘I’m so going out’, and ‘Today has been such a great day’.” They are under no illusion that they have got away with it.

So there you have it, no jail and the crime is not treated as racially motivated and the culprits effectively put two fingers up to Miss Page. If this was a plot used in a work of fiction it would treated as absurd.  Actually, in the monstrously politically correct world that is modern England the writer of such a plot would almost certainly have been accused of racism.

This type  of grotesque double standards in the treatment of white Britons and blacks,  Asians  or even white immigrants is commonplace.  Another good example occurred when white Christopher Yates was murdered by an Asian gang who were heard to make racist comments  such as “That will teach the white man for interfering in Paki business.”                (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4416988.stm).  The Judge Martin Stephens  bizarrely did not say the crime was racially aggravated because “Between you that morning, you attacked people of all races, white, black and Asian”, this being based on the evidence that “They racially abused a black resident and then moved on to a curry house where they assaulted an Asian waiter”.  Note that they did not racially abuse the Asian waiter. Moreover,  it is mistaken to lump all Asians under one heading.  The assaulted Asian could have come from a different ethnicity.

Apart from the disparity  in the treatment of  white Britons and ethnic minorities by the law, there is the striking difference in the behaviour of politicians and the mainstream media in reporting allegations of white and allegations of  ethnic minority racism.  An attack by a white assailant on a black or Asian is routinely accepted as racist without any meaningful  proof, the simple fact of it being a white assailant and a black victim being taken as proof enough.  The reverse is the case where the assailant in  black or Asian and the victim is white.  There is also a massive difference in the elite response to white on black and black on white assaults or verbal racial abuse. Politicians and the media  remain very quiet when the alleged racist is black,  but are incontinent in their eagerness to condemn the alleged white malefactor.  The never ending Stephen Lawrence saga is the prime example of the latter behaviour.

A striking fact about Emma West’s case is the limited media coverage and the nature of what exists. There have been press reports but very surprisingly little in the broadcast media and the press coverage is mostly straight reportage of the court hearings  rather than comment.  It is not difficult to imagine what would have happened if a black woman had been treated as Miss West has been treated. The media would be swamped with opinion pieces emphasising the black woman’s struggle against white racism, the historical legacy of slavery, her impoverished circumstances  and so on.

Miss West  has opted for a jury trial rather than being dealt with by the magistrates so presumably she will plead not guilty. The danger is she will be intimidated by her incarceration in a Category A prison , the pressure put  upon her by an army of criminologists, social workers and possibly her own lawyers and, most contemptibly, by  threats that her children will be taken away,  to engage in a Maoist-style public confession of fault , with a plea of guilty and the ghastly stereotyped statement  so common these days read by her lawyer after the conclusion of the case. This would  be along the lines of  how the views do not represent what Miss West actually thinks, says she has many black  and white foreign friends and   attributes her  words on the train to provocation,  stress , drink or  drugs, thus implying that no sane person who was in a normal state of mind could possibly hold such views. Let us pray  that it does not happen.

The message of Emma West’s treatment is simple: Britain’s  ruling elite  are terrified of anyone who will not accept the liberal credo,  because  the liberal’s fantasy multicultural, politically correct society  is only sustainable while no one is allowed to point out that the emperor’s new clothes do not exist.

Miss West’s solicitor is David Ewings . He can  be contacted at David.Ewings@CharterChambers.com

Charter Chambers

33 John Street

London

WC1N 2AT

If you wish to support Miss West you can  write to

Emma West

C/O HMP Bronzefield

Woodthorpe Road

Ashford

Middlesex

TW15 3JZ

 

Stop Press

There are reports circulating on the web that Emma West’s protests against the consequences of mass immigration were sparked by a black passenger spitting near her and her son. I have not seen any mainstream media report of this so for the moment store it away in your mind but treat with caution.

Emma West, immigration and the Liberal totalitarian state

Emma West of New Addington, London has been arrested and placed in “protective custody” following the publication on YouTube of  a two minute 25 sec  recording labelled by the YouTube poster as “Racist British Woman on the Tram goes CRAZY at Everyone ! (Must watch!)”  You can find the recording at  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8IlOBKaeTI.

Here is a partial transcript of  what was said during the recording published in  the Daily Mail  : ‘What has this country come to? A load of black people and a load of ****ing Polish. A load of ****ing, yeah… you’re all ****ing… do you know what I mean?

‘You ain’t English. No, you ain’t English either. You ain’t English. None of you’s ****ing English. Get back to your own ****ing… do you know what sort out your own countries, don’t come and do mine.

‘It’s nothing now. Britain is nothing now. Britain is **** all. My Britain is **** all.

‘Yeah its fine. I have got a little kid here. Have respect? I have a little boy here. **** you. I dare you, I ****ing dare you.

‘Don’t watch my language. Go back to where you come from, go back to ****ing Nicaragua or where ever you come from. Just ****ing go back.

‘I work, I work, I work, this is my British country until we let you lot come over.

‘So what. It is my British country, you ain’t British. Are you British? You ain’t ****ing British. **** off.

‘You ain’t British, you’re black. Where do you come from?

‘No, someone’s got to talk up for these lot. Look the whole ****ing tram, look at them. Who is black and who is white.

‘There is all black and ****ing burnt people.’

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067557/Youre-British-youre-black-Woman-charged-racially-aggravated-harassment-vile-rant-aboard-tram.html#ixzz1fBE50Xkd)

Her delivery gives her words an articulacy which is not apparent from a transcript.  As you listen to her try not to be  distracted by  the copious swearing because the woman is a white working class Londoner,  or at least part of  what Jerome K Jerome called “greater Cockneydom”,  and the effing and blinding goes with the territory.  She is also speaking  in a very stressful situation and allowance has to be made for that.

She does not come across as  thick.   The  fact that  she has worked as a dental receptionist  suggests that she is at least reasonably bright.  She is also respectably dressed and there is nothing in her appearance to mark her out as being  mentally ill or on the margins of society. Her son  (aged between two and three I would judge)  is smartly dressed and generally  looks well cared for. (Contrary to some press reports, the child looks  unfazed throughout ).   I can see no sign that she was significantly drunk or under the influence of drugs.

The teasing question is why someone like her would  take such a chance,  both from the view of what the police might do in oh so  politically  Britain and the risk to her and her young son of saying such things in a carriage filled with ethnic minorities and white immigrants.  We do not know what happened just before the recording begins. It could be that she was somehow provoked by being in a dispute with someone.  But her  first words in the recording are “’What has this country come to? A load of black people and a load of ****ing Polish” and throughout the recording she seems to be addressing the general point of mass immigration and its consequences rather than having a particular quarrel with one person on the tram.  Perhaps she started sounding off generally  after a specific occurrence, for example,  someone ethnic brushing against her or perhaps  someone foreign making a disparaging remark about Britain or England. It could even have been simply being in an enclosed environment and hearing nothing but foreign voices in her ears.

But if it was any of those things it would only give us the trigger for her behaviour. There would still be the question of why Miss West would express such views.  I suggest it was simply desperation.    She lives her life constantly bombarded by the multicultural propaganda and unlike the white liberal; elite probably encounters circumstances every day in which she finds herself  in the ethnic minority in her own country.   She will feel that her country has been invaded,  whilst at the same time being denied any opportunity to protest  or have any mainstream politician put her point of view.  That type of drip, drip pressure on the most vital thing to any human being – the ethnic nature of your society – can build a rage within a person like no other.

Since the posting of the video on YouTube other recordings of white women on public transport  expressing similar views have appeared, for example,  http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3969559/More-rail-racist-videos-emerge-online.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News.   Miss West is far from being alone.  Interestingly, there are also regular incidents of supposedly politically correct white liberals  being crudely racist (http://www.minorityperspective.co.uk/2011/05/30/black-tv-presenter-called-a-nigger-at-the-baftas/).  It is also a fact that white liberals have an uncanny ability to arrange their lives so that they live in very white, and in England, very English worlds, my favourite example of this being the English folk singer Billy Bragg who is wondrously right-on and lives in  Dorset, arguably the whitest county in England.  The truth is that white liberals are not only  aware of the effects of mass immigration on the white working class, but have inside them exactly the same primal feelings about ethnicity and the invasion of territory that those who openly rail against the effects of mass immigration.

There is a great deal of suppressed anger  amongst native Britons of all classes  about the profound act of treason which is mass immigration.  The liberal elite have suppressed dissent   to the extent that most people have developed the mentality normally associated with  totalitarian states, namely, a belief not that certain  views are morally wrong but, rather,  that  they are not to be spoken because they are dangerous for anyone might be a potential police  informer.  But the resentment is still there and growing.  It will become an unstoppable political energy  if a mainstream political party has the courage to release it by offering the electorate an end to mass immigration and the removal of all the apparatus created by the state which places ethnic and racial minorities in a privileged position and the native population under the ideological hammer.

The retention of Miss West  in “protective” custody  is positively sinister, as is the suggestion Miss West  is mentally ill.   It is reminiscent of the Soviet Union and Communist China still. Both  are indicative of  the fear the British elite have of the truth about immigration being told.  They fear this because  it would  both dismantle the world which they have built (and which has often enough provided them with a very decent income) and the fact that the finger of blame for the treason would be pointed at them.

That the white liberal’s position is purely political and self-serving rather than principled can be seen by the tolerance they extend to racial and ethnic minorities, especially blacks, when they make  nakedly racist comments about whites.  The black Labour MP Diane Abbott was allowed to remain within the Labour Party despite complaining in 1996 about the employment of “Blonde, blue-eyed Finish nurses” instead of black West Indian ones (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20066) , while the great black liberal totem is the unreservedly racist Muhammad Ali (http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/muhammad-ali-and-the-white-liberals/).  All the white liberal does is defend those of whom they approve.

Her   son  will have been taken into care if there is no relative to look after him. It will be interesting to see  if he is, in effect,  removed from his mother  on the grounds that she holds “racist views”.