Friday 19 March 2010

The Ethnic Cleansing of the English

“A West which has not yet understood that whites, in a world become too small for its inhabitants, are now a minority and that the proliferation of other races dooms our race, my race, irretrievably to extinction in the century to come, if we hold fast to our present moral principles”

    — Jean Raspail, 1982,
The Camp Of The Saints

The vast majority of the heavily propagandised English populace remain blissfully unaware of the continental shift in immigrant demographics and birth rates that will relegate them to ethnic minority status in their homeland within twenty years.

If the brainwashed recipients of a progressive education and 24/7 cradle-to-grave state-sponsored brainwashing could remove their liberal blinkers and gaze in horror at their surroundings through the eyes of their grandparents, then they could only have themselves to blame. Their dispossession was carried out in full view of those that would not see, and in retrospect, how could there be any outcome other than gradual extinction when one considers exactly what our socialist rulers have carried out over the last few decades?

1.Identified a small yet wealthy country populated by a rapidly declining indigenous race representing less than 1% of the global population, and whose territorial homeland makes up less than 1% of global habitable area.
2.Established a Welfare State with a legal requirement to provide free housing, food, education, health, translation services and pin money to those in need, with the most needy being judged solely on the number of children they have.
3.Thrown open the doors of this tiny country to the teeming billions of the poverty-stricken third world, whilst making sure the multiple wives of Muslim males fully understood that the more children they produced, the bigger the house and welfare cheque they would receive from the State, even though polygamy is illegal in England.
4.Encouraged the new arrivals to take pride in the culture and religion of the third-world country they had escaped from and “educated” them into developing an unhealthy animosity toward their host country’s imperialist and oppressive past.
5.Demonised the ancient and indigenous population as institutionally racist from the age of five and enacted “hate” laws which are then predominately used to criminalise and silence the indigenous people who speak out against their territorial and cultural dispossession.
6.Praised multiculturalism as a positive and Islam as a religion of peace, then sat back to watch the results of their social experiment — what could possibly go wrong?

Liberal progressives residing in fine mansions on Hampstead Heath will tell you nothing could go wrong; that mass immigration is nothing other than a positive boon, an unarguable and incontrovertible truth that must be patiently and condescendingly explained to the uneducated and the unwashed. After all, without those forelock tugging, cute little brown people who tend to the gardens, kitchen, laundry and children of the servant owning socialist-class, there would be little time to do the more important things in life, such as denouncing capitalism in between producing money making yet soul-destroying reality TV shows.

For the white working class, however, those long-forgotten stalwarts of the country who failed to play their designated role in the long term plans of Mr Marx and Mr Engels, thereby earning the enduring hatred of the cuckolded intellectuals, it means nothing other than population replacement, or in the cruder yet more honest language of the betrayed working man rarely encountered at progressive Hampstead dinner parties, ethnic cleansing.

Is this too strong a description? Patricia Morgan of The Salisbury Review doesn’t think so. In 2006 she wrote an article entitled Ethnic Cleansing in East London which focussed primarily on Tower Hamlets and the dispossession of white working-class Londoners who, having survived Adolf Hitler and the Luftwaffe, subsequently failed to hold back the tidal wave of Socialism and multiculturalism so avidly promoted by the British Labour Party.

Ms Morgan recounts a conversation with a left-wing friend who was slowly becoming aware of the results of Socialisms warped multicultural ideology:
When one of my old Labour Party acquaintances expressed anxiety over Islamic terrorism, I asked him why he had always been so keen on getting as many immigrants here as possible. He told me that he had been ‘trying to make the revolution‘. So, while it had not been possible to storm Buckingham Palace and set up Soviets in Westminster, you could still change the population and supplant the hated ‘other’.
But as with all Socialist policies, the anti-Midas touch of the Liberal/Left duly performed as it has always performed, and the hated “other” turned out not be the bowler-hatted bourgeoisie, but the cloth-capped working class English themselves, whose naïve belief in Socialism’s promise of a Brave New World failed to understand the chosen people were not white but brown, not Christian but Islamic, and not English but members of any third-world race whose culture was irredeemably at odds with that of the host culture.

Patricia Morgan goes on to describe the accelerating displacement of the indigenous East-Enders, as the new arrivals from Bangladesh went straight to the head of the housing queue by dint of their family size, averaging in good Muslim tradition seven children per wife. You will note I do not say per couple, because many Muslim men in Tower Hamlets routinely have four wives each, all “legally” supported by the British State in order they may father up to twenty-eight children in a literal tsunami of polygamous demographic warfare imported from one-well villages in Bangladesh to the streets of our forefathers via Heathrow Terminal 1.

Frank Dobson, a Labour MP and traitor who attained Ministerial rank in Tony Blair’s cabinet, was on hand to astutely encourage the displacement of his party’s historical core vote. Speaking to a Bangladeshi audience in Tower Hamlets a few years ago, he encouraged them to help themselves to everything on offer from the State; nothing was too much, and no matter how much was taken, it could never fully recompense the oppressed of the non-white world for the misery and depredations they had historically suffered under the boot of the racialist-imperialist-oppressor that was Britain.

And today we live with the results of this treason and betrayal. Tower Hamlets is now called “Banglatown” where, with the exception of a few vicars otherwise known as clerical punch bags, there are virtually no whites left, just as there are very few whites in many other areas of London where the non-white population now amounts to 42% with a full one-third of all “Londoners” born outside the UK.

If you think words such as colonisation, population replacement and ethnic cleansing are a tad too strong, or perhaps even xenophobic, then please take a look at this video of cultural enrichment shot in the streets of Wembley, yet another area of London which the indigenous race has quietly vacated in a wave of white flight that in 2007 saw 340,000 Londoners celebrate diversity by foot, train, boat and plane.

And England’s other cities are going precisely the same way in precisely the same manner. The non-indigenous birth rate now averages an extraordinary 35% nationally, which realistically means 60-70% in the cities alone, thus consigning indigenous English children in Birmingham, Bradford, Oldham, London, Luton and Leicester to an ethnic minority in their own land where up to 150 different languages are spoken in their schools; a fate awaiting English children in all our cities and towns within a decade, and the entire country before 2030.

Tracking ethnic demographics is not an exact science, but it is generally recognised that the ethnic minority population of Britain is approximately 15% which equates to 9 million out of a population of 60 million.

However, the indigenous British population contains many old people, leaving only 50% of the population under 40 years of age, whilst the non-indigenous population tend to be much younger by dint of their higher birth rate, with 75% typically representing those aged under 40.

If we use these statistics, the population of Great Britain under the age of 40 looks like this:

Indigenous Population 2009:25.5 million
Non-Indigenous Population 2009:6.75 million

But the current birth rate differentials cause the indigenous population to decline by 25% per generation whilst the non-indigenous population has historically doubled per generation, with the Muslim population growing ten times faster than the rest of society.

If we project this data forward to 2030, the figures look like this:

Indigenous Population 2030:19 million
Non-Indigenous Population 2030:13.5 million

On top of this we need to take the following into account:
  • Approximately 200,000 Brits emigrate every year.
  • Approximately 200,000 legal immigrants arrive every year.
  • Approximately 300,000 illegal immigrants enter England every year in order to reach government productivity targets.

If we project this data forward to 2030, the figures look like this:

Indigenous Population 2030:15 million
Non-Indigenous Population 2030:23.5 million

To become an ethnic minority in your own country over just a few decades suggests that government policy, as has recently been revealed, was indeed to ethnically cleanse the English from their homeland, although the multiculturalists who committed this wicked act of treason and betrayal never couched it in quite such plain language, preferring instead to frame mass immigration as a means of achieving social objectives.

These figures are not hysterical, nor are they the obtained from the research of paranoid periodicals. In 2007 The Guardian reported that Britain was heading toward a population of 70 million by 2031, but did not mention that the addition of an extra 10 million people whilst the indigenous population was simultaneously declining and emigrating required the importation of an awful lot more than just an extra 10 million immigrants.

Indeed, the liberals and the leftists are only too aware the indigenous population is being ethnically cleansed. In 2000 The Guardian predicted a white minority Britain by 2100, therefore tacitly admitting acceptance of population replacement, but erring only on the time frame necessary to achieve racial cleanliness.

The card-carrying NUJ journalist who penned the article was no doubt loath to take into account the racial and cultural dispossession of his contemporaries under the age of 40, nor could he foresee the massive increase in immigration since 2000, nor indeed the unmentioned and rather curious instance of population replacement taking place in England alone — Scotland and Wales having escaped the fate Scottish politicians have inflicted on the Auld Enemy.

Another fact rarely mentioned but no less pertinent is that Socialists always lie. The figures used for this article are sourced from a government that has a vested interest in keeping the real horror of what they have been up to from the voters. Only a handful of marginally honest Labour politicians will actually admit the numbers are far higher than official figures suggest, yet they still deny any knowledge as to the real numbers of foreigners in the country.

The Independent suggested the population could already be as high as 80 million, based on supermarket food sales, a figure borne out by the number of National Insurance cards in existence, which are essential if you wish to work or draw benefits. Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis tells us there are 76 million NI cards equating to 29 million over and above eligible British citizens.

One only has to walk around our towns and cities to realise that population replacement is a substantive and rapidly accelerating fact. British MP Ann Cryer, who represents Keighley, a town near Bradford, estimates that 1 million Pakistanis came to Britain over the last four years to work, study or marry, with imported wives making up 80% of all marriages in her area, where local police chiefs describe community cohesion between the indigenous and the non-indigenous tribes as “nerve-jangling.”

The anger amongst the indigenous working classes is palpable, and it is growing. As the working class EDL take to the streets stentoriously chanting “We want our country back, we want our culture back” and the middle class socialist students who joined the Islamist-infiltrated UAF — as a sop to their inability to score with either a football or a member of the opposite sex — respond with girlishly high pitched squeals of “Nazi scum off our streets”, then I see no reason to defer my prediction of European civil war by 2025.

British Home Secretary Alan Johnson does not share my apocalyptic vision of potential civil unrest, claiming he did not lie awake at night worrying about the prospect of a 70 million British population and that he enjoyed living in a multicultural society; but now we know this is just a lie to facilitate a far greater evil. Perhaps Mr Johnson’s attention should be drawn to the UN’s definition of genocide:
Article 2:In the present convention genocide means any of the acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group, as such:
2c:Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…

Although the UN did not really draw up their charters with the best interests of white people in mind, that does not mean they can be ignored. When Bonnie Greer, a foreign, feisty feminist of colour had the effrontery to tell an outnumbered and visibly intimidated Nick Griffin on “Question Time” that there was no such thing as the indigenous English people, she was greeted with wild applause by the baying audience of hand-picked BBC rent-a-mob impartiality, but was she aware that her denial of a nationality and culture to whites that was afforded to all non-whites was covered by another UN Declaration?

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states the following:
Article 6:Every indigenous individual has a right to a nationality.
Article 8.1:Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
Article 8.2:States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
(a)Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b)Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(d)Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e)Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

Bearing in mind the European Union wishes to import another twenty million migrants from Asia and Africa into the EU, when our children are not only rapidly approaching an ethnically cleansed and ethnic minority status, but are also brainwashed into accepting the dispossession of their nationality, their territory and their culture, then perhaps a Hampstead Thinker could explain to me why it is “racist” to resist such a genocidal political policy, and why various UN Declarations quoted with enormous reverence when applied to the Palestinians and various other pets of the socialist elite are deemed inapplicable when it is the indigenous English who are the genuine victims of ethnic cleansing.

But England of course is just a microcosm of what is a global phenomenon. The third world is booming and exporting its youth bulge to the first world, bringing with it a religion and a culture unsuited to democracy and peaceful co-existence. This can only lead to catastrophe for the indigenous populations. We have seen what happened after the Islamic takeover of majority Christian Lebanon; a 15 year religious civil war that took the lives of close to 10% of the population and wounded 33% — half of whom suffered from lifetime disabilities. So what exactly is the rationale behind importing Islam to the West?

Liberals tell us colonialism was evil, so why is the colonisation of white countries by non-white peoples — in far greater numbers than whites were ever sent to non-white countries — a matter of celebration? In 2050 the streets of Pakistani and Bangladeshi cities will be thronged with Pakistanis and Bangladeshis; there will be no white people there, just as there will be no white people on the streets of London, Luton, Paris, Rotterdam, Brussels, Malmö, etc. etc.

The Jean Raspail quote at the beginning of this article should not be taken lightly. Whites made up almost 30% of the global population in 1950, but by 2050 they will be down to single digits, and producing just 5% of the new-born. For a race of people with such a tenuous grasp of life on this unfriendly planet, to be forced into a minority within your own homeland, which is your only point of defence, is an act of criminality without precedence.


  1. "perhaps a Hampstead Thinker could explain to me why it is “racist” to resist such a genocidal political policy"

    I am not a 'Hampstead Thinker'.

    The reason it is racist is simple: it is one set of standards for white people and another set of standards for everyone else. People like you are not saying that the Native Americans or Native Australians (both of whom are, incidentally, far lower in population than white people) deserve to be majorities in their homelands. Why not?

    When the British colonized America, Australia, etc., we basically decided that settling in lands other than one's ancestral homeland is morally acceptable. To hold such a position when we were the ones moving to other lands and then to change it when others are moving to our lands is a hypocrisy that I for one want no part of.

    "Liberals tell us colonialism was evil, so why is the colonisation of white countries by non-white peoples — in far greater numbers than whites were ever sent to non-white countries — a matter of celebration?"

    Colonialism was evil because Europe prospered off the stolen wealth of its colonies. Immigration - at least from the former colonies - allows those from whom the wealth was stolen to live in the lands that their wealth went into developing. Is fairness, albeit delayed, not worth celebrating?

    A case can perhaps be made against immigration from non-colonies, but any platform that would prevent even immigration from former colonies is a platform without honour that would find support only among people without honour.

  2. Anonymous.

    You have never actually asked "people like me" whether Native Americans or Native Australians deserve to be majorities in their own homelands.

    As it happens, I emphatically believe they should.

    I have no idea as to population numbers 300 years ago and today, but am very much aware of the devastation bought about by the cultural dispossession of these once proud people.

    Unlike you however, I do not think two wrongs make a right, and as such wish to resist the colonisation and cultural dispossession of England that you seem to favour.

    Furthermore, American and Australian natives were defeated by a superior force, they did not agree to their cultural, racial and territorial dispossession in an act of liberal lunacy.

    I would also point out this country is not yours to give away. There has been no referendum asking the indigenous people whether they wish to endanger the lives of their children and grandchildren in order the sins of their forefathers may be absolved.

    You talk of honour, but I would suggest you dishonour greatly the men and women who fought and died for this country in order to preserve its ancient way of life. Their sacrifice was not made to enable "honourable" people like you to collaborate in it's defeat.

    On a final note, I talk of the very real possibility of racial genocide, and you reply with the catch all word of "racist"

    I am grateful that the United Nations saw fit to enact rules protecting the rights of indigenous peoples, which surely need to be respected if we are to stop real, genuine racists such as yourself from colluding in the destruction of an entire race of people.

  3. "As it happens, I emphatically believe they should."

    Then do you agree that until white people return America and Australia to their respective natives, they do not even deserve Europe to themselves? If not, why should white people possess a privilege that they have denied others?

    "There has been no referendum asking the indigenous people whether they wish to endanger the lives of their children and grandchildren in order the sins of their forefathers may be absolved."

    Should a crime gang be allowed to vote on whether it should face charges? Should a jury be composed exclusively of members of the same gang as the defendants? Should the beneficiaries of the crime are put in control of the trial?

    If there should be a referendum on immigration, it should be one that includes the inhabitants of all the former British colonies as well as the inhabitants of the British Isles. Would that not be more fair?

    "I would suggest you dishonour greatly the men and women who fought and died for this country in order to preserve its ancient way of life."

    People have fought and died for every country. This does not make every country honourable. Only the behaviour of the country itself is a measure of its honour. Are we next supposed to support the existence of Israel just because some IDF troops have been killed while stealing Palestinian land on which 'to preserve the Jewish way of life'? Are people such as Benjamin Freedman and Jack Bernstein 'dishonourable' by speaking out against the evils of Zionism?

    The mark of honour is readiness to denounce even one's own family if they have done wrong. As such, honour and nationalism are mutually exclusive. Which do you choose?

    "I talk of the very real possibility of racial genocide, and you reply with the catch all word of "racist""

    You asked me to explain why it is racist for Britain to resist immigration, and I explained why. What did you want?

    As for racial genocide, it is better to exit with honour than to stay in dishonour. The English have a chance to be remembered in history as a people who, despite exploiting many others around the world for their own gain, later had the courage to take responsibility for their wrongdoing and integrate with those whom once they oppressed. Instead, you want the English to become the Israelis of Europe. You want the English to sell their souls in order to save their skins. You are a leader among cowards.

  4. Are you seriously suggesting that whites leave America? Who would then provide the money for the third world? You don't think Bob Geldof props up African dictators single-handedly do you?

    You talk of the English as a crime gang who must pay. Do you think the German youth should continue to pay for their crimes of their grandfathers? Where does it all stop?

    Well you answer that one for me - an "honourable" exit. Only a leftist could talk of genocide as honourable. 100 million dead over the last century and you still won't stop your murderous ways.

    But as with all leftists, your perennial confusion is good to see. The Palestinians ARE entitled to their land which you claim is being stolen by those nasty Jews.

    One rule for one race/religion, another rule for a different race/religion.

    And you have the temerity to talk about racism?

    You clearly hate the white race and you hate them for crimes committed by their ancestors, not by them, and view their punishment via eradication with glee.

    You are one sick, racist puppy my genocidal leftist friend.

    Even Stalin, who was rather keen on families denouncing one another, did not think it an honourable action, but he was probably not quite as evil as you appear to be.

  5. Paul, as you point out, the Labour government has been, and is still currently engineering a stealth social project of mass immigration.

    "The secret plot to destroy Britain's identity" (by Melanie Phillips)

    The Labour government's mass immigration project has brought into England especially, millions of people from countries outside the E.U., such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Somalis, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and soon Turkey.

    This is all part of a 'multicultural' project of national suicide* proportions imposed on the English indigenous people, by its political class.

    (*Lawrence Auster wrote an essay about 15 years ago about the similar crisis befalling America:

    "The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism", available in PDF format):

  6. Thanks Jack

    Auster's booklet was one of the first things I read 6-7 years ago which opened my eyes to the situation.

    Melanie Philip's article is also good, as is a link I will leave at end by Janet Daley.

    I do intend to write a couple of articles progressing this theme, one called "Britain Betrayed" the other "Culturally Cleansing The English."

  7. I believe that you speak for a good percentage of people in this country - it is a pity that more debate cannot be had without the, as you say, catch-all word of 'racist' being screamed out. Once the richer countries of the western world have been over populated by the poorer peoples, as is now taking place, the 'goose that lays the golden egg' will be finished.

  8. I have lately discovered your articles.
    Good luck in your standing for Parliament
    I notice you attempted to engage in debate with" anonymous" re your latest post on the ethnic cleansing of the English.
    It is entirely futile. There is no common ground at all. This has to be understood by all of us even "anonymous".
    There is nothing to debate.
    Our ancestors ( yes we did have them just like any other people) at Hastings knew just what would happen to England if they lost. It would be changed utterly and it was. We face a similar turning point once again, even more perilous.
    The fate of peoples is decided by courage, will and strength. All else is mere verbiage.
    Sadly this is just the beginning of terrible times that could have been avoided had wise and honest men been in power.

  9. @ Paul Weston

    "Are you seriously suggesting that whites leave America?"

    No, I am simply pointing out the double-standard of advocating that a people who have denied others of being a majority in their homelands should then demand being a majority in their own homeland.

    "Do you think the German youth should continue to pay for their crimes of their grandfathers?"

    What crimes are these? Are you referring to the alleged 'Holocaust' that is ILLEGAL TO QUESTION in Germany? Why would the truth fear questioning?

    "you still won't stop your murderous ways."

    How is peaceful racial integration murder? You - not I - are the one trying to whip up anger in order to start a civil war in Europe. I do not want a civil war, nor do most people, nor do I believe there would be one if not for people like you deliberately provoking it.

    "One rule for one race/religion, another rule for a different race/religion."

    My one rule is: no group should receive any privilege that it has denied another group. There is no 'other rule'. It is not my fault that some races/religions have been more oppressive than others.

    "You clearly hate the white race and you hate them for crimes committed by their ancestors, not by them"

    I have noticed how often critics of white crimes have been described as white-haters, just as critics of Jewish crimes have been described as anti-Semites. Fortunately people are starting to see through this trick.

    If my father stole wealth and I inherited this wealth from him, I would consider myself obliged by honour to compensate the victims. Would you not? And what would we think of people who do not feel so obliged? Dishonourable?

    @ Jack R

    Melanie Philips and Lawrence Auster are both Zionist Jews. They present Islam as a danger in order to increase support for Israel. Do not be suckered by them!

    @ dave s

    "There is no common ground at all. This has to be understood by all of us even "anonymous"."

    I agree. I am not trying to convert Paul Weston. I am simply making sure that he and his ilk cannot take the moral high ground. Yes, he will have his supporters, but he will have got them to his side by SCARING them. What does this say about him, and about them?

  10. Dave S

    You are probably right about debating with Mr Anonymous, but am going to say one final thing to him:

    You say I encourage support by scaring people.

    Let me tell you something.

    I am terrified.

    I know about the hideous violence, murder and depravity Communism is capable of, and it terrifies me to see so many ex-Communists or Communist sympathisers running the EU, the Labour cabinet, our media (principally the BBC) and our schools.

    It terrifies me that they lack the morality you so obviously lack, it terrifies me you can talk casually of our "exit" when I know this is how they feel as well, it terrifies me that with every passing day they are taking more and more power and it terrifies me that history has not stopped and the Gulags may well await me, and all those who think like me.

    And I know about the history of Islam, the imperialism, the religiously driven fanatical desire for power, the millions brutally killed over the centuries in repulsing this religious/political ideology that deems all non-Muslims to death or second class status.

    Islam terrifies me.

    And finally you terrify me. I have re-read your comments and I see the mind of a Hitler, a Stalin, a Mao or a Pol Pot.

    This will be my last response to you. I cannot debate with those who are capable of dismissing an entire race of people as inherently evil and superfluous, just as I would not debate with a present day Nazi who thinks the same way, albeit about a different race of people.

    You know the type of person I am sure; they often use the word "Zionist."

  11. Anonymous
    I am glad you agree with me on the futilty of debate. It makes life simpler.
    I am curious about an unrelated matter and the way you describe it. A matter of the use of the English language rather than a developing argument.
    English is often a very precise language as I am sure you will agree.
    The use of the word " alleged" for example. One can say for instance - "an alleged robbery " or "he was alleged to have beaten his dog". The implication being that the act is unproven. You use the phrase "alleged Holocaust" . I was wondering whether this was deliberate on your part or , as we all often do, merely a careless use of the language.
    It has to be one or the other so perhaps you will enlighten me as to which it is.

  12. "As for racial genocide, it is better to exit with honour than to stay in dishonour."

    Please please PLEASE, make your own exit from this world soon, you warped prig.

  13. @ Paul Weston

    I am not a fan of Communism. I also consider it inaccurate, even deceptive, to describe the people in control as Communists, as if they believed in the ideology. They do not. They merely use tactics that have also been used by Communists during the last century to acquire power. One of these tactics is to make people angry at the establishment (e.g. Labour, Tories), and then to control the dissent by LEADING the dissent (e.g. UKIP, BNP), so that the backlash is unleashed on a scapegoat - sometimes the very people trying to warn us of such tactics.

    In our case, I suggest the designated scapegoat is Islam, which happens to be the largest concerted anti-Zionist group in the world.

    Can you figure out who is behind this?

    @ dave s

    Again I ask, does the truth fear inquiry? Does the truth need to be enforced by law? Yet what single historical event - and no other - are we prohibited by law from expressing doubt about in many European countries? I hope this clarifies my position on the matter. So who controls our societies, that such unjust laws could be passed in the first place? Who benefits from this enforced version of history?

  14. At least Anonymous cleared that up: they think the Jews are behind it all. I can probably interpolate the rest of their world view too.

    I think they do Islam a little disservice: not only does it encourage anti-Zionism, it also encourages anti-anything-that-isn't-Islam. The actions of some of its followers are all you need to understand the reactions many have to this backward cult. Or maybe Anon thinks Islamic terror is all the work of the Jews too.

    You see, Anon, your warped view works both ways. Who benefits from making out the Holocaust didn't happen and the Jews are manipulating everything?

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. Immigration or invasion has always been the name of the game. In past centuries, each nation protected itself from invasion, for it knew that if they lost the war against the invading army, their people and culture would be destroyed or replaced. When a group of people betrayed their own people, we have terms like 'Quisling' and 'Trojan horse'. Such people got their just desserts if the invaders were repelled.

    Population replacement was therefore always a reality of the world. In some cases, population replacement was a benefit for all, and in others, it was a disaster for both invaders and the natives. In any case, the matter was settled by force, which has been the way of the world. The subjugation and elimination of non-Muslims from regions that were invaded by Islamic armies, was in my view, a disaster for the natives. But it’s done - Muslim invaders sanctified their land gains by their blood, and that’s that. Apropos of this, even if Muslims became a majority, they will NOT be happy to get peaceful control of Britain or the West. To sanctify and legitimise the gain of territory, it will have to be done by blood, i.e., a war or Jihad will be declared against the natives, and even non-resisting natives slaughtered, till all of them accept that they have been conquered.

    In historic terms, 'Immigration' is a new policy. In such a situation, the ever-resident population of betrayers in any population - Quislings or Trojans, had another method to betray their own side. This method, though highly immoral, could be made legal, and therefore did not carry the penalty of being hung from the nearest lamppost. However, population replacement by immigration, just does not carry the legitimacy of conquest by the shedding of blood – it never has, and never will.

    So what is the answer to what is happening in the West at large? If we assume that immigration is an invasion fostered by Quislings and Trojans, using laws that were never sanctioned by the natives, then war becomes not just legal, but morally justified. It becomes legal and moral for native Europeans to remove immigrants from their lands by force. Almost all immigrants would simply leave, if the natives decided to settle the question of whose land it is, using the normal rules that decide whose land it is. Immigrants having no moral claims or title to the land, would not put up a fight.

    The only people who may put up a fight are Muslims in Britain or Europe, as they believe that their allah rightfully gives all lands to them. But even here, they know that they did not gain the land by violent Jihad, and therefore allah does not sanction it. They too will leave without much of a fight. However the danger is, that once Muslims in Europe are numerically large enough, they can declare Jihad and win (land gain is now sanctified). Therefore, natives in Europe must remove Muslims from Europe by force if necessary. Once this is made clear, almost all Muslims will leave, and the threat of population replacement is over.

    Other groups, such as Hindus are no danger. Blacks from the Caribbean or Africa, though prone to criminal activity, are merely parasites on White society’s largesse. Once Whites had to leave Africa, Blacks had no option to but to live on aid from White nations, or move to White nations. They are not an existential threat though.

  17. @Anonymous

    Your argument in favour of population replacement is the standard one used by leftists and colonisers. It applies the two-wrongs-make-a-right principle; it applies the punishing-the-son-for-the-sins-of-the-father principle, it implicitly rejects the notion of a statute of limitations; it resorts to the historical and economic socialist lie that Europe got rich off the back of "wealth" that was "stolen" from colonial tribes; and it resorts to guilt-trip tactics, themselves guilty of "presentism", whereby values of the present are applied anachronistically to previous epochs and cultures. To name a few.

    Pretty fallacious stuff but also a convenient smokescreen with which to keep your hatred and hypocritical self-interest concealed, although the revenge-narrative of your ilk is usually easy to spot, instead busying your opponents with the infuriating ridiculousness of your "argument". You also keep your opponents busy with your application of the dehumanising label "racist". Why would anyone care to defend himself against such a made-up term? Because socialist social-engineering terms like "racist" are used as part of a process of intimidation and thuggery. Once the label sticks then anything goes.

    In this game the old English rule of "innocent until proven guilty" is inverted. Indeed, not only does the victim have to prove his innocence against the charge, the charge itself is almost always undefined by the accuser, who invariably puts the burdon of definition on the accused. Furthermore, the accused's attempts to wriggle out of the charge are used as evidence against them. Such was the case with Metropolitan police officers being "questioned" during the "Lawrence Inquiry" show-trial. Even Kafka couldn't have dreamed up such a scenario but this is our reality today. Unfortunately, the penulty is often a loss of income or imprisonment if the alleged thought-criminal is unable to prove his innocence.

    So, a hatred and self-interest fuelled revenge narrative, hidden behind a smokescreen of fallacious argumentation and intimidation tactics, that's you in a nutshell. Please, be my guest, deny away. I'll just use it as evidence against you. After all, what's good for the goose

  18. @ Bigland

    "maybe Anon thinks Islamic terror is all the work of the Jews too"

    I suggest starting your studies here:

    "Who benefits from making out the Holocaust didn't happen and the Jews are manipulating everything?"

    Here is a list of countries where it is illegal to question the alleged Holocaust:

    Provide a list of countries where it is illegal to BELIEVE the alleged Holocaust, and I will start taking you seriously.

    Do not take my word for it. Do your own research. Find out who owns the media corporations and publishing houses that depict Muslims as barbaric terrorists. Find out what ancestry Geert Wilders, Mark Steyn, Melanie Philips, Debbie Schlussel, Bat Ye'or, Lawrence Auster, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have in common. Are these all coincidences?

    @ Tony Rogers

    "punishing-the-son-for-the-sins-of-the-father principle"

    No, I am saying that the son, if he is honourable, should feel obliged to VOLUNTARILY compensate his father's victims. If you are unwilling to do so, then at least admit you are less honourable than another who is willing to do so.

    "In this game the old English rule of "innocent until proven guilty" is inverted."

    Are you claiming that there was no British Empire beyond the British Isles?

    I am done with this discussion. A final warning: people are most easily manipulated when they are frightened. Therefore never trust those who incite fear. Fear of Islam, fear of racial integration, all these are tools to herd you to where they want you to be, namely fighting yet another war that they agitated and which is in their interests.

    "If my sons did not want war, there would be none." - Gutle Schnapper Rothschild

  19. "No, I am saying that the son, if he is honourable, should feel obliged to VOLUNTARILY compensate his father's victims." - anonymous

    And lo the leftist wheels out the word "honour". Honour, my friend, is defending what your forebears fought for and died for so to bequeath it to you. Eternal adolescents like you could not begin to understand what honour means.

    "A final warning: people are most easily manipulated when they are frightened."

    That's how the bogeyman politics of your ilk has always worked. Do you think this country would be in the state it's in now if "we" were free to speak our minds without the threat of personal ruin from those who wished to destroy us?

    A "fear of racial integration" is the intellectual fantasy of some spotty middle-class Marxist troublemaker, the wannabe heir to Rousseau, with deluded ideas about being the intellectual sculptor of the clay of the masses. The reality is that it's normal for people not to like having their own communities altered forever, destroyed, and being alienated from the place they grew up in. Someone who claims that normal people are the problem is the problem.

    "I'm done with this discussion"

    No, you were done during this discussion.

  20. Paul, in your response to Bartholomewscross at Gates of Vienna you suggest that the following policies:

    1) a five year freeze on immigration and more selective immigration thereafter
    2) withdrawal from the EU
    3) abolition of the race-relations industry and human-rights laws
    4) making St George’s Day a bank holiday

    should satisfy everyone that UKIP are determined to 'defend the English,' presumably from further ethnic cleansing and more complete genocide.

    But if your argument that the English have been on the receiving end of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing and gradual genocide is valid (I think it is), I believe we are entitled to ask for more from a party (and politician) that claims both to be our defender and to be concerned with justice. Most obviously, we're entitled to ask why you don't name the individuals responsible for these crimes and pledge to prosecute them, and why you appear to have no plans for reversing their ethnic cleansing and genocidal processes? Doubts about your and UKIP's sincerity are justified while these basic issues go unaddressed. It's not enough to say our dispossession is wrong, we must also make it plain that we intend to take back what was ours, as we are entitled to do.

  21. anonymous said:

    When the British colonized America, Australia, etc., we basically decided that settling in lands other than one's ancestral homeland is morally acceptable. To hold such a position when we were the ones moving to other lands and then to change it when others are moving to our lands is a hypocrisy that I for one want no part of.

    No hypocrisy attaches to British nationalists on that account because when Europeans were settling in America, Australia etc., the idea that a strong people would impose its will on weaker peoples was the universal morality. It's what everybody did pre-Wilson's 'Fourteen Points' if they felt they could get away with it. Native American groups displaced and slaughtered one another, as did African and Asian (and European) groups. Europeans were on the receiving end of inter-continental colonisation, slavery, and plunder whenever Jews, Turks, Moors, or Mongols could manage it.

    The colonisation of Europe by Africans and Asians in the last six decades is different because it occurred during a period with a different but still universal morality that now acknowledged the rights of indigenous peoples to control their homelands. But we know what happened: immediately our governments had recognised the claims of African and Asian peoples to run their homelands in their own interests, including booting us out, the same governments, and the same African and Asian peoples, decided that European peoples didn't have the same rights to our own countries. There's your hypocrisy, anon.

    Immigration - at least from the former colonies - allows those from whom the wealth was stolen to live in the lands that their wealth went into developing.

    This argument (falsely) assumes economic development has a higher value than a people's right not to be replaced by colonists so logically promotes any colonialism which brings economic development. Not only does this suggest Asians, Africans and Amerindians benefited in the round from European colonisation (were their countries not more economically developed after being colonised by Europeans than before?), but also it would seem to justify European opposition to the settlement of Asians and Africans in Europe (are they not known to be economically inactive / underperforming compared to native Europeans?).

    I would also suggest it's a fundamental misreading of history. The main beneficiaries of Britain's empire were a handful of financiers (principally of Asian origin, by the way) and the economies of the countries conquered -- economies that barely existed until British soldiers, engineers, farmers and clerks built them up. You're demanding reparations be paid by descendants of the group that contributed most to these trades and gained the least.

  22. Anon, so in answer to my suggestion that you might think "Islamic terror is all the work of the Jews ", you link to a video claiming Jews are responsible for Islamic terror.

    You could have just said, "yes".

    In answer to my question, "Who benefits from making out the Holocaust didn't happen and the Jews are manipulating everything?", you fail to answer, and instead provide a nonsensical challenge. I think it's pointless to outlaw Holocaust denial, but I have sympathies with the nation's that do; I've yet to come across a denier that was merely seeking truth - they all seem to have another agenda.

    "Do not take my word for it. Do your own research." You needn't worry about that. The point is, what the hell are you doing for research? I could point out which names on your list have no or extremely distant Jewish ancestry, but I guess you'll just put it down to an evil Zionist cover-up.

    And so what if they have got Jewish ancestry? Being Jewish doesn't automatically make them wrong or suspect. But then again, that's exactly what you think, isn't it?

    As to depicting Muslims as barbarians, they do a pretty good job of that themselves. But, sadly again, you'll just claim it's all a put up job and that suicide bombings, decapitations, rapes, "honour" killings and perhaps even the Quran, are all the work of them Jews who control everything. You know, when you place yourself in a position where nothing you believe can be challenged, you haven't achieved mastery of the truth; you've deluded yourself into a world of fiction.

  23. OK, I'm back because I do want to respond to fellist.

    "when Europeans were settling in America, Australia etc., the idea that a strong people would impose its will on weaker peoples was the universal morality."

    So what does it say about people who support this rule when they are strong (thus can profit from it) and then denounce it when they are weak (thus cannot profit from it)? Are these honourable people, or opportunist hypocrites? My original point stands.

    "Jews, Turks, Moors, or Mongols"

    I have never defended these groups. There is nothing I would like more than to see international political pressure on Israel to open its borders to worldwide immigration (which will not happen if we instead start imitating Israeli immigration policy ourselves). The historic Turkic and Moorish populations have already successfully integrated with other races, for which I congratulate them. Ethnic Mongols in Mongolia are also increasingly integrated, and I have no complaint about that either.

    "a different but still universal morality that now acknowledged the rights of indigenous peoples to control their homelands"

    Was America given back to the native Americans? Was Australia given back to the native Australians? Was Palestine given back to the Palestinians? And let's see just what happens to Iraq. Just how 'universal' is this morality anyway?

    "European peoples didn't have the same rights to our own countries"

    Whatever rights you think Europeans should get, native Americans should get the same. Fair? What do you propose, then?

    "Asians, Africans and Amerindians benefited in the round from European colonisation (were their countries not more economically developed after being colonised by Europeans than before?)"

    There was less poverty in those countries prior to European colonization, that is for sure. If poverty is a sign of poor economy, then those countries were more economically developed before European colonization than after.

    "justify European opposition to the settlement of Asians and Africans in Europe (are they not known to be economically inactive / underperforming compared to native Europeans?)"

    Are they? The truth is that they are building an alternative economy to the one controlled by Zionist international banking. Many Asian and African small businesses in European cities are highly productive and cutting into the markets of the Zionist corporations:

    This is why we get all the negative propaganda about non-European immigrants. This is also why I support them.

  24. What you miss is that our climate is not suited to all these "brown" people, their children are riddled with rickets due to lack of sunshine - we whites are meant to live here. A very good and well written article.

  25. @ Anonymous

    You asked:

    "Was Palestine given back to the Palestinians?"

    I would answer, yes it was. Some were of the ancient religion, others were of a later religion.

    The later religion found it impossible to live with the earlier religion, despite the same racial origins.

    As you pin your colours to the mast of original inhabitants of America and Australia, I assume you therefore favour ALL the original inhabitants of Palestine.

    If not, why not?

    Unless of course you are an anti-Israel/Jewish racist??

  26. Paul Weston, debating with the Leftist "anonymous" is pointless. Once your opponent calls for your death ,your children's death and the genocide of your people, the time for civil debate is over. Now you must warn Leftists like "anonymous" that if they continue, they must be killed before their policies kill you and your children.

  27. what a scumbag you are anonymous..
    You are a traitor and a dangerous nasty person ..

  28. and well said Paul Weston.

  29. hi, i am guy from south america, white by the way, and i am stunned even now what i witness in london in the last 4 years. it could be classified as etnic cleasing and should be investigated, since the population was not warned or questioned by the recent events.
    there is a need to ban interracial here i think. at least temporarily, a lot of white woman have been interbreeding all over the city.
    i dont want to say more , other wise i may sound dramatic. but there thousands and thousands of inter bred in uk now, and america too. as a white person i felt discrimianted, but who cares.

  30. Dear Mr Weston,
    I admire your writing and share most of your ideas. But, being Russian, I look at things from a somewhat different perspective, which is only natural.

    I greatly sympathise with you as regards the destruction of traditional British society, culture and, ultimately, of the British nation.

    However, I have even greater sympathy for the Serbian people to whom I feel much closer for religious and linguistic reasons.

    And this people, with their thousand-year-old Christian civilisation are being destroyed now not only by Muslim Albanians and Bosnians, but also by Western nations.

    Serbs have been accused of barbarity and inhumanity. Of course, during the latest wars in former Yugoslavia there were Serbs who committed acts of barbarity. But all the parties to these wars were equally barbaric. However, the generally accepted opinion in the West considers Serbs as the ogres and Albanians, Croatians, and Slavic Muslims as innocent victims.

    I would advise Western people who hold such views to go to Kosovo and visit Serbian enclaves.

    I happened to go there twice as a worker of an international humanitarian organisation. Before we entered Kosovo, we had been instructed not to speak Russian in public places - otherwise we might have been killed by Albanians.

    We visited a Russian military hospital in Kosovo Polje. The doctors told us that they had to provide all sorts of medical assistance to the local Serb and Gypsy population because Albanian doctors refused to give them any help whatsoever.

    I talked to a woman from the local staff of our organisation. She was Serbian, born and raised in a city. But she had to seek refuge in a little Serbian village protected by international troops. It felt like a prison, she said. But she had no choice - if she left her village without international escort she would have been murdered.

    We visited Devic Convent were nine nuns, novices lived protected by Russian troops and surviving thanks to aid from Greece. There was also a priest who took refuge there after Albanians destroyed his church.

    There were other things, some of them very much like horror stories.

    So this is supposedly democratic Kosovo, supported by Western democracies in the name of freedom.

    Well, my dear European friends. Come to "free and democratic" Kosovo and see what your life will look like if Muslims take over your countries! And think twice before you brand Serbs fascists, racists or anything of the kind.

  31. Im not a Scumbag. Its not my fault I live in cloud cuckoo land, its the pills I'm on. Anyway I'm just off now to BBQ the DVD player. Scumbag - NO. A self loathing, deluded, dangerous loony lefty Muppet - YES.

  32. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  33. Who is this imported Labour shill Bonnie Greer? She arrogantly struts across the British cultural stage as if she packed up all the art, theatre and literature from South Chicago and carried it with her in her suitcase to the philistine Brits who surely must be prostrate at her feet with trembling kittenish gratitude. Additionally she has the brazen effrontery to lecture Britons on their history, ethnic heritage, and politics; going so far as to bluntly tell a native Brit that "there was no such thing as indigenous English". Now imagine the furore if a white European dared to tell the black South Africans that they were not indigenous. Instant deportation would the least of the hailstorm of dire consequences that would have fallen on the speaker's head once the words had taken wing. She sounds like a Fifth Columnist seeking to undermine the last piers of an already tottering structure known as Great Britain.If she were prettier I'd suggest Tony B had had something to do with her arrival and rise to national prominence.