Farewell!

Dear Reader,

After some deliberation I have decided to close this blog. I am still a nationalist and I will always be one, my political convictions are indelible and are not merely the result of reading and thinking, but arise from my heart, and from my soul. This is perhaps why I find it so painful to write about the irreversible and sinister changes that have taken place and which will, eventually, blot out our culture, history and ultimately our people. To the uninitiated my last sentence may appear hysterical, however in this last post I will attempt to demonstrate that it is not.

Indigenous Population

One common myth perpetuated by the media is that nobody is truly British, or rather English, because there were immigrants to these shores from mainland Europe a thousand years ago. Whilst this is true, most immigration was the result of bloody invasions rather than them settling with the consent of the original inhabitants. Many English counties derived from the peoples that created England - like The Kingdom of Essex (or Kingdom of the East Saxons), similarly there's Wessex (Kingdom of the West Saxons), Sussex and even Middlesex. East Anglia was the Kingdom of the East Angles - which split into Norfolk and Suffolk or 'northern folk' and 'southern folk'.

However, by 927 AD the English kingdoms of East Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, Essex, Sussex and Wessex were unified under the crown of King Athelstan. By 1066 the English fought as a single country, succumbing to the Normans led by William the Conqueror, and that was the last real wave of immigration.

Since then the various northern European peoples mingled and became indistinguishable from one another. The expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290, who were later readmitted by Cromwell, and the Blackamoors (black people) in 1596 prove that the English were not particularly tolerant of foreigners - we knew who we were, and we knew who we weren't!

Bryan Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics at Oxford University, tested the DNA of 10,000 people from across the British Isles. He determined that the vast majority of the genes were from the Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, the first settlers to these islands, arriving 10,000 years ago when the ice age retreated! You can purchase his book Blood of the Isles from Amazon.

The Changing Demographics

Should current demographic trends continue unabated then it is simply inevitable that the indigenous population will be an ethnic minority before the end of this century. The article below was published in 2000, prior to the massive increase in immigration under the latter years of the Labour government, hence my belief that the prediction is optimistic:

Whites will be an ethnic minority in Britain by the end of the century. Analysis of official figures indicate that, at current fertility rates and levels of immigration, there will be more non-whites than whites by 2100.

It would be the first time in history that a major indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority, rather than through war, famine or disease. Whites will be a minority in London by 2010.

In the early 1950s there were only a few tens of thousands of non-whites in the UK. By 1991 that had risen to 3 million - 6 per cent of the population. The population of ethnic minorities has been growing at between 2 and 4 per cent a year. Net immigration has been running at record levels, with 185,000 newcomers last year.

Government forecasts suggest that immigration on its own will be responsible for half the growth of the British population over the next couple of decades.

The Observer, Sunday 3 September 2000; by Anthony Browne

My belief is substantiated by a more recent study which predicts white Britons will be a minority by 2066. The fact that after just ten years the prediction has been revised so considerably, highlights the massive demographic transformation Britain has undergone under Labour:

White Britons to become minority by 2066

White Britons will be outnumbered by 2066 if the rate of immigration continues, researchers have claimed.

The white British-born community (defined as English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish-born citizens) will fall to less than half of the overall population in just over 50 years.

The warning from Professor David Coleman, from Oxford University, comes ahead of an announcement today by the Migration Advisory Board of its recommendation for the proposed immigration cap for people outside the EU.

Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that if immigration remains at a long-term rate of around 180,000 a year the proportion of the white British-born population will fall from 80 per cent to 59 per cent by 2051.

The Daily Telegraph; 18 Nov 2010; by Laura Roberts

As one can see from the graph below, immigration almost doubled under the Labour administration:

The above graph is from the statistics.gov.uk website, and is accompanied by the following analysis of migration in 2009:

An estimated 567,000 people arrived to live in the UK in 2009, which is consistent with levels seen since 2004 and compares with 590,000 in 2008. Non-British citizens accounted for 83 per cent of all immigrants; a third of these were from EU countries.

There are already substantial ethnic enclaves in all the major English cities, as well as many large towns, and some are touted to become 'plural cities', i.e. cities in which the native population no longer comprises the majority, within a decade or so. Due to higher birthrates and continued immigration the demographic change will increase exponentially.

The Environment

One of the biggest threats to the planet is overpopulation. The burgeoning human population will, like locusts, strip the earth of its assets and destroy the environment, if current trends continue unabated. What's more, the rapid industrialization of India and China is accelerating the depletion of resources and pollution of our planet.

It is not just globally that overpopulation is a problem, The Optimum Population Trust states the following on their website:

The Optimum Population Trust believes that Earth may not be able to support more than half its present numbers before the end of this century, and that the UK's long-term sustainable population level may be lower than 30 million. Given that, the net migration figures (posted above) for the United Kingdom should be a cause for concern.

Consider the environmental impact of vast numbers of people coming to Britain -building on green belt land destroys natural habitats and CO2 absorbing foliage. Additionally, Immigrants from the Third World will massively increase their carbon footprint by coming to the UK where they will consume food which travels hundreds of miles and is wrapped in plastic, drive a car, visit their homeland (air travel), use far more electricity, etc, etc. Even if one doubts climate change is anthropogenic, one should still appreciate that the Earth's resources are not infinite. The following extract originally published in The Independent, back in 2005, shows the extent of the environmental impact population growth has:

The UK population is now rising faster than at any time since the baby-boom years of the mid-20th century. Figures published last month suggest that some 300,000 new Britons appeared in our midst last year, equivalent to a city the size of Cardiff -- equivalent also, at present rates, to some 125,000 new houses, over 150,000 vehicles, a lake nearly a third the size of Windermere in annual water abstractions, and roughly 1.6 million hectares (over four Hampshires) in terms of global ecological footprint.

David Nicholson Lord: The green issue that dare not speak its name; The Independent; Monday, 20 June 2005

Social Change

In the 1950s Britain was a homogenous and harmonious society. Though people may have been materially worse off, a man's wage was enough to support his whole family and there was still a sense of community. Alex Ferguson grew up in a tough, deprived area of Glasgow, yet he still had this to say of his childhood:

"There was a real sense of community because we all lived so close together. You hear it said that you never locked your door but it's true."

(...)

"You didn't have a lot but I never call it poverty because I don't think it was poverty. You always had your meals, you never missed school, you were always clean and tidy.

"We didn't have a bathroom but we did have a big zinc bath and you'd have your bath once a week and be scrubbed clean.

"People shared with each other. There was a common cause to help each other, far more than you get today.

"You knew all your neighbours and probably worked with half of them. Today, I don't know half my neighbours."

The Daily Record; May 23 2009; by John Ferguson

Social Cohesion

It has been suggested that far from integrating, communities are living parallel lives. The riots in Oldham and Bradford were surely symptomatic of what lies ahead. Again one must appreciate that the statistics quoted are based on data prior to the significant increase in immigration, so are likely to be optimistic:

Fears of racial time bomb in riot-hit towns

The Asian populations of northern English towns hit by racial unrest this summer will see explosive growth in the next decade, raising fears of a social crisis unless problems of racism and deprivation are effectively tackled.

A report presented to Oldham council last week showed that by 2011 the white population of the town will have decreased by 9 per cent, whilst the Bangladeshi population will have grown by 112 per cent and the Pakistani population by 88 per cent.

Similar reports drawn up by other councils in Burnley, which has also suffered a race riot, and Rochdale, also revealed Asian communities growing far faster than their white counterparts. By 2011 Rochdale's Asian community will have grown from 9 per cent to 13 per cent.

The key reasons behind the projected growth of the Asian population is a higher birth rate, continued migration from the Asian sub-continent and a much younger population than the white community.

The Guardian; 5 August 2001; by Paul Harris

It's not just potential riots and racial violence that is a problem, however:

People in mixed-race areas 'feel isolated'

People in ethnically mixed areas are less trusting of their neighbours and live a more isolated existence, research from a New Labour "guru" has found.

The greater the diversity, the looser the community bonds and the more withdrawn local residents become, says Robert Putnam, an American academic based at Harvard.

Prof Putnam's research shows that people who live in such areas retreat into their shells. They spend more time watching television, volunteer less and take little part in community activity.

But where "social capital" is greater, children grow up healthier, safer and better educated. People in more homogeneous communities also have longer, happier lives and democracy and the economy work better.

The Daily Telegraph; 19 Jun 2007; by Philip Johnston

Crime

Frank Field wrote the following in an article published in the Telegraph:

In my constituency of Birkenhead, there are now more violent crimes against the person than there were in the whole country 50 years ago.

Daily Telegraph; 01 Oct 2009

That's quite an amazing statistic when one considers there are 650 Westminster constituencies! Here are some more amazing statistics:

The data provide a breakdown of the ethnicity of the 18,091 men and boys who police took action against for a range of violent and sexual offences in London in 2009-10.

They show that among those proceeded against for street crimes, 54 per cent were black; for robbery, 59 per cent; and for gun crimes, 67 per cent. Street crimes include muggings, assault with intent to rob and snatching property.

Just over 12 per cent of London’s 7.5 million population is black, including those of mixed black and white parentage, while 69 per cent is white, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The Sunday Telegraph; 26 Jun 2010; by Andrew Alderson

The statistics quoted above are compelling, and imply that blacks are inordinately responsible for street crime, something which is substantiated by criminal trends in the United States. Now I'm certainly not suggesting that violent crime is solely a result of immigration, there are a myriad of factors, I'm sure. In fact I personally believe that most street crime can be attributed to drugs. However, one cannot simply ignore the above statistics, which imply demographic change has certainly been a contributory factor.


Economics

The most frequently used reason for justifying immigration is that "they do the jobs that lazy Britons don't want to do". Conversely, however, this doesn't seem to be the case:

Above: One in five black men out of a job figures reveal, and worse to come; Guardian; 14th October, 2009.

Unemployment by religion paints a similar picture:

Accompanying the graph above was the following analysis:

In 2004, Muslims had the highest male unemployment rate in Great Britain, at 13 per cent. This was about three times the rate for Christian men (4 per cent). Unemployment rates for men in the other religious groups were between 3 and 8 per cent.

The unemployment rate for Muslim women at 18 per cent was about four times the rate for Christian and Jewish women (4 per cent in each case). Unemployment rates for women in the other religious groups were between 6 per cent and 9 per cent.

Again, these are statistics collated by people hostile to the British Nationalism. For a more detailed look at why the economic reasons for immigration are spurious, visit Guardian Cockups.

Globalism

Many people blame Thatcher for the decline in our manufacturing industry, when they should be blaming both the unions for resisting innovation and, more importantly, globalism. Most of our manufactured goods come from China, where people work for a pittance in terrible conditions. How can the British manufacturing industry possibly compete with Chinese and Indian manufacturers without tariffs or reducing wages to pitiful levels? Also how is it environmentally friendly to have products transported half way around the globe, just to keep labour costs down?

The National Health Service (NHS) is said to depend upon third world immigrants for staff. However, if a doctor comes to England from Somalia to work for the NHS to enable our government to keep taxes low, whilst in his own country there are sick people who desperately need him, is that not a terrible and wicked thing? Are we not depriving the most disadvantaged peoples on the planet of their brightest and best and, more importantly, those that can save their lives?

Globalism is NOT a good thing, in my humble opinion.

Electoral Fraud

Immigration has adversely affected our society in a number of different ways, and has even potentially undermined our electoral system:

Lady Warsi has blamed electoral fraud for the Tories' failure to secure an overall majority at this May's election – and claimed that Labour "absolutely" benefited from the alleged fraud.

The Tory chairman told tomorrow's New Statesman: "[There were] at least three seats where we lost, where we didn't gain the seat, based on electoral fraud. Now, could we have planned for that in the campaign? Absolutely not … "It is predominantly within the Asian community. I have to look back and say we didn't do well in those communities, but was there something over and above that we could have done? Well, actually not, if there is going to be voter fraud."

The Guardian; 29 September 2010; by Paul Owen

Indeed one QC stated that the extent of electoral fraud would 'disgrace a banana republic':

A Judge has delivered a devastating indictment of the postal voting system championed by ministers as he found six Labour councillors guilty of electoral fraud. He said checks against corruption were "hopelessly insecure" and accused the Government of being in denial about the risks to democracy.

(...)

Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as an electoral commissioner in Birmingham, found "overwhelming" evidence of fraud in last year's city council elections that would "disgrace a banana republic". The elections, where several Labour candidates bucked the trend to win, were dogged by claims of intimidation, bribery, "vote-buying', impersonation and even the creation of a "vote-forging factory".

The Independent on Sunday; Tuesday, 5 April 2005; by Nigel Morris

Imperfect Information

So why haven't British people rejected multiculturalism and mass-immigration? Well poll after poll suggests the majority have. However, I believe that many have never taken a real stance against it because they have been cowed, indoctrinated and have had the truth concealed from them.

In economics the term perfect information is used to describe the condition where 'consumers know all things, about all products, at all times, and therefore always make the best decision regarding purchase'. (Wikipedia)

You see, when you go and look at a car from Larry's Car Lot, you almost certainly wouldn't purchase it if you realised it was a 'cut and shut' and the mileage had been doctored. But if Larry could conceal this from you, you may be tempted to buy it, in which case your decision will be made based on imperfect information.

Unfortunately, we in Britain and every other Occidental country are indoctrinated daily by a pervasive and ubiquitous media that promotes multiculturalism, miscegenation and globalisation and essentially demonises those who oppose it, take Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time, for example. Enoch Powell knew this well:

Have you ever wondered, perhaps, why opinions which the majority of people quite naturally hold are, if anyone dares express them publicly, denounced as 'controversial, 'extremist', 'explosive', 'disgraceful', and overwhelmed with a violence and venom quite unknown to debate on mere political issues? It is because the whole power of the aggressor depends upon preventing people from seeing what is happening and from saying what they see.

Even quoting the crime statistics above is likely to invite scorn and accusations of racism. This is what Orwell meant when he wrote that 'Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four', it's the ability to tell the truth.

Enoch Powell was a highly intelligent man, he graduated from Cambridge with a double starred first and when war broke out he was the youngest professor in the Commonwealth, but resigned to enlist as a private in the army. Besides being an academic, poet, linguist and scholar, Powell was a man of integrity and a patriot. Yet following his outspoken condemnation of immigration, Powell was sacked from the shadow cabinet, and vilified by the media, as he himself said: "No imputation or innuendo has been too vile or scurrilous for supposedly reputable journals to invent or repeat."

Political Correctness

What Powell referred to has become known as Political Correctness or, more accurately in my opinion, Cultural Marxism. It is unquestionably a nefarious term - if you think about it logically, it essentially states that one's political opinions are either correct or incorrect, with the government, or ruling elite as the arbitrator. This is essentially totalitarianism.

The punishment for not adhering to the 'correct' politics or language endorsed by the ruling elite varies, but in today's Britain one may face disciplinary action in the work place or even criminal charges. In addition, and arguably more effective, is the social stigma attached to using the incorrect terminology - fear of ostracism, for example, may lead to people modifying their behaviour in order to comply with the promoted ideology.

In my humble opinion, free speech is inversely related to multiculturalism. The more culturally diverse a society, the more people will be 'offended' and antagonised and thus the greater the propensity for civil disorder - thus legislation is used to restrict freedom.

This has led to debate being effectively stifled, for example people are often afraid to speak out against immigration for fear of being labelled a 'racist'. Of course once free debate has been curbed a society will begin to stagnate and decline - and here we are in modern Britain!

Welfare and Popular Culture

It's not simply immigration that is the problem. There are good and bad people of all races and belonging to all religions, but I think mass-immigration has had a negative impact upon our society as I have demonstrated. However, besides Social Marxism, the two most nefarious factors contributing to our decline are drugs and the Welfare State.

Drug use has been promoted by the media for several decades. Since the 1960s many popular musical artists have endorsed drug use, indeed The Beatles' Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds is said to be about an acid trip (the first letter of each noun also spells LSD). Many, if not most, of the greatest music artists have subtly promoted drug use, or at least have had their drug-fuelled antics publicised by the mass media in terms that make them appear rebellious and fashionable.

Gossip magazines and tabloid newspapers extol the lifestyles of vacuous and inane celebrities, detailing all aspects of their vulgarity, which is emulated to some degree by the readership. The Beckhams and Wayne Rooney are role models for millions of school children. Meanwhile films are ever more sexual and violent.

For decades now, our welfare state has encouraged an underclass of people that have no intention of working, but believe the state is obligated to feed, clothe and house them. By taking away peoples' responsibility for themselves and their children, we have nurtured people who lack basic social values and who contribute nothing of value to our society. Whilst I am in favour of a welfare state that supports people when they fall on hard times, I do not believe in one that permits parasites to languish on benefits from cradle to grave.

Education

It is my belief that our education system has been systematically undermined since the 1960s. The loss of grammar schools, progressive teaching methods, changes to the curriculum and the lack of discipline in the classroom coupled with the aforementioned social issues has led to a vast deterioration in the quality of education provided in state schools. The following article indicates that employers are recognising this, too:

Leading companies complain of graduates' literacy skills

More than half of Britain's leading graduate employers are concerned about a lack of basic skills such as reading and writing among university recruits, according to new research.

A survey of more than 200 employers by the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR) observed a "striking level of concern" about the literacy of graduates.

A majority (56.4 per cent) expressed concern about a lack writing skills, while 55 per cent said an inability to communicate effectively was posing a serious problem for their business.

A significant proportion were also worried about low levels of knowledge in mathematics (27.7 per cent).

The Daily Telegraph; 07 Jul 2008; by Tom Peterkin

Now consider the above refers to graduates, our brightest and best, it is a shocking indictment of our education system. However, despite the fact that many of our graduates cannot read and write their own language properly after 16 years of education, A Level results have continually improved since the 1970s, which to me implies they are less rigorous than they once were:

The second image shows the percentage of A Level candidates who passed their exams, i.e. were awarded an A Level.

Besides the obvious deterioration of our education system, the Parekh Report commissioned by the last government, concluded that Britain should 'rethink the national story' in a bid to make it more inclusive. How Orwellian sounding is that? Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. This is why history has been distorted in an attempt to lend support to politically correct values and ideas.

It is my contention that our education system is used to indoctrinate children and inculcate the correct psyche. Furthermore a population lacking the required standard of English will be reluctant to read classic books, like Dickens and Dostoevsky, as they will find them too highbrow and strenuous and thus receive little enlightenment.

Peak Oil

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. The concept is based on the observed production rates of individual oil wells, and the combined production rate of a field of related oil wells. The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time appears to grow exponentially until the rate peaks and then declines, sometimes rapidly, until the field is depleted. It has been shown to be applicable to the sum of a nation’s domestic production rate, and is similarly applied to the global rate of petroleum production. It is important to note that peak oil is not about running out of oil, but the peaking and subsequent decline of the production rate of oil.

What this essentially means is that oil will become scarcer, demand for oil will exceed supply and the price will rise rapidly. The implications are frightening, as oil is used to produce plastics and pesticides, as well as transport goods and food! As of 2002, approximately ten calories of fossil fuels were used to produce every single calorie eaten, so you see just how dependent we in the West are on oil.

As I look ahead I am filled with foreboding

I believe that given our nation's current trajectory the future is very frightening indeed. Considering the government's budget deficit, our national debt, the depleting North Sea oil and our virtually non-existent manufacturing industry, I think our current standards of living are unsustainable, as will be the welfare state. Globally, Peak Oil, the rise of militant Islam and overpopulation are going to cause catastrophic resource wars.

I envisage unprecedented rioting and violence, especially in the large cities, which are basically just the aggregate of many mutually antagonistic and hostile communities. Where once we may well have been able to unite and endure together a crisis, as was the case during the Blitz, we face the problem of what Enoch Powell called the 'uniform of colour':

The uniform of colour, because it is involuntary and irremovable, becomes an irresistible force for dominating and disciplining those who wear it. They are literally marked people, expected to rally to whatever is designated as their cause and treated as manifest traitors if they fail to do so. When one has witnessed how the invisible uniform of religion enables the IRA to exert over the mass of peaceful and law-abiding Roman Catholic citizens in Northern Ireland a terror and compulsion far severer than that under which their Protestant fellow citizens live, one can form some idea of the consolidating potential of the visible uniform of color. Finally, colour polarizes, and reinforces differentiation and segregation, because the individual, however much, as an individual, he may become, and wish to become, assimilated to the host population, is firmly identified, and thus eventually obliged to identify himself, with the minority to which he belongs. Colour is a recruiting sergeant, and a recruiting sergeant for officer material.

My adversaries will no doubt accuse me of 'racism' and 'hatred' for daring to express such heretical opinions. However, one should ask not whether what I have written is 'racist', but whether it is true. If it is, then surely it shouldn't be suppressed? Isn't that the whole essence of what Orwell was trying to convey in his novel 1984?

Unfortunately however, following what amounts to the destruction of the British National Party, the British people no longer have a political vehicle by which we can attempt to implement change. This has been the crucial element in my determining to cease writing this blog. It saddens me to write this, but it appears that nationalists are going to be mere spectators, watching from the sidelines as our nation ebbs away.

Best Wishes,

Unrepentant British Nationalist