NF holds successful AGM

On Saturday 28th September 2019, the National Front held a most successful AGM.

This Annual General Meeting of the National Front took place at a key social and political moment in our country’s history: we are all witnessing a potentially major shift in political power in Britain. Parliament at Westminster is in turmoil as the MPs of the Remainer faction seek to sabotage the Referendum result and betray the winning seventeen million plus votes cast by the patriotic majority of Britons who want out of the hated European Union..

Speaker after speaker at our AGM focussed on the – unprecedented in our lifetime – events at Westminster. The basic question addressed by each and every speaker was: how best do we respond to the blatant betrayal of the Brexit vote that is openly being planned and committed by the anti-British party politicians of the old failure parties.

Step One: Never trust a word of the Tories. Theresa May never kept her promise to take us out of the EU; one would be very naive to think that BoJo, as he is known to friend and foe alike, will do any better.

We had an impressive line-up of speakers:

Burnley nationalist Steven Smith

– Steve Smith of Burnley, the man who got the BNP onto the winning streak in the 2000s. Steve told us how to win and how to rebuild British Nationalism. Steve said that everything kind and beautiful is being poisoned by the multi-racial nightmare forced onto us. It is possible to to win, Steve assured us.

AGM guest speaker Andrew Brons, Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire and Humber 2009-2014. A founder member of the National Front, and more recently a senior official of the British Democratic Party, Mr Brons achieved one of the best parliamentary election results in NF history at the Birmingham Stechford by-election in 1977, polling 8.2%.

– Former NF chairman and former MEP Andrew Brons, as guest-speaker, cautioned us that the Establishment in its desperation to hold on to its illegitimate power will get increasingly vicious. Andrew said that it is our duty to maintain our racial-nationalist principles: never to sell out to civic/ multiracial nationalism, but equally never to break the law: but to tread carefully the narrow patriotic path, ignoring the blandishments and the traps of criminally intentioned agent-provocateurs. Always keep it legal, was Andrew’s much appreciated contribution to our AGM.

– Richard Edmonds, NF press-officer, reminded the audience of our past achievements: The NF had shown in its earlier years of the 1970s that the NF could build a nation-wide movement in record time; and the British nationalist activists of the BNP in the 2000s showed that we could successfully win elections up and down the country and see dozens of our brave men and woman candidates elected to public office. The turmoil and political turbulence at Westminster give us the opportunity to resurrect our nationalist movement.

Richard Edmonds with framed photograph of the 1977 Lewisham NF rally

At this point, a guest speaker from New Zealand addressed us. We are in a global fight to save the White race, Chris confirmed. Chris then informed us of the massive damage done to our movement in New Zealand by the criminal actions of the terrorist who attacked the mosque at Christchurch. This part really emphasised Andrew Brons’ advice. Our guest from New Zealand stressed that we Nationalists should get serious, because our opponents, the Globalists, are very serious.

Deputy chairman, Jordan Pont, called for more activism on the ground; Jordan thanked all those who had helped him campaign in the Spring council and parish elections in Sheffield. Jordan said that he could never sit at home and do nothing. Our Deputy chairman called for nationalist unity. Unity is the key, he declared. Both Jordan and NF Chairman Tony Martin, called for supporters to travel down to our capital to support the National Front Remembrance Parade to the Cenotaph at Whitehall, on Sunday afternoon the 10th November.

Deputy Chairman Jordan Pont addresses the 2019 NF AGM

The concluding speaker was NF chairman, Tony Martin, who thanked all those members, activists and supporters who had helped to make 2019 yet another year in which the NF kept the flag flying. Tony was able to give us the political background to the shutting down of our web-site, which Tony assured us would be only temporary. In his report, Tony informed us that the NF had deliberately abstained from putting up candidates at the 2017 General Election, because we wanted it to be a straight fight between the Leave vote and the Remainers of the corrupt anti-British Establishment. Tony emphasized our primary opposition to mass-Immigration, “Britain has not got a housing crisis, Britain has got an Immigration crisis.” Tony’s final point here was that Repatriation should be promoted by us in a positive sense, with respect for and understanding for the ethnics.

Immigration surges after Brexit referendum

Many of those who voted in 2016’s referendum for the UK to leave the European Union believed that this would lead to a rapid reduction in immigration. A continuing debate ensued for example in the pages of H&D between keen Brexit campaigners (who broadly believed that leaving the EU would be a major blow against the multiracialist establishment) and more sceptical racial nationalists, some of whom feared that Brexit would actually worsen our country’s racial problems.

This week official statistics confirmed the sceptics’ worst fears. It is now apparent that almost from the moment of the 2016 referendum, net immigration from EU countries began to fall. In fact there is net emigration from the UK to the Central and Eastern European nations known as the EU8: i.e. Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

However there has been a sharp rise in net immigration from outside the EU, not only increasing numbers of university students (especially from China) but other immigrants from Africa and Asia. Prime Minister Theresa May’s office actually boasted that this increase in immigration was a positive sign!

Conservative-dominated governments for the past nine years have consistently stated their aim to reduce annual net immigration to below 100,000. If achieved, that would take us back to the start of the Blair / ‘New Labour’ era in 1997, when net immigration was 50,000.

Don’t forget that even then, there would be tens of thousands more people arriving in the UK than leaving, and these immigrants would be constantly adding to our existing non-British population.

Shockingly, none of those Conservative-led governments since 2010 has got anywhere near even their modest 100,000 immigrant target. The most recent figures for the year ending June 2018 show net immigration of 273,000.

And of these an increasing proportion are non-Europeans. In that same 12 month period, the number of non-EU citizens who are in the UK on a long term basis rose by 248,000, whereas the same figure for EU citizens was 74,000.

A very large number of the new arrivals are from India.

The UK faces an ever more dangerous demographic time bomb, and this crisis has been worsened by the Brexit process (so far).

An immigration crisis made in Whitehall

Yet again illegal immigration is in the headlines, and yet again the British government seems unable to protect our borders.

Yet this time no-one can blame the European Union, indeed the blame lies in Whitehall (and to some extent indirectly in Washington).

The latest waves of immigrants heading across the English Channel are disproportionately Iranian. Why?

There is no human rights crisis in Iran and no war displacing ‘refugees’. The push and pull factors here are twofold.

Firstly there is an economic impulse. As part of his pro-Israeli and pro-Saudi foreign policy (so far undisturbed by the Saudi authorities’ brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last October), President Donald Trump has scrapped the nuclear deal previously welcomed by most western governments (including the UK) and reimposed economic sanctions on Iran.

Brutal Saudi godfather Prince Mohammad bin Salman remains a U.S. ally despite the murder of a Sudi journalist inside the country’s Istanbul consulate

In characteristic fashion the U.S. government has bullied its allies (including the UK) into collaborating with these sanctions. Inevitably this has had economic effects, so some Iranians have decided to become ‘refugees’ (i.e. economic migrants).

These migrants know also that for political reasons the British government automatically grants refugee status to Iranians the moment they arrive on our soil: there is no requirement to prove any well-founded fear of persecution. Iranians are never returned home by our immigration authorities, whatever the circumstances.

Thus the craziness multiplies: a poorly thought-out Trump policy is compounded by a propagandistic ‘human rights’ policy. The losers are long-suffering British taxpayers, as the present crisis effectively signals a green light not only to Iranians but to a wide range of potential economic migrants and ‘people smugglers’ who will be encouraged to take their chances across the English Channel.

UK border controls in chaos

New data obtained by the Sunday Telegraph from the Home Office under the Freedom of Information Act shows that thousands of illegal immigrants are disappearing through the UK’s inadequate border control system every year.

Particular weak points in the system include the Eurostar train service from Lille, and UK ports handling coach loads of visitors.

During the past year, the newly released official figures confirm that 3,527 immigrants absconded after failing border checks: of these only 846 were later found.  This of course means that almost 2,700 illegal immigrants remained at large even after having once been caught!

The above figures clearly do not include those illegal immigrants who managed to slip through the net without being caught at all, nor does it include asylum seekers, bogus or otherwise.

With the system in such chaos, the UK’s borders remain vulnerable to potential terrorists, though in any case such cases are usually recruited from within ‘British’ ethnic minority groups.

While large ethnic minorities remain in Britain’s towns and cities, illegal immigrants will easily find a pool of similar types among whom to hide, and with whom to find work.  A multi-ethnic Britain is inevitably a haven for illegal immigrants, including terrorists.

Biggest ever rise in UK population

An official UK Census form sorter in 2001 - no we are not joking!

An official UK Census form sorter in 2001 - no we are not joking!

The first results of last’s years UK Census prove that our population during the past decade saw the biggest jump in recorded history.  The surge is largely due to the immigration boom, in what was already an overcrowded country.  Another factor is the high birth rate among non-European immigrant groups.

England and Wales saw a 7.1% rise in population, from 52.4 million in 2001 to 56.1 million in 2011.  Needless to say these figures do not include unknown numbers of illegal immigrants.  Population density in London is now 5,200 per square kilometre – ranking alongside Madrid and Athens as the most densely populated cities in Europe.

Moreover in the next fifteen years, official projections show that two thirds of the next population increase will come from immigrants: an extra 5 million people, equivalent to the combined populations of Birmingham, Leeds, Glasgow, Sheffield, Bradford, Manchester, Liverpool and Bristol.

No 2011 statistics have yet been published about racial or religious matters.  Click here for the latest official UK Census updates.

Oxford study reveals Labour’s immigration surge

how to come to UKA new study by Oxford University’s Migration Observatory shows that the New Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown presided over an immigration boom greater than any other major country except Italy.  (There’s an obvious reason for Italy being the first port of call, as it geographically closest to North Africa and the Balkans – but by the same logic the United Kingdom ought to be the very last port of call!)

In 1993 there were 3.8 million foreign-born people in the U.K., which was 7% of our population.  By 2010 this had risen to almost 7 million, an astonishing 12% of the population.

In other words there was a 22% rise in our migrant population, way ahead of neighbouring countries such as France, who experienced only a 3.4% rise.

The England First Party asks why successive U.K. governments have allowed this immigration surge?  English voters simply cannot trust the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians who have transformed our country without considering the views of the indigenous population.

Click here to read the Oxford report on the immigration boom.

Immigration scandal continues

UKBorderAgencyIt was one of the worst scandals of the New Labour years: in 2006 Charles Clarke was sacked as Home Secretary after admitting that more than 1,000 foreign criminals in British jails had been released at the end of their prison sentences rather than being assessed for deportation.

Yet now in 2012 – two years into the Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition that promised to remedy these New Labour abuses – we find that this scandal has not been remedied.

The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee has today reported that of these 1,013 immigrant criminals, only 397 have been removed from our shores.  57 have proved impossible to trace and – most shocking of all – the remaining 559 have been allowed to remain in this country, either indefinitely or while their cases continue to be looked into!

The problem goes well beyond these thousand or so criminals from 2006.  Of more recent cases, only around two thirds of foreign prisoners released in 2011 have been deported, and there are another 2,670 dating back more than two years who have not yet been removed because they are still appealing. Around 120,000 immigration cases, according to the committee, have been written off because those involved can no longer be traced.  The asylum backlog still contains a further 20,000 unresolved cases.

Britain's failed Home Secretary Theresa May

Britain's failed Home Secretary Theresa May

As the parliamentary committee’s chairman concludes: “The reputation of the Home Office, and by extension, the UK Government, is being tarnished by the inability of the UK Border Agency (UKBA) to fulfil its basic functions. The foreign national prisoner issue and the asylum backlog were scandals which first broke in 2006, six years ago. UKBA appears unable to focus on its key task of tracking and removing illegal immigrants, overstayers or bogus students from the country.”

The England First Party would make a more fundamental criticism: the entire immigration racket should have been terminated long ago.  Our country has become a soft touch for any crook or scrounger who manages to cross the border.

Crossing the Rubicon: Peter Rushton speaks to the John Tyndall Memorial Meeting 2011

On 8th October 2011 Peter Rushton, assistant editor of Heritage and Destiny, chaired the sixth John Tyndall Memorial Meeting in Preston, Lancashire, and gave the following address.

rushton2

John Tyndall led the nationalist movement from obscurity to the forefront of British politics, but he knew that anyone involved in our cause must experience the depths of crisis as well as the heights of achievement.

As National Front chairman, as founder of the British National Party and as editor of Spearhead for more than forty years, he knew both triumph and disaster – and for the six years between Nick Griffin’s takeover of the BNP in 1999 and his own death in 2005, John Tyndall consistently argued that those who were increasingly sceptical of Griffin’s leadership should remain within the BNP and fight to recapture it.

The position of British nationalism today requires a reassessment of that position.

We now face the most serious crisis in the history of our movement.  On Monday night the BBC will broadcast allegations of fraud against the BNP chairman Nick Griffin and his cronies. I have no doubt that those allegations will be fully documented, with evidence provided from people who until recently were Mr Griffin’s closest associates.

But none of this changes the underlying political realities. None of this changes the more serious crisis, which is the one facing our people and our nation – in fact facing all European peoples and nations.  None of this changes the potential for a nationalist party capable of presenting a credible face to the voters of England.

For the first time since 1066 our country’s population growth is mainly due to immigration, with a disastrous impact on schools, on the chronic shortage of affordable housing, and on the National Health Service.

The political establishment has never consulted the English people about this radical transformation of our country: a transformation that has been accelerated because just as foreigners have been arriving, increasing numbers of indigenous Britons have been leaving.

Let’s dispose of the nonsense that this is all perfectly normal, that England is some sort of mongrel nation built up through immigration.  The truth is that our population grew steadily up to about 1750, and very rapidly after 1750, without any mass immigration – until after the Second World War.

Our population in 1541 was about 2.7 million, which grew during the relative peace and stability of the Elizabethan age to about 4 million by 1600.

Over the next century and a half our population grew quite slowly to about 5.7 million by 1750.  Interestingly it is assumed by demographic historians that this 1750 figure was probably lower than the total English population in 1300, when there were probably more than six million inhabitants of England.

The total British population was reduced by about 30% by the Black Death in the mid-14th century, so by the 1380s was only about 3 million.

It was the Agrarian Revolution followed by the Industrial Revolution that led to a population boom, so that by the early 1840s the English population was around 15 million: more than double its previous record and more than five times the population a century earlier!

One of the earliest official historians of postwar immigration, J.A. Tannahill, pointed out, in words that should be repeated to every lying apologist for multiracialism:

“Britain is not by tradition a country of immigration.  In fact, between 1815 and 1914, she not only quadrupled her population without resorting to large-scale foreign immigration, but also despatched over 20 million people to destinations beyond Europe, at first largely to the USA and later in ever increasing proportion to the developing countries of the Commonwealth.”

One of the few major influxes of immigrants before modern times were the so-called Huguenots,  Protestant refugess from France and Flanders arriving in two waves at the end of the 16th and 17th centuries.  But in total even these Huguenots numbered perhaps 40,000 or 50,000.  (This was far larger than for example the Jewish immigrant population, which as late as 1750 probably numbered only about 5,000.)

We hear a lot about the economic benefits of immigration, but the Huguenots were one of the very few examples where this is true, bringing with them not only capital assets but skills in weaving, hat making and watch making.  There were about another 40,000 immigrants from France as a result of the Terror in the 1780s and 1790s after the French Revolution.  Strangely enough it was this wave of immigration, causing concern that some revolutionary spies might be smuggled in among the immigrants, that led to the first ever English laws regulating immigration.  Until the 1790s this was never thought necessary, because the numbers of immigrants were so small.  Far from our country being a creation of waves of immigration, immigrants were such an insignificant factor that no one bothered to formulate regulations!

Until the late 1940s the overwhelming majority of immigrants in England were Irish immigrants.  A few thousand black immigrants arrived as a result of the slave trade, but hardly any interbred with the indigenous English population.

If you read the Sherlock Holmes stories you will occasionally find reference to another type of immigrant who could be found in Victorian England – the so-called “Lascars” who usually lived in dockland areas such as Limehouse, having arrived as crew members of British ships trading with the Far East.  A few female Asian immigrants were known as “ayahs”, nannies for East India company officials, or later officers of the British Raj.

Yet as Dr Roger Bullard of Manchester University has estimated:

“Until the beginning of the 20th century the South Asian presence in Britain remained minute.  At any given time it would have included no more than a few hundred Ayahs and Lascars, [and] a rather smaller number of students seeking professional qualifications, whilst the number of princes and other aristocrats – most of whom only made the briefest of visits – could probably have been counted on the fingers of one hand.”

You can imagine why ­– given this historical context of very low immigration – Englishmen were very concerned by the tidal wave of Jewish immigration at the end of the 19th century.  About 150,000 Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe settled in Britain between 1880 and 1914, the majority in a fifteen year period between 1891 and 1906.

Just as the French Revolutionary immigration in the 1790s had led to a brief period of immigration control, it was this Jewish immigration that led to the basis for modern immigration laws, the Aliens Act of 1905.  It wasn’t a matter of “anti-semitism”, more a question of the scale of this Jewish immigration being way beyond anything our country had previously experienced.  We were not a nation of immigrants.

Even in the period between the two world wars, and even accounting for the number of colonial troops who stayed in England after 1918, immigration was a very minor factor in English life.  Only about 6,000 to 7,000 immigrants from the Indian sub-continent settled in Britain during the whole period from 1918 to 1939.

(About another 60,000 Jews arrived as refugees from national socialism during the 1930s, plus another 10,000 during the War.)

As is obvious, the scale of immigration post-war dwarfs anything previously seen in our history – which is not surprising because the British Nationality Act in 1948 explicitly granted the right of entry to 800 million subjects of the British Empire worldwide.  Madness, you might think – or was it wickedness?

Even in those days it was known perfectly well that a sane immigration policy would have to be a racially conscious policy.

In 1949 the Royal Commission on Population determined:

“Immigrants on a large scale into a fully established society like ours could only be welcomed without reserve if the immigrants were of good human stock and were not prevented by their religion or race from intermarrying with the local population and becoming merged with it.”

Four years earlier, immediately after the end of the war in 1945, the Fabian Society, closely linked to the Labour Party, had issued a pamphlet Population and the People, which said that:
“From the population point of view we need to encourage potential parents of healthy stock to settle in the British Isles, and to discourage those whom we already have from leaving.  …Men and women of European stock, between the ages of 20 and 30, are the immigrants best suited to assist population policy.”

The Fabian pamphlet added that immigrants should be chosen carefully to “ensure they were assimilable and could adapt to the British way of life.  …The utmost care should, of course, be taken to admit only those physically and mentally sound, and free from criminal records, who will introduce a sound stock into the country.  The eugenics of immigration cannot be overstressed.”

In 1948 – two days after the arrival of the infamous immigrant ship Empire Windrush, eleven Labour MPs wrote to their leader, Prime Minister Clement Attlee, warning:

“An influx of coloured people domiciled here is likely to impair the harmony, strength and cohesion of our public and social life and to cause discord and unhappiness among all concerned.”

As we have a former Bradford city councillor with us today, I should mention that two of those Labour MPs who spoke out against immigration in those early days were from his city: Frank McLeavy, later Lord McLeavy, MP for Bradford East, 1945-66; and Meredith Titterington, Bradford South, 1945-49, former Lord Mayor of Bradford.

[This website will later have a special section to honour those Labour MPs of yesteryear who spoke for England in opposing mass immigration.]

Since those days, the element within the Labour Party that truly aimed to fight for the white working class has steadily diminished, even as the truth of their warning that immigration would lead to “discord and unhappiness among all concerned” has been demonstrated time and again (most recently with the riots a few weeks ago).  Nationalist parties have become the true representatives of white workers.  While in many ways very different men with different outlooks, Oswald Mosley, Enoch Powell and John Tyndall spoke for Englishmen and English interests that the Labour Party (and of course the Conservatives and Liberals) have abandoned.

So it is with a heavy heart that nationalists must face the fact that we ourselves have been betrayed by the leadership of our largest nationalist party.  In Ancient Rome provincial governors had to disarm themselves before crossing the River Rubicon and re-entering Roman territory.  To march across the Rubicon with your army was to challenge the leadership of the Roman Republic and was treason, punishable by death.

In 49 BC Julius Caesar deliberately defied his leaders by taking his army across that river, and still today we speak of “crossing the Rubicon” as an irreversible step when we boldly choose to confront destiny.

On Monday night we will cross the Rubicon.  Whether we like it or not, events will carry all serious nationalist activists across the Rubicon and force us to face facts too long ignored.

The leadership of the British National Party will be exposed for criminal fraud, which tragically cannot avoid staining every member of that party, regardless of their personal honesty and decency in the vast majority of cases – everyone who represents that party at any level will be tainted.

Many people have had to wrestle with a conflict of loyalty, and most especially with the knowledge that breaking away from the BNP, exposing the division of our movement to public view, trying to build a new movement out of the wreckage of the old, would be a titanic endeavour.

After Monday all such conflicts, all such strategic calculations will be settled.  It will simply no longer be possible to argue that somehow the BNP leadership can be persuaded to see sense, somehow our difficulties can be patched up.

All personal and factional divisions pale into insignficance next to the overriding division of our movement:
on one side a tiny gang of crooks and embezzlers;
on the other the vast majority of decent and committed patriots.

In St Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians he writes:
“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

Let us as nationalists find the courage to put away childish things and confront reality.

We will not succeed in building a new post-Griffin movement by pursuing narrow factional agendas.  It seems to me unquestionable that none of the alternative parties currently operating will be big enough to take on this task alone.

I therefore call on the leading activists in British nationalism to make a complete and irrevocable break from Nick Griffin and his party.  To make the tough choice to cut loose from the BNP before its corrupt leadership drags down even more good nationalists.

Precisely because our national crisis and our racial crisis has moved on to an even more acute stage, the challenge is in some ways even greater than that faced by John Tyndall during the creation of the National Front and the British National Party.  But the potential prize is greater too, as so many of our people are permanently disillusioned with Lib, Lab and Con.

We have absolutely no chance of capturing the loyalty of those disillusioned voters while our own movement is mired in corruption.

Yet if we can find the courage to cut out that cancer, our recovery can be rapid and our future can be bright.

Labour tries to recapture English workers

IvanLewis2Bury South MP Ivan Lewis is the latest Labour spokesman to try to rediscover Labour’s links with English working class voters.  Mr Lewis is “shadow culture secretary” in Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet, and his outspoken comments come in a new volume of essays The Purple Book, published this week in advance of Labour’s conference at Liverpool at the end of September.

The title indicates an attempt by leading figures in Tony Blair’s New Labour to come to terms with the so-called “Blue Labour” critique of Blairism.  “Blue Labour” was a set of ideas associated with the Jewish academic Maurice Glasman (now Lord Glasman) and Searchlight‘s favourite Labour MP Jon Cruddas.  Their central insight was that in the pursuit of middle class floating voters, combined with liberal politically correct obsessions, New Labour had jettisoned the traditional values of their movement and was no longer seen by white working class voters as representing their tribal interests.

Lord Glasman was condemned by some of his former allies when he gave an interview this summer calling for a Labour anti-immigration policy:
Britain is not an outpost of the UN. We have to put the people in this country first. The people who live here are the highest priority. We’ve got to listen and be with them. They’re in the right place – it’s us who’s not.

Ivan Lewis echoes some of these concerns in his own essay, as leaked to The Guardian, while not daring to go as far as Glasman.  The Bury MP writes:
The party’s instincts to be internationalist, liberal and champions of multicultural societies jar with the growing sense of insecurity of citizens buffeted by rapid economic and social change. Mistrust about Labour’s instincts and values on identity is one of the reasons why voters have rejected social democratic parties all over Europe.

He adds that these voters felt alienated from:
a system which to some appeared to favour receiving benefits and choosing not to work and irresponsible bankers who caused the financial crisis but continued to receive excessive payoffs and bonuses while everyone else was paying the price of their recklessness. Others felt migration was changing the nature of their community and undermining Britain’s way of life.

After acknowledging the effect of immigration on Britain’s housing crisis, Lewis shows his real agenda.  Far from seeking to restore the type of country that White Englishmen would recognise as their own, Lewis still wishes to make the Labour Party even more ethnically diverse, criticising:
a Labour Party activist base that while becoming diverse still does not sufficiently look like Britain.

There is one form of diversity however that causes particular upset to Ivan Lewis, who before becoming an MP was chief executive of the Manchester Jewish Federation:
Labour and the previous Tory governments should have acted earlier to tackle radicalisation in some Muslim communities by adopting a zero tolerance approach to anyone including religious leaders who preached hate, and by refusing to legitimise organisations unwilling to condemn extremism or the use of violence.

Notice Mr Lewis’s careful language.  He isn’t just talking about anti-British terrorism, he is insisting that organisations must condemn “the use of violence”.  It’s a fair bet that he doesn’t want to condemn the violence of the Israeli government in their assault on Gaza, and certainly not condemn the six decades of Zionist violence that forged the piracy of Palestine.

No: it’s a safe bet that Mr Lewis aims to force British based organisations to condemn anti-Israeli violence, in other words to take sides with the Zionist state against the people of Palestine and Lebanon.  The abandoned English working class are hoping for decent housing, jobs and health services; a crackdown on crime; and the reversal of more than half a century of mass immigration.  But Mr Lewis pays lip service to these concerns, while pursuing quite another, utterly alien agenda.

Ethnic minorities to make up 20% of UK population by 2051

uk-immigration

New projections published today by Leeds University show that ethnic minorities will make up a fifth of the UK’s population by 2051, rising from 8% in 2001.

The researchers also predict that ethnic minority populations will expand especially rapidly in previously white and affluent areas.

The proportion of the UK population classified as “white British” will shrink to 67.1%.

Presenting the report Prof. Philip Rees said that “overall we can look forward to being not only a more diverse nation, but one that is far more spatially integrated than at present.”

While keen to welcome diversity, the Leeds academic team’s contempt for English identity is evident from their inability to spell the Lancashire boroughs Darwen and Hyndburn.

Click here to download the full report.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter