U.S. Mid-Term Election Results Mixed, But Demographics Doom Republicans

(by James Knight for H&D)

The mid-term elections took place on November 6 in the United States. They were seen – correctly – as a referendum on President Donald Trump. In general, the results point to some trouble ahead for Trump. Despite a very strong economy, complete with low unemployment, Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives. They are now down by about 37 seats to the Democrats. On the other hand, the party increased its control of the Senate by one and now hold a two-seat lead in that chamber of Congress.

 

Most parties in power get defeated – often quite badly – in the mid-term elections. Trump’s losses are somewhat less that those suffered by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama in 1994, 2006 and 2010 respectively. Democrats had a significant advantage in fund raising as almost all of Hollywood and the ultra-rich US elite support “The Resistance” against Trump. And nearly every single close election recount had Democrats winning over Republicans, which was almost certainly due to election stealing/tampering (more common in the US than many suppose).

The demographics of the election show the usual breakdowns. Non-whites voted for Democrats with the following percentages:

Blacks – 90%

Asians – 77%

Hispanics – 69%

Actually, Trump did slightly better among non-whites in 2016 than previous Republicans such as Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Among whites, Republicans only won by a margin of 54% to 44%. White men broke 60% to 39% for Republicans while white women were split 49% to 49%. The fact that so many whites decided to vote for Democrats is a big warning sign for Republicans. For years, the Republican party has been drifting toward becoming the party of white people. With roughly 80% of non-whites voting Democrats, and with the electorate getting less and less white with every election, the writing is on the wall for the GOP. Unless Trump can get the white vote up to 60% Republican in 2020, he will likely lose reelection.

Donald Trump pursuing the white working class vote in West Virginia during his 2016 presidential campaign

Working class whites in states such as Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania gave the election to Trump in 2016. This was due to his stance on issues such as immigration and trade and his populist rhetoric on economic issues. This base has been slowly drifting away from Trump in the last two years.

Likewise, the Dissident Right, which also came out for Trump in 2016, has been disappointed with his performance in the last two year. Ann Coulter routinely calls out Trump on Twitter for his tough talk but inaction on a border wall, birthright citizenship and stopping caravans of illegal immigrants. Gregory Hood of American Renaissance is even more blunt:

“President Trump has governed like a moderate, while speaking like a hardliner—the worst possible combination. He has done so unnecessarily. One struggles to recapture the sense of the 2016 campaign. In retrospect, it seems like something out of Homeric times, with almost supernatural forces intervening in the affairs of men. Everything had to break Donald Trump’s way; Hillary Clinton had to make every possible mistake. Somehow, everything happened exactly the way it had to, leading to one of the most remarkable upsets in American political history.

During both the primary and general election, candidate Trump seemed to run as much against the Republican as the Democratic party. Some of his promises had cross-party appeal—notably his calls for a massive infrastructure program and his pledge to protect certain entitlements. His health care proposals were admittedly vague, as he simultaneously promised to repeal Obamacare and replace it with “something great.” However, because President Trump had directly attacked the policy preferences of Republicans such as Speaker Paul Ryan and free-market institutions such as the Club for Growth, it seemed reasonable to believe he could lead the GOP away from the unpopular, wonkish economic policies that had little appeal outside the Beltway Right. The victory of President Trump was a victory for right-wing critics of Conservatism Inc., as he showed that its support for a liberal immigration policy, an interventionist foreign policy, and slashing entitlements had no real support among the conservative grassroots, let alone the larger public.

Yet since taking office, with rare exceptions, President Trump has governed like just another Republican. The president’s first major legislative initiative was a disastrous attempt to replace Obamacare. It is not surprising that President Trump did not have a specific “great” plan regarding healthcare, yet the conservative establishment’s failure to provide a workable alternative to Obamacare is testament to its uselessness.”

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter, once a pro-Trump campaigner, is now a critic

Demographic Realities

Since the election, the press has been making much of how demographics are turning formerly red states (Republicans) into blue states (Democrats). This is entirely due to mass immigration. The US takes in over 1 million legal immigrants every year. About 90% of these people are non-white.

My own Congressional district in northern Virginia (VA-10) is indicative of this. It went for the Democrats for the first time in 40 years. Conservative Republican Frank Wolf won the seat in the Reagan landslide of 1980 and didn’t relinquish it until he retired in 2014. That year, moderate Republican Barbara Comstock (who favors high immigration) won the seat by 16 points (56% to 40%) over her Democratic challenger. In 2016, her margin of victory was only 5.5 points. This year she lost by a margin of 56% to 44% to liberal Democrat Jennifer Wexton.

While there are many reasons for her loss, the main one is this. In 2008, VA-10 was 80% white. It is now 65% white.

Virginia used to be a rural, Southern and conservative state. It is now less than 56% white. Republicans have not won a state-wide election since 2009. This same trend is about to turn once solidly red states such as Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona and even Texas blue. Orange County, California (outside Los Angeles) used to be perhaps the most reliably conservative district in the nation. It was the home of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Yet it now has all Democrat representatives in Congress.

In terms of the 2020 elections, President Trump still has time to right the ship. Building his promised border wall with Mexico would be a great first step. He has also mentioned ending birthright citizenship (where children born in the US – even to illegals – are automatically given US citizenship) and affirmative action. If his actions can match his talking and threats, Trump can win reelection. But after 2020, demographics may permanently sweep the GOP away at the national level.

James Knight writes from increasingly vibrant northern Virginia.

Can White Immigration Save America? Jared Taylor interviewed

Jared Taylor of American Renaissance is one of the world’s best informed and most dedicated campaigners for racial realism and White survival.

In this video interview at the recent National Policy Institute conference, Jared Taylor explains how the immigration of White, English-speaking workers could help reverse some of the trends that are destroying America.

The Myth of the Muslim Vote

Miliband ethnics

Many nationalist blogs and forums would have you believe that Muslim voters exercise significant political power, forcing party leaders to curry favour with them at the expense of White voters.

But is this true?  There is no doubt that the number of Muslim voters in Britain has increased dramatically in recent years, as children and grandchildren of the original Asian immigrant generations have grown up, and their numbers have been swelled by more recent arrivals from Africa.  Also there is no doubt that Muslims tend to turn out to vote at elections, in much greater proportions than some other minority groups such as the (mainly Christian) Afro-Caribbeans.

Nevertheless to have real influence even in a very close contest such as next week’s general election, Muslims would need to have two extra factors on their side: they would have to be concentrated in potentially marginal seats, and it would have to be credible that they could switch between the major contending parties.

The truth is that neither of these factors apply.  There are forty constituencies (out of the UK total 650) that are more than 15% Muslim, and of these only five are truly in the balance: two Lib Dem held seats being targeted by Labour (Birmingham Yardley and Bradford East), and most crucially three presently Conservative seats on Labour’s key target list (Pendle, Dewsbury and Ilford North).  In the latter case the importance of the Jewish vote (6.5% – plus ethnic Jews who are listed on the census as ‘no religion’) partly counterbalances the Muslim vote (15.3%), and the odds are that pro-Israel Tory MP Lee Scott will survive. Meanwhile in Pendle and Dewsbury the influence of UKIP will probably combine with Muslims moving from Lib Dem to Labour, and produce Labour gains.  In Bradford East the incumbent Lib Dem MP David Ward has desperately burnished his anti-Zionist credentials in a bid to avoid what seems sure defeat.

Of the rest 33 are safe Labour while one – Brent Central – is a certain Labour gain from the Lib Dems this year, and is such an ethnic and religious hotchpotch that its 21.2% Muslim population could never be seen as decisive anyway. Birmingham Hall Green was close in 2010 only because of the strong Respect campaign by local councillor Salma Yaqoob. With her retirement and the decline of Respect everywhere outside George Galloway’s Bradford, Hall Green is sure to be safe Labour this year.

That leaves just Bradford West – 51.3% Muslim and sensationally won by George Galloway in a 2012 by-election – where we really do see a contest that is all about the Muslim vote, though with many local peculiarites (in this case ‘local’ means Pakistani village politics transferred to Yorkshire).  Galloway will almost certainly win, but this underlines the real truth that Muslim voters will have very little influence on the outcome of the 2015 General Election, and very little influence on the next government.

Jared Taylor speaks in London

Jared Taylor, founder of American Renaissance, spoke in West London on 19th April at a meeting organised by the Bloomsbury Forum. Despite the best efforts of Englands’s “anti-fascists”. the meeting went ahead without interruption.

An audience of almost 100 British patriots heard a superb analysis by Mr Taylor of America’s racial transformation. The gospel of liberal “equality” has led to absurd posturing by the U.S. authorities.  Schools and colleges are ordered to produce “equal” academic results for blacks and whites.  Yet the inescapable fact is that such “equality” is impossible to achieve.

The fraudulent promise of equality is supported by both the Democratic and Republican parties.  Mr Taylor stated that the USA was no longer a White country, and that the only realistic political option for Whites is to pursue a separate homeland. After an erudite overview of the present state of America, discussion focused on the various options for such a homeland, from the Pacific Northwest (demographically White for the foreseeable future but politically liberal) to areas of the Deep South such as Mississippi (demographically mixed but with a racially realistic outlook).

A video of Jared Taylor’s address to the Bloomsbury Forum is presently being edited for publication.

 

On the following day Jared Taylor and his hosts travelled north for a social gathering with Andrew Brons MEP and several nationalist veterans including the Heritage and Destinyteam at a traditional venue in the Pennines.

Ten Labour councillors (including a former BNP organiser) from Britain’s most racially divided borough – Blackburn with Darwen –  have been cleared by a major standards inquiry of malpractice over the controversial approval of proposals for a Muslim prayer room in Beardwood.

The 11-month probe by an independent investigator exonerated all of them, including planning committee chairman Jim Smith, “of conduct bringing the councillor or council into disrepute”. Smith a hard-line left-winger represents Mill Hill ward, which was once won by the BNP in a by-election in 2002.
Beardwood was once a well sought after place to live in Blackburn by the white middle class, but over recent years has become more and more enriched. The Conservatives hold all three local ward (Beardwood with Lammack) seats which include local Tory leader Michael J. Lee.
However one-third of the ward’s population (according to the 2011 Census) is now Asian.  Though 62.6% of the ward remains White, the electoral writing is on the wall for local Tories, especially if Labour is able to mobilise the Muslim vote.
Local government consultant Mike Dudfield said borough Labour leader Kate Hollern’s intervention over the application to transform the car park of the former Beardwood Garden Centre, on Preston New Road, into an Islamic religious centre in 2011 involved nothing “inappropriate”.
Several of the 12 local complainants said the report failed to properly examine their concerns.

Cllr Jim Smith – new hard left ally of former BNP organiser

The permission has since been declared invalid because the council owns a small part of the land, now to be auctioned before the process can be started again.

In December 2011, the plans were recommended for refusal by officers, but councillors voted 10 to five to grant permission creating a storm of complaints from local White people.
Blackburn with Darwen council standards committee launched an investigation and will consider Mr Dudfield’s report next Thursday.
It found no evidence to support allegations the councillors had “predetermined” their decision in a Labour group meeting or wilfully ignored for political reasons the officers’ recommendation to refuse because of fears about parking, traffic and overdevelopment.
The ten councillors involved are Jim Smith, Parvaiz Akhtar, Eileen Entwistle, Brian Taylor, Zamir Khan, Suleman Khonat, Carl Nuttall, Phil Riley, Abdul Rehman and Trevor Maxfield (the former Blackburn BNP organiser).
According to Cllr. Smith, Cllr. Maxfield had a “road to Damascus” type conversion three years ago, when he quit nationalism to join the Labour Party.
Several complainants rejected the conclusions in letters to Mr Dudfield with Barbara Stillman a local Jewish women, claiming “clear evidence of a predetermined decision” and accusing the report of portraying Beardwood residents as “paranoid, delusional and racist”.

Cllr Maxfield with former allies in the For Darwen Party

Mr Dudfield highlighted a legal difference between predisposition and pre-determination and found no evidence Cllr. Hollern or a Labour group meeting made the decision before the planning meeting.

Accepting objectors believed “collusion was taking place”, Mr Dudfield added the majority of the committee getting a decision wrong did not prove any malpractice.

Labour leader in row over immigration policy

Labour’s former immigration minister Barbara Roche hits out at her party leader’s planned policy changes.

Opinion polls suggest that by 2015 Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister.  But in his anxiety to reassure voters that he understands their concerns about immigration, Miliband has sparked a row with Labour’s former immigration minister.

In an article for the Independent on Sunday on 20th January 2013, Barbara Roche – who was immigration minister in Tony Blair’s government from 1999 to 2001 – complains that “over the past few months there has been a concerted attack, from across the political spectrum, on the last Labour Government’s record on immigration.”

Mrs Roche – formerly Barbara Margolis – enjoyed a high flying career from her days as head girl of the Jews Free School in Camden (the largest Jewish school in Europe), via Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, and several years as a Middle Temple barrister.  Elected as MP for the multi-ethnic Hornsey & Wood Green in 1992, she lost her seat in 2005 – seen as a political casualty of Tony Blair’s Iraq war, which she had strongly supported but which was opposed by many of her constituents, not least Muslim voters.

In her IoS article Mrs Roche points out that during her time as a minister there was a panic over asylum seekers, but no real debate over immigration policy (as opposed to asylum).  She argues that the assumption behind the 1971 Immigration Act – seeking to end “primary” immigration of the sort that had taken place on a large scale since the arrival of West Indian immigrants aboard the Empire Windrush in 1948 – was wrong.  According to Mrs Roche, “legal migration is, in an age of globalisation, an economic, social and cultural good.”

Mrs Roche’s article was provoked by Ed Miliband’s BBC interview a few days earlier, the latest of a series in which the Labour leader indicated that the Blair and Brown governments had made mistakes in underestimating the scale of Eastern European immigration, and failing to understand immigration’s impact on White working class Britons.

In a speech to the Fabian Society on 12th January, Miliband had gone even further:
“High levels of migration were having huge effects on the lives of people in our country. And too often those in power seemed not to accept this. The fact that they didn’t explains partly why people turned against us in the last general election. So we must work to ensure that it never happens again.”

Needless to say, Labour has no intention of adopting a genuinely sane immigration policy.  The internal dispute is over to what extent they should openly and proudly celebrate immigration (as Mrs Roche argues), or whether they should offer at least a pretence of caring about the White working class (as Mr Miliband seems to prefer).

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.

Immigration change sparks Pakistan wedding boom

"Immigration adviser" Faisal Mehmood has seen a rush of wedding applications in Mirpur, Pakistan, during the last month

"Immigration adviser" Faisal Mehmood has seen a rush of wedding applications in Mirpur, Pakistan, during the last month

The AFP news agency reports a sudden surge in marriages in Pakistan.  What has prompted this romantic spasm? A change this month in British immigration law!

Pakistan’s marriage boom has been concentrated in the state of Mirpur, home to about one-sixth of British Pakistani immigrants.  (The phone-in programme on Mirpur’s local radio station Rose FM is broadcast simultaneously in Pakistan and Bradford.)

New immigration laws which came into effect on July 9th mean that only those with annual earnings of more than £18,600 will be allowed to bring a foreign husband or wife into Britain.  Moreover such spouses must wait five years before they can acquire British nationality (whereas the old law was just two years).

So Pakistanis rushed to get married and beat the ban.  One “immigration consultant”, Faisal Mehmood, says that he assisted 53 couples just in the first week of July, compared to his usual workload of six to eight cases per week.

But those who failed to get the paperwork in on time should perhaps not worry too much: partly due to the Olympic Games, Britain’s border controls are in even more of a shambles than usual.  Hundreds of staff with no immigration experience have been drafted in as part of a desperate effort to cut queues.

The independent chief inspector of border and immigration, John Vine, is warning: “about the potential risks of employing staff on the immigration control who had received only basic training and who had no immigration background/experience.”

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.

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.

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter