Great Britain: Ethnic Heterogeneity & Totalitarianism

totalitarianism

Many of you will be aware that last week, Britain First leaders Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen were jailed for 18 and 36 weeks respectively for the crime of ‘religiously aggravated harassment’. They were accused of an “Islamophobic” abuse campaign spanning a number of months, in which they drew attention to and attempted to confront a group of men who they labelled as Muslim rapists. The mainstream media has, of course, claimed they targeted ‘innocent, law-abiding Muslims’ for no good reason. A clear example of far-right racism, they said. The “innocent, law-abiding” Muslims in question are now serving a combined 49 years in prison after being convicted of gang-raping a drunk 16-year-old English girl in a “grubby room” above their kebab shop. Similarly, in a development that reached us over the weekend, Generation Identity leader Martin Sellner and his partner Brittany Pettibone were detained upon arrival in the United Kingdom. Their crime? Planning to meet Tommy Robinson and speak at the infamous Speaker’s Corner on Sunday – a platform utilised by Karl Marx once upon a time, but now the preserve of 200 or so Islamic preachers on a weekly basis. The planned speech was, ironically, on the topic of Free Speech. However, not only have their rights to freedom of speech been infringed, their rights to freedom of movement – as stipulated under EU law – and freedom of association have also been trampled. The reason given by the British government for this outburst of totalitarianism is that they might say something which ‘created tension between communities’.

This goes beyond the simple matter of free speech. We’re now looking at the systematic breach of supposedly inalienable rights that have been enshrined in British constitutional law since the days of Magna Carta. Now, not only has the establishment criminalised any political opinion with which they disagree, the judicial precedent set in the Britain First case suggests one can no longer even make the public aware of criminal foreigners living in their midst. Furthermore, fellow Europeans can expect to be arrested for exercising their inviolable right to freedom of association upon arrival on British shores. Indeed, Mr Sellner and his partner were arrested simply for intending to meet with Mr Robinson, a man who has pointedly denounced fascism, National Socialism and racialism, thus making him something of a moderate within nationalist circles. Notwithstanding a clear violation of EU law, which of course won’t be rectified by the neo-liberal Globalists in Brussels, the British state has effectively shown that it can and will silence and repress any man who dares voice opposition to the current order. These precedents are supported by multiple pieces of legislation that, since the 1960s, have been the favourite mechanism for dealing with dissent. Without fail, these laws are implicitly designed to criminalise the actions and opinions of native Britons and, by extension, fellow Europeans who have a stake in the future of this nation. Equally, most of this legislation has mechanisms within it that offer special protection for foreigners, both social and legal.

However, we must remember that such legislative action taken against the political positions of the native people of England is a relatively new phenomenon. In the context of history in terms of millennia, this is an aberration from the norm. That is to say that throughout England’s 1,000 year history, never before has the state actively engaged in a campaign of repression and censorship in favour of an alien entity or people. In fact, the English have toppled governments and killed Monarchs for much, much less. No doubt the detractors of this thesis will point to religious feuds of the middle ages; Catholic vs Protestant, the burning of heretics, and so on. But these were, without exception, actions that repressed or otherwise opposed minority factions, considered to be extremist or un-Christian. A correlation could be drawn if, for example, today’s government enacted laws that adequately suppressed certain groups of foreigners’ propensity to gang-rape young English girls. Yet this is not happening. The very opposite is happening. When considering this document, I’ve been attempting to recall an example in English history when such a situation had arisen, but there is simply nothing comparable. Such measures by the state against the native people of England are simply unprecedented. Indeed, there are a considerable number of examples of the English state consistently enacting legal measures that protect the majority native population against alien peoples or practises. Examples of this can be found dating back to the 13th century, when King Edward I passed laws against Jewish immigrant bankers bankrupting native tradesmen through usurious money lending practises.

Interestingly, there is evidence from pre-war Britain that the state took notice of the people’s opposition to immigration. In 1905, after Britain had received its first influx of Russian and Polish Jews, the state responded to a clearly outraged public by scripting the Aliens Act (1905), which was designed at restricting the level of Jewish immigration. Again, in 1914, the Aliens Registration Act was passed to permit speedier deportations of immigrant groups not conducive to the public good. A further law was passed in 1919 aimed at restricting immigration, this time to avert potential domestic disaster after the native population became disgruntled at WWI refugees undercutting wages and diluting the labour market. A further legal mechanism was brought in in 1920, a statutory instrument under the 1919 act that was aimed at restricting refugee flows from the revolutionary continent. The result was that by 1930, refugee arrivals had been reduced to zero. Further directives were issued by the British government throughout the 1930s, aimed at stemming the increase in refugee inflows as a result of Jews no longer being welcome in continental Europe. A directive was issued by Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax in 1938 that restricted, specifically, ‘non-Aryan immigration’. So as you can see, from the time when mass movements of people became a reality in Europe, successive British governments of the day – both Liberal and Conservative – appreciated the concerns of the native peoples and took steps to restrict immigration. Today, though, even suggesting that immigration has had a negative impact, or talking in terms of natives and aliens, is strictly verboten.

Since 1945, the British state has moved away from this natural position of protecting its native peoples. In its place, it has opted for a path of open hostility to those people. Britain’s post-war Prime Minister, Clement Atlee, said in 1946 that ‘if the races of the world mix, there will be no more war’. He was, of course, alluding to the common leftist misconception that nativism breeds militarism, fascism and The Shoah, and suggesting large scale miscegenation as a great nostrum. He clearly gave little thought to the fact that this plan meant breeding Britain’s native ethnic groups out of existence. True to his word, his Labour government passed the 1948 Nationality Act, which effectively offered British citizenship to everyone from the coloured colonies of the Commonwealth. His party, like their New Labour successors, sent search parties to Africa and the Caribbean to recruit Third World workers for British jobs. Eventually, the consequences of these grave errors began to show. Racial tension, for the first time since the Jewish Question in the 13th century, became a problem in Britain. But instead of following the historical precedent of taking steps to protect the native population, Harold Wilson’s Labour government instead brought in the Race Relations Act (1965). The act, itself drafted by the Board of Deputies of British Jewry, was the first infringement of freedom of association. Its 1968 amendment prevented employers or private landlords from taking race into account, despite the fact that the latter is a question of property rights. A man’s property is sacred and with it, he should be permitted by law to do with it as he wishes. If, for instance, he would rather rent it out to native Britons who are statistically more likely to actually pay and concentrate on its upkeep, that should be his decision. The extent to which these laws “corrected” racial prejudice was shown in 1968, when a reported 80% of British people agreed with Enoch Powell’s suggestions of halting immigration and repatriating existing aliens. Thus, it can be said that these laws simply attempted to legislate for something directly opposed to the wishes of the majority.

Further legislation was enacted in 1976, again by the Labour Party. The 1976 Race Relations Act outlawed any remaining freedom of association the British people once had, whilst simultaneously creating the Commission for Racial Equality. This organisation has, since its inception, been the preserve of leftist activists who engage in witch hunts and targeted campaigns of harassment against anybody who doesn’t follow the politically correct “approved discourse”. Effectively, this organisation has always targeted native Britons for real or perceived breaches of the regnant diversity mantra. The next time the Labour Party returned to power in 1997, they wasted little time in entrenching the problems of the previous generation. They appeared to adopt Atlee’s miscegenation ideology, proceeding to open Britain’s borders to, seemingly, the entire world. In 1998, net immigration rose from the 1997 high of 40,000 to exceed 100,000 for the first time in a year’s period since records began. For the next 12 years after that, Blair and then Brown’s government continued this policy of national suicide, with immigrants mostly coming from the Indian sub-continent. In 2004, the Labour government waved the UK’s veto on open borders for the eight former communist nations of Eastern Europe who joined that year, resulting in the importation of millions of low-skilled, often criminal migrants from Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, amongst other places. According to former government insiders, Lord Mandelsohn, Jack Straw and Barbara Roche, amongst others (yes, there’s a commonality here) ‘sent out search parties’ to Eastern Europe, actively looking to bring these people to the UK. Barbara Roche, as immigration minister, also presided over the relaxation of family reunion rules in 2001, which enabled Third World immigrants to import their entire extended families. Their reasoning? ‘To rub the right’s nose in diversity’.

Not only did this Labour government effectively destroy the very social fabric of the United Kingdom, it also brought in various laws that furthered criminalised any opposition to it’s dystopian agenda. In 2003, the government passed the Communications Act, which they dressed up as legislation to combat online bullying, abuse and harassment in a cynical attempt to make this more acceptable to the general public. In reality, this Act of Parliament has been used to hunt down online dissent of the reigning multi-ethnic nightmare. Section 127 of the Act covers this particular issue; communications that are deemed to be racially or religiously aggravated are covered, as is the issue of ‘intending to cause gross offence’. This is left deliberately vague, so that the definition of terms like ‘gross offence’ is purely subjective and can be expanded or contracted to suit the state prosecutors. Additionally, this legislation could theoretically prosecute the widespread anti-White, anti-British sentiment on social media, but to date I’m unaware of a single incident of this being successfully prosecuted. However, what is certain is that around 3,000 people per year are charged with Thought Crimes under this law, almost all of whom are White British people who have taken objection in one way or another to the present state of society. Often, people who have spoken out over the link between diversity and terrorism, diversity and paedophilic rape gangs, diversity and violent crime, and in fact diversity and any criminal offence, have been hauled before the courts to answer for their critical thinking.

As they left office in 2010, the Labour Party further entrenched their half-century of abuse against the British people by passing the Equality Act. Again, this is a law with a seemingly virtuous title but an entirely sinister agenda. It was designed to consolidate previous Social Justice acts, such as the Race Relations Act (1965, 1976), as well as various aspects of employment “equality” legislation, into one law that became a comprehensive bible of Social Marxism. The small print of this legislation effectively legalised discrimination against the native peoples of Britain, by permitting public sector employers to employ “diversity shortlists” which permit all-foreign candidate lists, which has interestingly allowed the BBC to advertise to ‘everybody except white people’. Furthermore, it contains a clause to permit political parties to have all-female or all-Gay shortlists, a further signal that the straight white male is becoming an endangered species. Whether it was part of this act or not is unclear, but it has since emerged that the Labour government gave specific guidance to the Justice System that explicitly requested non-whites to be looked upon more leniently by judges as a result of their ‘socio-economic disadvantage’. In simple terms, a British man will get a harsher sentence for committing the same crime as a black man. The United Kingdom officially runs a two-tier justice system, which may go some way to explaining the grossly lenient sentence handed down to the Pakistanis convicted of raping children.

Aristotle on the correlation between despotism and ethnic heterogeneity:

“Heterogeneity of stocks may lead to faction – at any rate until they have had time to assimilate. A city cannot be constituted from any chance collection of people, or in any chance period of time. Most of the cities which have admitted settlers, either at the time of their foundation or later, have been troubled by faction. For example, the Achaeans joined with settlers from Troezen in founding Sybaris, but expelled them when their own numbers increased; and this involved their city in a curse. At Thurii the Sybarites quarreled with the other settlers who had joined them in its colonization; they demanded special privileges, on the ground that they were the owners of the territory, and were driven out of the colony. At Byzantium the later settlers were detected in a conspiracy against the original colonists, and were expelled by force; and a similar expulsion befell the exiles from Chios who were admitted to Antissa by the original colonists. At Zancle, on the other hand, the original colonists were themselves expelled by the Samians whom they admitted. At Apollonia, on the Black Sea, factional conflict was caused by the introduction of new settlers; at Syracuse the conferring of civic rights on aliens and mercenaries, at the end of the period of the tyrants, led to sedition and civil war; and at Amphipolis the original citizens, after admitting Chalcidian colonists, were nearly all expelled by the colonists they had admitted.”

These are just some of the more prominent instances of the British state, in an aberration from the pre-war norm, has enacted legislation designed to persecute, censor and oppress the native peoples it has a sworn duty to protect. Not only that, but the state has also employed a two-pronged approach of importing hostile foreigners and simultaneously criminalising those who actively or passively oppose it. Considering the English nation’s 1,000-year history of protecting its people’s fundamental freedoms, the untrained eye may find it difficult to fathom the reasoning behind this departure from normal service. On closer inspection, a clear pattern emerges that exposes the true agenda. This is not conspiracy, but the origins of this nightmare can be traced back to the Atlee-esque notions of widespread immigration and miscegenation preached in the post-war period. Of course, there’s peripheral interests such as those of big-business, for whom cheap migrant labour and a deracinated population equals greater profits. But the political will to make these changes to society has to be there. It has been seen in all British governments, both Labour and Conservative, since the post-war period, who have all subscribed to this ridiculous notion that racial mixing creates peace. The very fact that they’ve had reason to enact a multitude of legislative measures to prevent the native people rising against it should be evidence enough that their theory is fundamentally flawed.

The most pertinent observation here, however, is the correlation between “diversity” and the British state’s rapid descent into totalitarianism. Prior to WWII, Britain was the home of freedom, the very birthplace of the ideas that fuelled the American and French revolutions, the home of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jeremy Bentham. Speaker’s Corner was once a great bastion of Free Speech, providing a platform for Karl Marx after he’d been hounded out of Germany and censored in France and Belgium. We even allowed Vladimir Lenin, a man who bears partial responsibility for the sufferings of Bolshevism, to appeal to the masses unmolested from this centuries old outpost of the free exchange of ideas. Yet now the British nation has descended into darkness. Now, for fear of upsetting the fifth columnists and assorted communities of hostile foreigners in our midst, we must censor law-abiding Europeans and prevent patriots from exposing the truth in our own land. The state has seen fit to erect a plethora of barriers, simply to “protect” its own people from the cold, hard truth that it has been complicit in engendering. Centuries of struggle for freedoms since the days of Magna Carta and Oliver Cromwell are being sullied, sacrificed like a quasi-religious offering at the alter of diversity. A simple conclusion can be drawn, namely that the British state must become totalitarian in order to keep the peace in an increasingly fragmented, multi-ethnic dystopia. The only question that remains to be answered, is exactly how low we will sink before somebody stands up and truly speaks for England?

William
William is a writer based in England, Great Britain.