On the Ravages of Mass Immigration
Tameside, March 27, 2008 (video, transcript)
Editor’s Note: This March 27, 2008, British National Party “stump speech” given in Tameside was transcribed by Hyacinth Bouquet. Sadly, the video is incomplete. If anyone has a complete version, or information about where it was filmed, please contact us at [email protected].
Every element that sustained prior forms of British English life is declining or has dipped down. Marriage and the family are in turmoil, and hardly anyone is marrying. Procreation amongst our own group is down. Crime and violence are up, by every register. Vandalism and social misbehavior, and mild to evident chaos, are semi-permanent, and people who live on estates have to deal with it 24/7.
Areas in our towns and cities are semi-segregated. And yet none of the political leaders, not Clegg — the new one in charge of the liberals, but no difference there –, not Cameron, not Brown for Blair. None of them will mention these issues, and the only way in which they ever approach these issues is the reverse way round. Trying to accommodate minorities. Trying to suggest that majorities should be more liberal-minded.
The French President yesterday — it was all over the news bulletins — addressed our houses of Parliament, said what a great tradition the British have, what a great nationality they are; and he defined the first British virtue as “tolerance.” “Toleration,” he said. And this is what Blair used to say when he was in power.
But the truth is, when we fought in wars in the past, when we’ve conquered large stretches of the Earth in the past, we didn’t have tolerance in our hearts. We had glory, and strength, and heroic courage, and racial feeling. That’s what we had. And that’s what we need to have again if we are not to disappear, in our own towns, our own cities, even in time our own villages.
What the British and the English need to do is to wake up to the massive changes which are occurring globally and nationally. There’s no way we can just put up a wall anymore. We’ve been plugged into the world and to events happening on the other side of the world, not because we wished it, but because of the politics of our elite.
Iraq, and the war that occurred there, is five years old. That war has cost seven billion pounds; although when they have an Exchequer’s or Chancellor’s statement, they don’t mention that in the debate. You have to go to the details of the so-called blue and red books to find it. We’ve lost 176 men. We’ve achieved virtually nothing in southern Iraq, and we did it because of the Americans; and they did it for many reasons — including some of the influences in their own society, very few of which will be discussed by mainstream politicians, who ask for inquiries about this war.
This war wasn’t fought in our interest and has relatively little to do with us, and has given a significant segment of the world more of an “excuse” to hate us and to wish to place bombs in our cities.
I know somebody who was in Tavistock Square a quarter of an hour before one of the bombs went off. If you ever hear explosions in an urban context, they have an unnatural sound. “Crack!” This sort of sound which is unnatural. The ear isn’t used to hearing it. It’s this sort of plastic, strangely sort of synthetic sound.
That was the bus bomb, of course, going off in Tavistock Square, that obliterated this number 25, or whatever it was, and threw part of the top of the carriage of the bus across the square and smashed to pieces some phone boxes, which were to one side of it. Actually lifted them up into the air and threw them across one of these urban gardens. You know, some of these posh squares in London, they have a little sort of puff terrace park in the middle. Now, much of that square was wrecked.
Whether it was accidental or not — one doesn’t know –, the Board of Deputies of British Jews is adjacent to that square. Maybe that was one of the many reasons why that device was detonated there, but there are other theories.
One theory is that one of the two bombs were shot, and he rung his colleagues, the particular terrorist, 96 times on his mobile to explain he couldn’t get on that line. One theory is that he got on the bus and blew his device up there, because he wanted to join his fellows. But he couldn’t do it underground, so he had to do it over ground. Whatever.
That terrorist incident — 50 dead, 400 maimed — was in global terms an amateurish incident done by a small group of lads who got together primarily in Leeds, and with a cut-out in Luton, so to do. Al Qaeda claimed it retrospectively.
But deep down, those sort of small hits are — although they’ll claim them on the Internet — not really what they want. What they want is enormous explosions, such as the Heathrow conspiracy of about two years ago. Planes going into buildings. Planes misdirected and flying into nuclear plants, of which Labour wants to build a large number more. These are the big hits they want. They want massive Situationist stunts that block out all media, and wall-to-wall news all over the world indicates what’s happened.
They want to do this because they see themselves at war with the type of civilization that Bush, Brown, Blair, Sarkozy, and others have created. They think of themselves as white, liberal, tolerant, affordable people, open to the world and open to any point of view. That’s not how militant Islamic vanguardists see them. They see them as hateful Western imperialists dominating by their secularity, making war on behalf of Israel against them in the Middle East, and they want to hit back. And they want revenge. Liberals have allowed two million people who practically can’t in any sense, beyond the odd individual who assimilates, react and adapt to our civilization at all.
John Bercow was a Tory MP who supported Enoch Powell’s lines on these things and said these people will not assimilate. And, in a way, why should they? They have a different civilization to us, but liberal-minded people believe that we’re all the same, that we can all mix in, and that all cultures are interchangeable, and you can have a potpourri. You can have a bit of this, you can have a bit of that, and a bit of the other.
Speaking of which, the Archbishop of Canterbury opened his mouth about these things recently — about two to three weeks ago now — when in a sort of elitist audience, talking to fellow professors, because he’s an academic, and barristers, in the Inns of Temple in the City, he talked about Sharia law. Sort of moving his dog collar up and down, and moving his braces up and down, and this sort of a thing, and well-lunched, he said, “What about Sharia law? What about it? Shouldn’t the small little things, marriage and commercial disputes and things that don’t involve interest, and so on, what if we just allow a small space in our society for this sort of alternative, or parallel, system of law to be created? Why not? Where’s the harm in that?”
The only people who are against this, he would say, are intolerant people and bigots, the sort of people we don’t want to give a platform to. These people on the fringes. The moral equivalent of the terrorists, as Cameron calls the British National Party.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, who’s a bit of a sort of ninny — in his own world, not particularly media-savvy — got the fright of his life, because the whole media, in a rather illiberal firestorm actually, reacted partly to what he hadn’t said, partly to what he wanted to say, partly between the gap between what he wanted to say and what he actually said — and partly to what he said. And he retreated under the table for quite a few weeks and was shocked by the response. Even Brown and the other political leaders slapped him around, and he went and hid for a while.
He did that because — at one level it’s amusing, you know — the chap couldn’t wait to get the dog collar off and the caftan on, could he? But there’s a degree to which, when I heard he’d made those remarks, I thought to myself, “What’s really going on there?” What’s really underneath these remarks? Which one can, at one level, have a bit of fun with. What’s he really talking about?
Deep down, he’s given up! He’s given up on his own belief system. I’m not a Christian. I am a pagan. But he’s the Archbishop of Canterbury. He should be in favor of his religiosity. He shouldn’t be saying, “Come here, it’s just a story. We once believed in it. We’ll accept your law. You can accept a little bit of ours. We can all get on and be friends.”
That is not the attitude which you expect from any sort of a denominational leader, from any sort of a leader at all. None of these other faiths, and none of these other groups, and none of these other nationalities have any respect for people like that. They regard them as weak little ninnies and fools!
These types of civilizations, in some ways, have remained partly pre-modern. They respect masculinity and strength. They don’t respect a bloke lifting up his beard and saying, “Come here as quickly as possible.” If he was actually a bit more militant, they would actually have a bit of time for him. This is one of the paradoxes.
He was actually criticized by Carey — one of his predecessors in the post, if you like. Don’t forget that this one’s a Blair appointee. Although he’s Welsh, and came from the church of Wales, he was appointed in post by Blair. Yet another of these appointments of a destructive . . .
[Break in video]
. . . that there is a half-caste or black candidate for the Democratic nomination for one of the two main parties in the United States of America. If you actually go to many American cities, like Chicago, from which this individual comes, and within whose radical politics he cut his teeth, you’ll realize that this is normality. Since all-white immigration ceased into the United States, 70 million persons of color have entered the United States in the last 35 years.
That is the real legacy of the Kennedys in the United States. Forget the bonking, forget Marilyn Monroe, forget the scandals. The real change is the mass immigration which has occurred into the US — -as a precedent for us and the rest of the West — since then, changing American cities and states out of all recognition.
White Americans are, tacitly, almost a minority in California. Almost a minority in Texas. A definite minority in New York State, certainly New York City, within New York State. These changes are evident, and the political class in the US, such as McCain and so forth, believe they’re ineradicable.
There are 18 million illegal immigrants in the US alone, and there is a debate internally that they should be naturalized. The fact that they’ve essentially used criminal means to get into the country should be obviated, should just be ignored, and they should be given citizenship.
In the rest of the West, and on liberal programming on the media tonight and elsewhere, somebody like George W. Bush is presented as a Right-winger who’s railing tooth and claw, and wants the bombers in the Third World, and is a Christian fundamentalist, and so on. He’s in favor of naturalizing 18 million illegal Mexican immigrants inside the United States, in the teeth of opposition from the center and right of his own Republican Party, which is the center-Right party of the two blocs in the US. He’s a moderate, and a liberal, and an internationalist on these sorts of issues. And as the political class in Europe and America chatters, the world changes around them, and around their own populations.
What most people do about these changes is to ignore them; to moan about them privately amongst their friends; to swear at the television when there aren’t people that they don’t know about; to think that something should be done, but they’re not going to do anything themselves; to slightly curse some of the people in the past who tried to do something about it while secretly admiring them; and to sit on their hands and wonder where it will all end.
But at least, people think, I can privatize my own life. I can look after me and mine. We live in a nice area. I can get private health insurance. I may have a chance to get my offspring into one of these academy schools, where Labour ministers, of course, never send their own children.
So we have a situation where, increasingly, people think that nothing can be done. They’re very worried, but they’d rather do nothing, but will moan in front of the box.
But it’s noticeable that certain straws are in the wind, and there is a feeling amongst our own people that something ought to be done. At the very least, something political ought to be done.
We’re 40-odd years on now from Enoch Powell’s speeches. I saw a cover of a magazine on a London newsstand not so long ago, called History Today. It said, “Decades on from the ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, Powell, did he expose a nation’s racism?” It wasn’t the title and all the politically correct spin and wrap-around that interested me; it was the picture of Powell, a sort of badly-taken color photograph from the 1960s. It’s a Tory rally, and yet you see the strength when Powell is speaking. You sense the power the man had when he was in his prime.
After the second of the two “Rivers of Blood” speeches — the second was made in Birmingham, the first one was made in Wolverhampton — he had a million letters. A million letters, and nine of them were against! People wanted him to become the leader of the Conservative Party at that time, which there was absolutely no chance of, and he was institutionally blocked off. The interesting thing is he’s the only Tory politician, probably in the last 50 years, that has had any support or credibility amongst white working-class people. Fact.
Interestingly, this is a group that the BBC have become rather keen on recently, because there’s been a whole series of documentaries called White about the white working-class and their danger, and the opportunity. And have we neglected these people? And what do they really think?
They get a sort of alternative comedian — I think he’s called Arthur Smith — with a husky, sort of sympathetic Cockney voice, to go around and interview old men and say, “How has this area changed?” “Do you like living here?” “Do you like your new neighbors?” It’s very carefully edited, and it’s spliced, and every other elderly white person on these estates makes a liberal remark. Yet the masses, the mass of the population, has construed this as Right-wing propaganda.
When this candidate who won in Essex went out canvassing and leafleting with his team, people said, “Oh, we saw your propaganda on the news.” “We saw you on the BBC.” They were talking about this White program, of course, because the mass of the population filter out all these little intermediate keys and steps that the BBC puts in — the contrary remarks, the ethnic statements, the Labour statements that say these people aren’t so bad after all, they’re my sort of people. The police chief who says it’s not too bad. The liberal whites who’ve moved out and think it’s better in Greater Essex, and they’re prepared to give everything a go.
They filtered all that out, and they’ve understood that the establishment, through the BBC, is worried. Worried about what is a considerable segment of the population, who are the core of the Labour vote — and the core of Labour’s power in cities like Manchester — really think.
The Tories, in a city like Manchester, are hated, retrospectively, to a degree that some southerners find it difficult even entirely to understand. That we’re having a situation now where Labour, in its own heartlands, is becoming detested by many of the people that they went into business, politically, in order to represent.
Why is this happening? It’s happening because they’ve betrayed the people that they set themselves up to represent. The Tories never said they would do anything for white British people in cities, who did manual and other jobs. But Labour said, “We’re your party. Trust us, and we’ll care for you, and we’ll look after you.”
After a hundred years of the existence of the Labour Party, and 50-odd years since they formed a mass government in 1945, 70 years since they first formed a government in 1924, what have they done? What have they done to areas that our people have had to leave, and fear of being decimated in their wake? What have they done? What have they done in relation to our people; and where they need to live, and the sort of jobs they need to do, in order to sustain families?
[Break in video]
Deep down, there’s a great disquiet in all of our people about the radical and manifest changes that are happening. They look around and they think, “What’s it going to be like in 50 years? In a hundred years? In 150 years? Are we to be reduced to a third of the population, to 20%? In 180 years’ time, what will happen to our culture then, when we have to play the minority game?” That if anyone makes the slightest tangential criticism of us, we stick up our hand and say, “You’re incorrect. You’re incorrect. We want redress,” and this sort of thing.
To play all those games in our own country! That’s ours — now, and in the past, and into the future. What people have to do is when elections come around, because liberals are in love with elections — not in love with referendums, because they might be defeated — but they’re in love with elections; local, provincial, semi-national within the United Kingdom, European. London elections are coming up soon. I have a vote in London, and I shan’t be voting for Ken Livingston.
Ken Livingstone is a radical version — in the state capital, admittedly — of everything that’s wrong with this society; and yet hundreds of thousands of white working-class people, and others in London, have voted for him in the eighties and afterwards.
I once got in a taxi with a bloke, you know, the ubiquitous London taxi driver and his opinions, and I just listened to him talk. He started, “Who are you going to vote for?” This is way back in the first year election when Livingstone was standing against Labour, do you remember? When Blair said he’ll be a disaster for London? The other day, didn’t I see Brown and Livingstone embracing on the steps of Number 10 Downing Street? They hated each other and loathed each other for years! It’s been an open secret in New and Old Labour. But they embrace, and they’re embracing because they’re worried. When he stood for the first year, though, Labour activists wouldn’t put Livingstone’s leaflets out. He used Trotskyist groups in London, Trotskyist groups to put out his leaflets.
Now he’s an official Labour candidate. He’s been mayor of London for 12, maybe 16 years, if you add up all that time. What’s he done during that time? He’s progressively destroyed London as our capital city. It’s become a sink! It’s become what it is now, and he said he was going to do it from the very beginning. When asked in the early eighties what his agenda was, he said radical racial equality, radical sexual equality, radical rights for sexual and other minorities. Straight out! No messing! He’s not New Labour, who says the opposite of what he means, and then even steps back from that. He’s giving it to you straight, in a way.
He was asked about political correctness, and he said, “I’m all in favor of it.” They said, what about “baa-baa black sheep”? What about banning children’s nursery rhymes? He said, “Look, that’s garbage invented by the Tory press. I want to impose total” — total means totalitarian — “I want to impose totally Left-wing views on the citizens of London.” This is the bloke from his own mouth, telling you exactly what he intends.
Inside the Metropolitan Police there is a black officer’s union, there is an Asian officer’s union, there is a Muslim officer’s union, and yes there is, there’s a homosexual and transsexual officer’s union. But there isn’t a white officer’s union, except the general Police Federation, which is said to be overarching and includes ourselves, and therefore it’s all right.
This is the type of city that he’s created. The canteen culture of the Metropolitan Police was once what you saw in The Sweeney when I was a child. Not any longer! Not any longer! You’ve got progressive policemen who are terrified of doing anything. In city districts, that increasingly they’re outnumbered in ten-to-one, particularly south of the river. This is what has happened to our capital city under the watch of these sorts of people.
That is why Essex man is voting for the British National Party; because they’re the people, and they’re the descendants of the people, who’ve moved out of our capital. And for our capital read every other city, including Birmingham. Places like Handsworth are 97%, 98%, 99% in inner Birmingham, non-white. They’ve all gone! They’ve gone to King’s Stanley, and they’ve gone to Perry Barr, they’ve gone to Worthington, they’ve gone out to these other areas.
Why have they gone? Because they don’t want to remain, that’s why. They’ve been passively, and semi-democratically, ethnically cleansed. That’s what’s happened. Amongst Brummagem people in the middle of our country, in the middle of England, they talk about some of these districts in the center of Birmingham, the center of Wolverhampton, as the occupied territories. The “occupied territories” is a term Palestinians use! This is a term that English people are using about their own cities.
But something can be done, and what can be done is politics.
Nothing will be done in relation to the problems which Enoch Powell identified, and that extend well beyond race and immigration: to the family, to law, to disorder, to the indiscipline in our schools, to that fact that a large part of our people are so undereducated now that they know nothing about this country. They know little about its past. They don’t even know who they are. That’s why they’re fodder for the liberal elite.
In all areas there needs to be a change, and the change comes through leafleting, and through canvassing, and through speaking, and through writing, and through broadcasting, and through raising money, and through giving money, and through bequests, and through standing as a candidate. You don’t have to go to war anymore. But these are the things that you have to do, if we are to revive as a people.
I met Enoch Powell once, about four years before his death. He was still the same: still dapper, still extraordinarily short — he was about 5’4”. Television used to always magnify his appearance. He used to stand on a box in a meeting to make himself more powerful, if you like, but he didn’t really need to do that, because as I looked at that cover of History Today, I saw somebody of immense power and vigor who was totally English and totally British, and proud to be so, as I am proud to be so. As you are proud to be so.
Not only will we be proud again, not only will we be dominant again in our own island, and in our own territory, in our own nationalities; we can rebuild this society again. We can go forward together again. Britain can be great again. But we have to make it happen ourselves, and in our own lives.
Even at the level of the individual, when people make liberal remarks to you, you don’t have to engage in some great row; but you say, “No. I don’t agree.” What? You’re not one of them, are you, you know?
You don’t agree with what has happened to this country; and I ask you to leaflet, to raise money, to canvas, to vote. Increasingly in proportion to elections in cities and beyond, there will be a chance to vote for radical Right-wing organizations — not UKIP, to the right of the Tories — bringing forward the mass sentiment of all of our people; of any nationality within the United Kingdom that is indigenous, that is proud, that knows what it is and knows what it wants for its children and its grandchildren.
I ask you to work for this party, to vote for this party, to raise funds for this party, and to remember that England, and Manchester, and the northwest of England will go on together with us, forever and ever.
Thank you very much!