The European Union, Globalization, & ImmigrationJonathan Bowden
This is the transcript by V. S. of Jonathan Bowden’s British National Party stump speech in Blackpool, Lancashire, on June 21, 2005. If you have corrections, please post them as comments below. The title is editorial.
To listen in a player, click here. To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.” To subscribe to our podcasts, click here.
Thanks very much! I’d like to thank the northwest region for having me up here today and Blackpool in particular. But I am a bit worried already, because on the raffle tickets I noticed that I’ve got 666 on my ticket, which according to the Book of Revelations is the sign of the beast.
Audience member: I think that’s mine actually!
Oh, it’s yours! A bit of music hall before we start . . .
Now, one of the things I do is I’m an auctioneer, and I’m going to auction this for the Blackpool branch. This is an interesting painting because I notice the husband seems to be disappearing. He sort of gets smaller and smaller every time I look at it. There’s also another interesting feature. Bit of a war memorial here. And here is the stocks! The pokey almost where certain reprobates should be placed in Blair’s Britain. So, we’ve got stocks, war memorial, and receding husband.
I think we should have a reserve price for this of about 25. So, bumping up from 7.50 through 15 to 25. Who will give me 25? Don’t have to pay now. You can pay at the end of the meeting. Somebody came up, a Scottish chap who evinced a bit of interest earlier on.
Derek’s already for 25! But you’re topping that already! What did you say? 50? Ah, 30! It’s the hearing in these acoustics. 30 plus 5?
35! Are you coming back? Don’t scratch your head like that, that’s another 50! 35 . . . 35 . . . 40! He’s bidding against himself! He’s a masochist. Stop it! Intervene now.
Offering 50. Anyone for 50? We’re up to 40 already and we had a reserve price of 25. Anymore? Anymore? Anymore? I should have a little thing [a gavel], but I haven’t.
Going for 40 . . . Going for 40 . . . Going for 40 . . . To the man in the suit! Going for 40. Round of applause for £40! Up 40 quid already, and I’ve only been speaking for a minute.
* * *
Now, some important things have been going on in Western Europe and in Britain recently. The European Union is an extraordinarily tedious issue as everyone knows, but some very important things have happened, and that’s the rejection of this constitution in France and in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands by an extraordinary majority of about two thirds to a third against. One of the founder and primary countries that brought in the European project in the first instance. France was a little more nuanced, but still in a major referendum 55% against. Saying no to Chirac, no to the constitution, and no to the EU is very significant.
In the last couple of weeks the entire clerisy, the leadership of this putative state in Europe, has been wandering around not knowing what to do. Should they re-present it to their own people? Should they try to bully them again? Should they try to go for a subterfuge clause in a sort of reserve code of the treaty so that they can get it in through the back door? Should they introduce bits of it piecemeal without people really noticing it, so that there isn’t a need for a referendum in the future?
It’s quite noticeable that this project has staggered suddenly. It’s hit a wall that they didn’t expect, because they expected most of the countries to roll over and say, “Yes, yes.” Nine of them that were holding referendums, and we’re at the end, because Blair’s plan that was later next year we would have a referendum, and all the force of all British unions, big British capital, big British political elites would be placed upon the population, and they’d say, “It’s death’s door. If we don’t have this treaty we’ll be the odd man out. We won’t be at the heart of Europe. We’ll lose 300,000 jobs. It’s a disaster for us all! You must vote! You must vote yes! And you must vote often!”
I was a schoolboy at the time there was a referendum in the ’70s as to whether we should actually stay in what was then called the EEC, because at each stage it’s become more of a state. What began as a coal and steel federation among a small group of core countries, then became a market, then became an economic community, now is a union, and putatively we’ll be a state despite these reverses which may be terminal at least in the initial phase, because they’ve been set back.
You can argue, “Why have liberal idealists throughout Europe wanted this project so much?” Because it’s quite obvious that even in the core countries like France and the Netherlands and even West Germany, now the federal republic of the united Germany after the collapse of the communist statelet in the East, there were significant portions of all their populations that never wanted to merge their societies into this supra-state above the level of the existing nation-states. The populations of these states have always been sullen and resistant to this project, and it’s been pushed and pushed again by a small, residual liberal elite that increasingly on issue after issue is out of step with the bulk of the population in Western societies.
We’ve got 25 European peoples in this union now, and it’s noticeable that every time they have a real vote on it where it’s primal, where it’s yes or no — “Do you want to go further in or do you want to stay who you are or do you want to go back a bit towards where you were before we went in?” — people will say no! Even on Maastricht, a very boring treaty that hardly anybody apart from a few parliamentary nerds in any of the Western European societies have ever read, 49% of the French voted no to Maastricht, and now they’ve gone over to 55% on this particular constitution. Because the nation-state is not finished. It’s only liberals like Blair and like Kennedy and to a certain extent, although he makes a few independent noises, like Hague before him, like Duncan Smith before him, and like Howard now who want this entity which it is said will bring us jobs and will bring us prosperity.
Most of the jobs and most of the prosperity that has residually accrued because of our membership in this union would have occurred anyway through free and bilateral and independent trading with fellow White people in Europe. That would have happened regardless.
The reason liberals want to draw us together into this project as one of many is they have ideas of how we should live and how society should be organized of which this is one phalanx. This is one area. They believe that the multiracial and multicultural society that has been created here since the Nationality Act of 1948 is a morally good thing. They believe the nation-state is a bad thing up to a point, and it needs to be mitigated, it needs to be doused down, it needs to be ameliorated. Patriotism is something that’s not entirely controllable, is dangerous, is tribal, leads in their view to conflict. You must batten it down a bit, and one of the ways in which you do it, is you have a structure put on top of it consisting of treaties and constitutional statehoods that form a federation, a putative United States of Europe beyond the existing nation-states.
Every state that exists in Western Europe has wanted something different from it. To begin with, de Gaulle totally refused our entry into the European Union from a French, quasi-nationalist perspective, because they think we’re a Trojan horse for the United States. Germany, defeated and humiliated in two massive European civil wars, which in part is what the First and Second World Wars were on the continent of Europe, wants a degree of moderate liberal domination of the continent totally without violence, totally based upon alleged peace and prosperity, even though 10% of their population is now unemployed. That’s their angle within the EU. France wants to hit America by having a federation that can block American power at the global level.
As we’re speaking here tonight in Blackpool, our bombers are in action in Iraq. We’re attacking insurgent formations along the Syrian border, because Islamist guerrillas are coming in through Syria and, on the other hand, they’re coming in on the other side of Iraq from Iran.
Now, nobody ever really gave any license for Blair on Bush’s behalf to fight this war or to use our troops and aircraft and ships in the Gulf in this way, but they’re used because of our alliance with the United States of America and their putative federation on the other side of the world. Because there is a version in North America of the European Union, and it’s called NAFTA. This is Mexico and Canada and the United States of America in one bloc. As you look around the world you see there’s one in Southeast Asia involving, putatively, Australasia. There’s one, although it’s a basket-case about which Bob Geldof goes on a great deal, in Africa. There’s one in Latin America, including North America, called the Organization of the American States beyond NAFTA.
Liberals have this belief that groups of states should come together across the world in federations that build up into each other like Russian dolls over time. The ultimate crucible and model for this meddling is the United Nations, which was set up immediately after the Second World War, and putatively in all of these structures, no matter how hesitant and haphazard it is, you have an idea of world governance.
Only fanatical liberals want any sort of world government, and they’re a tiny strand even within liberalism per se. But liberals believe that indigenous peoples should not be allowed to sort things out for themselves. They believe in small, concealed fiscal and technocratic groups at the top of world and dominion structures who tell peoples what to do, who merge them into other groups, who deny the constitutional integrity of their own states, and who pursue ideas of universal brotherhood and universal humanity through these structures.
Most of the time people say that this is an impossible dream, and even liberals themselves believe that, many of them, the more practical and realistic ones, who just want to have their snouts in the trough and want get elected every four or five years in mainstream Western societies. But behind this pressure for the UN, for the UN to meddle in Africa, for America to intervene in the Middle East, for liberal democracies to be set up all over the world, for countries like Syria and Iran to be disprivileged, but others like post-invasion Iraq to be boosted, for the European Union to vote for a constitution there is a raft of opinion which says there is only one race — the human race; there’s only one type of person — a person with humanist values; there’s only one type of economics that’s possible — liberal capitalism broadly along the American line; there’s only one foreign policy that’s possible and that’s to intervene to get rid of dictatorial regimes that American power, which has propped up all sorts of dictatorial regimes in the Caribbean and Latin America, doesn’t like.
There’s this drift that’s been going on since 1945 which excluded the Soviet bloc until the collapse of Communism in the East and which now doesn’t really have, apart from residual national feeling amongst all peoples and groups — and Islamists actually — any counter-balance in the world and this is why the United States has the biggest concentration of military and economic power that the world has ever seen in our species. This is why American Secretaries of State go around the world pushing and pulling and telling other countries and other societies and other peoples what they should be doing, how they should be behaving, how they should run their economies internally, what sort of diplomacy they should have, and who in turn they should let into their societies.
It’s not that it all goes together and it’s a neat plan which has been worked out to the last jot and tittle and is sort of conspiratorial in an overarching way. It’s, in my opinion, a process; it’s a pushing of certain ideas which ultimately says you can’t really have your own country, because you can’t be trusted to have it and that the instincts of the majority of people are out of kilter with the small, little elite at the top which is more progressive than they are, more open-minded than they are, more reflexive than you are.
“We are your rulers.” This is the Blair attitude towards things. This is why he always adopts this rather vicarish moralizing and nagging tone whenever he talks to the electorate, because he knows better than other people. He knows better than the majority of the British people on issues like race and immigration and crime and European integration and poverty in Africa and this new-fangled Gulf War and many other initiatives. He knows better because he’s allegedly got a little progressive agenda of his own that we’re too reactionary and tribal and purblind to see.
But the truth of the matter is that they are out of kilter. They’re out of kilter on issues like drugs and crime in Blackpool, just as they’re out of kilter with invading a Third World dictatorship that they currently don’t like, such as in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein’s regime was put in power by a CIA-sponsored coup in 1962. But 40 years later it has to be gotten rid of for various geopolitical reasons in the Gulf. We had, a year and a half ago, a third of our entire army in Iraq. A third of our entire army and about a sixth of our navy and about a quarter of our air force. We have 5,000 more troops going to Afghanistan now.
But you and I know that Blair does not control the streets in South London, and yet he’s sending a third of our army half-way around the world to occupy the Shia part of Iraq as part of an overall American dispensation so Bush can turn to the rest of the world and say, “Look, we’ve got a few people with us: Australia, Japan, Canada, and Britain.” No one else wanted into this war, but we’re with him and we’re with them when this regime doesn’t control the streets of many of its inner cities. But it can go half-way around the world to bully others on America’s behalf.
And it’s not because the liberal schema is illogical per se. It’s because it’s a view of life. Like it or not, Blair has a philosophy and an outlook and if he’s replaced by Brown or by Straw or by Cook or by any of the New Labour hierarchy, they will have pretty much the same sort of attitude. They differ slightly amongst each other; they have personal beefs with each other; some of them can hardly sit with each other in cabinet; but they all basically agree about the type of society that we’ve got. And notice the Liberal Democrats agree completely with them. Indeed, ideologically, the Liberals are slightly to the Left of New Labour as it currently exists.
And the Tories. The Tories say they are opposed to some of these things, to errant and extremist liberalism and parties like UKIP and Veritas say even more so. But when it comes to the push many of these groups will do nothing, because the Tory party has been in power longer than any other party since 1945. Had a golden opportunity in the early ’50s to reverse the Nationality Act of 1948.
People say to me, “Why is Britain 1/10th non-White as it is? Why?” It’s because of the Nationality Act in 1948 as it was amended and increased and brought to bear with greater aggression and greater forms of expectancy in the decades that followed that. It was designed to distribute 50,000 passports in the Asian subcontinent and the Afro-Caribbean area. It then increased, because you had to take in extended families. You had to take in extended families of extended families. Then you had to look at the refugee and asylum status who were fleeing alleged or nominal persecution. Then you had to look at further post-imperial ramifications of legislation that had already been passed. Throughout the 1950s and ’60s and ’70s and Margaret Thatcher’s period of complete political domination with an enormous majority in the House of Commons, the thing went on and on and on.
In 1979, Margaret Thatcher said, passim Bush I, a couple of elections back in the United States, “Read my lips: There will be no more primary immigration into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.” Lo and behold, middle of the Tories’ term in the 1980s, 50,000 more passports and the extension of the possibility of that remit were distributed willy-nilly in Hong Kong. Because in 1997 the post-Maoist Communist regime in China would reclaim Hong Kong from our colonial and post-colonial dispensation. So, there’s another 50,000. Many of them never wanted to come here. They’d rather have stayed or gone straight to the US.
The United States of America, with the exception of the 10% of the population that was Black and were ex-slaves, up until about the late 1960s was largely an organic White European society, much of it consisting of people who came from these islands. Bush’s family comes from Essex originally 200 to 300 years ago. There was a Bush who was a general in Washington’s army who fought against us then 225 years ago. That’s where they came from. There are now 70 million persons of color in the United States of America. The whole population of the country is 300 million.
This was done by Edward Kennedy, the brother of the assassinated President Kennedy. In the late 1960s, he tacitly and then openly reversed the Whites-only immigration policy, which had existed in accordance with something called the Immigration Act which came in 1924 when 4.5 million members of an organization, now regarded as beyond the lunatic fringe, the Ku Klux Klan, marched on Washington, D. C. That had an enormous sort of festival and Europeanist barn dance which forced the congressional elite in the houses of congress and the senate to pass a Whites-only immigration policy. That was torn up and done away with in the late 1960s.
And in Australia as well there was an actual Whites-only immigration policy well into the 1960s and the early 1970s.
We never had one of those, but the amount of immigration that occurred was quite finite and reasonably small in the ’40s and ’50s except for those communities that had to bear the brunt of it. But since then there has been an increasing radicalization as each ten year census reveals.
You go to Leicester now, a city where technically we are now the minority. 52% to 48% if you add up all the other forms of rival ethnicity. In parts of London, in Newham for example, White people are 40%. On the other side of the city in places like Brent, again it’s about 55% non-White, 45% White. We’re actually clearly and demographically in the minority.
What tends to happen, because all the other groups can’t agree with each other, they elect a White liberal to mediate between them in relation to their own personal and semi-group focus of conflict. So, you’ve got a very Left-wing liberal White feminist woman elected in Brent by a whole constellation of ethnic groups who use her as a sort of center of gravity to arbitrate their own disputes in relation to. She’s sort of part parliamentarian, part social worker in relation to rival forms of ethnicity in West London. This will go on, and it will go on, and it will go on, unless there are big votes for parties that will turn it back. Who knows what will happen?
But it appears that Osama Bin Laden, who of course launched the terrorist attacks on the United States of America famously towards the end of 2001, has lost in one sense already. Because when the people in the Third World are asked, “What do you want? Do you want to make war on the West for religious and ideological reasons like Osama Bin Laden? Or do you want to come into the West and enjoy the goodies?” A half of them say, “We want to become middle Americans.” That means a half of the world outside the West wants to go and live in the United States. By which they mean Western Europe is a sort of poor man’s option, but it’s still there, by which they mean they want to share in the lifestyle of a middle American. But ecologically and in term of green issues and in term of the resources that we have on the planet, you would need three globes for the 6,000 million human beings on this planet at the moment to have a middle American lifestyle with a sort of bigish house with two or three vehicles outside, a lot of electronic stuff in the house, big freezer, and all the rest of it. It can’t be had, and the majority of people can’t have that lifestyle. Western societies will over time in a grinding sort of a way cease to exist if this happens. They will cease to exist.
Now, many of the people in our own elite are by no means blind to this, which is why in its way this party, which got 4.5% of the vote nationally in the last general election, is the most controversial organization in the country. It truly is. Because whenever liberals gather, whatever party they’re in, it doesn’t really matter, they talk about this organization and its danger. Because it is the alternative on behalf of the 90% of the population in relation to what exists now but also of what is coming.
No one knows statistically when you add in all the children of immigrants and when you add those who are coming in and you add those who are brought in by criminal gangs and you add those who are economic migrants who come in around the corner with forged papers and you add those who are born here, the people who came here and you add in all the people who racially are a bit one way or another and are of mixed ancestry, when you add in all of these aggregates you don’t necessarily know when it will happen. Some say it will happen in 2050. Some say it will happen in 2070. Some say it will happen over the next century. We will become at that moment a statistical and demographic minority in our own island.
In California now, White European people — European-Americans as they are now called, the politically correct term for White Americans like Afro-Americans — are now basically a half of the population of California. But White people are only really the majority in California, which still under Schwarzenegger, it’s governor at the state level, is the 12th most powerful economy in the world just considered on its own. They are only in the majority if you count those Hispanic people of Portuguese and Spanish descent among the Latino group who are basically White. But within ten years or more, give or take the odd year, White people in California will be in the minority.
In Texas, 40% of Texas is non-White, the state that Bush comes from even though his family is actually is a sort of East Coast establishment family, but he went to Texas to get roots in the real America. I’ve been to Texas. Texas is a country within a federal union.
But they will be in a minority, White European-Americans so to say, relatively shortly and it is happening or the prospect of it is happening around the world with increasing radicalism. Because a proportion of the Third World just wants a life, because on this planet in a way that few mainstream politicians will ever talk, a third of people live in utter misery, a third of people are reasonable, and a third of people have economically relative to the others, whatever difficulties they may have in their own lives, a reasonable time of it. The people at the bottom have two ways. You either sink, fight among yourselves, or come here. And they will come here in a way that is increasingly disadvantageous to the people who already live here. And you can already see it not just in crime, not just in urban dispersal of our people from the center of cities to the suburbs and then to smaller towns and conurbations and then to smaller towns yet again and then to rural areas.
Where do you think much of the heart of London is gone? You meet people from London — Cockneys so to say — all over Kent, down in southern England, over in the southwest, in all of the shire counties around London and its greater overspill and of course up into Essex. The entire phenomenon of so-called Essex man and woman, Thatcherite types during the 1980s, sort of patriotic post-East End people . . . They’re the people who’ve got out of the East End! But hardly anyone will ever say in public why they left the East End. They left the East End because they wanted to get away from the mass immigration that is occurring. Because all groups seek domination. All groups seek to be with their own kind.
We would do it. We always have done without even thinking about it, because we’re in our own country. When you’re in a college you want your cultural agenda and your language and faith systems that relate to you on the agenda. And other groups are exactly the same. Nor are they wrong to want it, because it is a human desire to be who you are and to want to express it and all groups will, whatever laws you pass from Dorn to Dacia.
This week there was a law going through the House of Commons called the reverse Incitement to Religious Hatred bill, which will become an act when the queen signs it. This is the idea that you can’t attack certain specific religious groups. It’s technically, in the way it’s framed as a method, not aimed against any group, and all groups can use it, and you see all sorts of silly and vexatious court cases from somebody who tries to remake the Life of Brian on to something a lot more serious. But the real reason it’s being brought in is to balance Muslim alienation in this society from the fact that countries like Britain have gone to war against parts of the Islamic world. What do you think Iraq is?
Because people like Blair and the elite around him are in a very difficult position. One the one hand, they’re saying to the masses in the Third World, “Come here. Initially, in the first generation, work for a pittance; fuel elements of this economy, which is largely a service sector economy, because we make hardly anything now, rooted on public debt; integrate a little into the society; we love you; we’re all brothers; da dee da dee da. Here’s some money!” Whilst on the other hand, fleets of Western bombers, largely American, but also others as well including ourselves, scour parts of the world dropping napalm, dropping cluster-bombs, bombing Afghan villages, attacking Iraqi forces of an insurgent character on the Syrian border.
So, on the one hand, they’re saying, “Come here!” and on the other hand they’re killing large numbers of their brethren in the Third World. Simultaneously, the one with the other, seeing no contradiction in it. And that’s because the entire system is contradictory. Because when you’re in power life is very complicated; things are hurtling at you from different angles; you’ve got to keep a balance of things; and you sort of play off one group against another. But the problem is that various tensions which existed in our empire external to the country are now internalized here in the society.
Attlee was the leader of this country in the 1940s. He was part of the Labour landslide government when a proportion of the middle class and the whole of the British working class voted for the Labour Party as the party that they thought would do something for them. There was no going back to the ’30s. There was no going back to the hungry ’30s and the marches and the collapse of liberal capitalism.
In 1948, when the Nationality Act was passed, Attlee said that all of the races in the world, he said this in the House of Commons, must be mixed together. Because then there will be peace. These are old Left, humanist views from the anti-colonial movement from which people like Attlee partly came in the 1920s and ’30s. But in actual fact, like a lot of liberal ideas, they’re the reverse of the truth! Although there are a few liberal people in our groups who just want to get on and live a quiet life. Broadly speaking, if you want conflict institutionalize separatism and difference in your own societies and then demonize the majority of the population and people who seek perforce to speak on behalf of the majority of the population for even mentioning it. And you are building a pressure cooker which the liberal system hopes will at least only take a democratic form. Which is why their pillorying of this party is partly paradoxical, because this is a democratic, populist, legitimist party that represents White Right-wing people and all people of national-patriotic sentiment who relate to us and are born on this island. Even European people from the outside. You can come in and identify with us. It’s the party of the 90%. And yet this is a demonized organization, pretty much.
In many areas like Dagenham, like Barking where there have been big votes, where people have been elected on the Eastern margins of Greater London, three to five years from now party activists won’t entirely be able to operate in these areas because the ethnicity of London is changing so greatly that if the Republic of Ireland, whose militant paramilitaries and cadres North and South who fought against us since the middle of the 19th century in one form or another, experienced the immigration that South London has had in the last 50 years, Irish people in their own state and society for which they think they have nominally fought would be in a minority. Within 50 years, they will essentially, in crude terms, have lost their country. That’s just the sort of immigration that has happened in South London alone.
We have a situation now where in the cultural area, for example, which is bit abstract and artsy-fartsy for many people and so on, but in the cultural area, which is how mentally a culture replicates itself, most of our creative spirits are slightly traumatized and afraid, because if you assert yourself too much accusations can be made against you. You’re against minorities who are here! Because if you assert, even culturally, the majority identity it is construed as negative in relation to minorities who are here. So, all the time in all areas, you have a sort of slight, mild, but evident cultural oppression of the majority group. You turn on mass media at any time; the sort of viewpoint which is always slightly slanted against one or misrepresented or underrepresented or marginalized or regarded as humorous or reviled slightly is a viewpoint associated essentially with us, with our traditions, with our culture, high, middle, and low, with our forms, with our history, with the history of our empire. We’re in 2005. In 1905, we ruled a quarter of the planet and the United States of America has taken that on from us, because we bankrupted ourselves at the end of the Second World War.
Everything that exists in this society, from this constitutional vote about the European Union — Mr. James Goldsmith, through his tiny, little referendum party, forced upon the mainstream parties via the Tories to these votes against the constitution in France and in the Netherlands outwards — has to do with the fact that a liberal set of ideas which is inimical to the destiny of our people and our nationality, English and British, and our ethnicity and our race and the way in which it culturalizes itself is coming. You talk like this to most people and they say, “Well, you’re right, but nothing can be done. These changes are irreversible.”
True story. I once met Charles Moore, who was the former editor of the Daily Telegraph, in one of my previous incarnations as a Right-wing Tory. And Moore said to me, “It’s too late.” I said, “What do you mean it’s too late?” because often these people talk obliquely even amongst themselves. He said, “It’s happened now. Nothing can be done. All we can do is manage it and prevent civil strife.” What he’s talking about is mass immigration and its cultural and demographic consequences in places like Blackburn and Burnley and inner Manceshter and South London and inner Birmingham and elsewhere. But even with somebody like myself in privacy he’s got to be slightly oblique and implicit rather than explicit about what he’s talking about.
Many people are going abroad. Hundreds of thousands of our people have left for Spain, have left for the United States where even though the demography is turning against people of European extraction the spaces are wide open. England fits into Texas 12 times. You can find a vista where you can be on your own if you want, but you can certainly be with your own population group. It’s not possible here! And large proportions of our population, particularly the middle class, are running. They’re moving out of the cities; they’re moving into the suburbs; they’re moving out of the suburbs into smallish, medium-sized towns; then they’re moving somewhere else. Where are they going to end!? Where are they going to live? The Channel Islands? The Isles of Scilly? You know, where are they going to end up? It’s a very small country and they can’t escape from the consequences of liberalism. And the consequences of group breakdown, chaos, criminality, drug addiction, an underclass that owes nothing to anybody and is multiracial, a drug industry that is armed and gangster-related, copying the American patent.
In parts of Birmingham there are gangs that are White; there are gangs that are mixed race; there are gangs that are Asian; there are gangs that are Black; there are gangs that are Afro-Caribbean Black as against gangs that are African Black, and so on. And they control crack cocaine in parts of Birmingham and elsewhere, and they all have their own turf. The average life expectancy of leaders in those gangs is about 24 ½ years, but there will always be somebody to replace them. And much of this type of activity was unknown in this society before 1950, utterly unknown. Of course, we had White criminal gangs and so on, but this type of American gang culture was completely unknown and has been imported as a result of what has happened. This will grow and people will seek to escape from the cities, but people have to confront it all the time in their own lives, in the health services, in education.
Hospitals are a dangerous place, aren’t they? You go in looking like me and come out looking like John Hurt playing the elephant man. One of the most dangerous places in the country is the NHS ward because they forgot to have a bit of a clean-up. You know, because for 40 years they thought, “You look a bit palsy. I’ll just give you some anti-biotics.” The ward’s reeking with filth, you know, and covered in green mold and that sort of stuff. But we won’t do any of that. In the ’80s, cleaning and catering was privatized anyway.
What we seem to have in this society, and it’s very paradoxical, is we have a Left-wing capitalist society. Now, if you go back 100 years, people would have said, “You’re mad. The Left is against capitalism, and capitalism is totally inimical to the values of the Left.” But look at what we’ve got. We’ve got Left-wing views on race, on crime, on punishment, on immigration, on the European Union, on sexuality, on the family. Everywhere! And yet we’ve got this seething Thatcherite economy that has no social sense at all and is devil take the hindmost and is all based on money and is floating on a pyramid of debt anyway. So, you’ve got this interesting combination of liberal values and sort of hard, if you like, Tory economics. But in actual fact the economics are liberal, and the politics are liberal as well.
One of the problems our group’s had is that our people have been split against themselves for 50 years, because people who are economically patriotic in many respects were often to be found not on the hard Left but towards elements of the old Left of the Labour Party. And people who were politically nationalistic, like Enoch Powell and Alan Clark and others, were found in the mainstream towards the Right-wing of the Tory party. And the two sides, red and blue, used to spit at each other every 4 and 5 years, and everyone knows it.
What we have to do is essentially we have to reunite our own people regionally and on class terms as well, the great unmentionable, and people have to be brought together. And they can only be brought together by using this flag and by using the English flag. Because one of the identities of course that was subsumed within the creation of Britain, never mind the creation of Britain as a multi-ethnic idea within the putative European Union, was Englishness. For a long time the English people basically thought that the union flag was their own flag and they almost subsumed their English identity within a British one.
But in the last couple of years, Englishness, amongst other things, amongst a multiplicity of identities, in the weird and wonderful fauna and flora that grows up in Blair’s Britain has found a voice. But the truth of the matter is the more English you become through remembrance and historicism and identification, the more British you are. And the more British you are, the more European you are. And by European, I mean White. Nothing to do with an endorsement of the politics of the European Union. And the more you esteem and value yourself the more you will be interested in the culture of your own people and what they have achieved.
Because make no bones about it. A large proportion of our young people are taught a little bit, but comedy aside, they are actually taught next to nothing about who they are, what their literature is, what their art is, what their military history is, what we once did as a people, how most of modern science has been created by elite individuals drawn from our group. Now, many people say, “I’m not interested in that” and so on, but our people are being disprivileged about this. They don’t know about it at all. And why is that?
It’s partly because of so-called progressivist educational ideas in the 1960s and ’70s. But the real reason is that if a people doesn’t know what it is mentally all that it is left with is the body. It can’t say what it is. It can’t politicize what it is. It will mean that people will be so broken down and useless and hopeless that all they’ll do is watch soccer on Sky, shop in Sainsbury’s, and refuse to vote for New Labour as we get to a situation where New Labour replaces the Tories as the party of government. It’s already essentially happened. 50% of the population, as in the US, doesn’t vote. And each decade that goes by the society becomes slightly worse and a slightly more sordid version of what had existed 10 years before.
Unless you’ve got some money and you can privatize yourself out of it, and you can keep it away from you and yours, which is what many people do. A large proportion of our population don’t want any trouble. They don’t want any trouble. They’ve privatized their own lives. Privatize your own health and your family’s; privatize your own schooling. Large stretches of the middle class do this, and a significant proportion of working class people who are up and into that club want it as well. If society has gone for pot, I’m for mine! That’s the view. You’ll hear it everywhere. I hear it from people in their early years and mid-life now. And amongst many older people I hear this refrain: “I’ll be dead before it happens.” I hear that quite a lot. “Oh, it’ll happen in 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 100 years, but I’ll be gone. Thank Christ for that!” That’s what they’re really saying.
But the truth of the matter is that a people consists of two essential things, and they are both matters of inheritance. The first is children, which carries on a line and carries on an identity, carries on a population group, carries on a biological register, and the other is culture, what you produce, not just the facts of your biology, but what it leads to. Culture and children. When we’re dead and gone that is all that remains at the material level.
The only party in this country at the moment, a few ersatz examples to one side of it aside, that will do anything about these core issues, because all else is peripheral. Even the European Union, which is not entirely peripheral, is partly peripheral in relation to these core issues. No one else will talk about them at all. Anyone who mentions them in the mainstream parties will be demonized and even thrown out of them.
Political correctness has been designed as a method of language and thinking to prevent people from talking about these ideas. It’s been deliberately used as a sort of mental and moral trap. It began in obscure linguistic theory in American universities in the 1960s over in Berkeley in California. Very small ideas: racism, sexism, homophobia, institutionalized prejudice, politics of inclusion and anti-exclusivity. All these sorts of ideas began on the Marxian Left in the United States. Tiny, tiny little things. They’re now global. Every TV program, every radio program, nearly all mainstream journalism is channeled through this matrix. “You can’t say that! You’re politically incorrect.” People say it in their own conversations. “That’s a bit non-PC!” People make it a joke, but at the same time they know what it is. They may not even know the names of the cabinet, but they know what political correctness is! And why do they know what PC rhetoric is? Because they’ve been indoctrinated in what they shouldn’t think about. And what they shouldn’t think about is what is happening to this society.
And the only organization in the country, because many people think like us that are quivering with fear. Wherever you go, you find people at every level of life, particularly among people who’ve got something to lose. Especially amongst them, but everywhere actually. Fear. Moral fear. Fear of the newspapers, fear of the TV, fear of losing their job, fear of all sorts of things if they associate with the type of politics that stands for their own group.
But my view is that our people have done a great deal. Created an enormous empire, created the greatest tradition of theater in the Elizabethan age since ancient Greece, have done many, many great things, much of which involved extreme courage. And to stand up against the liberal destruction of this society now doesn’t involve that much in comparison to what many of our ancestors and forebears did and have bequeathed to us.
So, I ask you to put your hands in your pockets, but also to support in every way in which you can the British National Party as the organ of cultural and racial renaissance for our nationality and for our people in England and in Britain forever.
Thank you very much!
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 534 Interview with Alexander Adams
The Honorable Cause: A Review
The (So-Called) New York “Thought Criminals” & the “Intellectual Dark Web”
The Psychology of the Politically Correct
Librarians are Bad for Children
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 5, Part 1: Democracy Against the People
Visions of a New Right: Jonathan Bowden’s Right
Restoring White Homelands