Speak for England, Amelia

The Home Office Prevent programme is a strategy designed to stop individuals from becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism, focussing on early intervention and tackling ideological causes. During the present century virtually all terrorist incidents in Britain have been inspired by Islamic jihadism. But instead of concentrating on the threat from this source, Prevent has instead focussed principally on the almost non-existent danger from what is termed ‘right-wing extremism’.

As part of the Prevent strategy Hull City Council and East Riding of Yorkshire Council have sponsored an interactive game called Pathways aimed at secondary school pupils. Players identify as either a white teenage boy or girl called Charlie who are helped to avoid being reported for ‘extreme right-wing ideology’. They risk extremism referrals if they decide to contact groups that encourage ‘harmful ideological messages’ or are against the ‘erosion of British values’.

In short, Pathways is a pernicious device to indoctrinate white school children against any display of patriotism and to create a guilt complex around their own race, people and nation. Fortunately, this Marxist inspired propaganda initiative has severely backfired. One of the characters Charlie encounters is a ‘goth girl’ called Amelia who, from a woke perspective, holds some seriously unreconstructed political views. Many Youtube videos have adopted Amelia as a mascot and sympathetically spread her patriotic right-wing views whilst simultaneously ridiculing and spoofing the Pathways agenda. Naturally the Guardian disapproves of this trend decrying that those encouraging the Amelia character ‘created to deter young people from extremism’, has instead ‘been subverted to disseminate far right messaging’.

It is to be hoped that Amelia becomes a permanent political symbol behind which the majority opposed to woke brainwashing can unite in deriding and undermining this subversive and insidious agenda that is targeting white school children.

Ian Dunt, apostle of woke virtue

At a recent public event this blog engaged in a brief political discussion with the mainstream media journalist Ian Dunt, an individual of whom we were previously unaware. Further investigation revealed that in addition to his main platform he also has a regular weekly Substack blog through which his unfiltered political views and opinions can be voiced, thus avoiding the constraints of his principal media outlet. His blog provides an interesting open window into the mindset and outlook of the woke establishment class who have hijacked many of our institutions. So, it is worth examining the contents of his blog to gain an insight into the thinking underpinning this now dominant ideology.

What needs to be explored is the motivation behind woke activism. Is it a genuine high-minded concern for racial and other minorities who are considered to have been oppressed, persecuted or discriminated against in the past? Or is it a desire for activists to signal their own virtue with their woke peer group by presenting themselves as ‘holier than thou’ adherents of the great noble cause that they have all embraced? Alternatively, is it an attempt to destroy the established order of the white western capitalist society for which they seem to have a loathing, and to replace it with one more debased that fulfils their extremist ideology fuelled by a racial guilt conscience, coupled with an unrealistic and idealised egalitarianism?

So, what does Ian have to say about the level of immigration into Britain considered by many on the right to be totally out of control. He claims correctly that ‘many immigrants come to work… and want a better life’ an outlook and objective that is uncontroversial. However, although it would be wrong to blame all the evils of society on immigration, he wilfully ignores whether there might be any downside to huge third world immigration. Such as, for example, the creation of ethnic ghettos, divided communities, increased competition for housing, greater pressure on public services and transport, increase in crime and greater risk of religiously inspired terrorism. These are all matters of deep concern to ordinary members of the public who are most affected by such changes to their communities. But to the woke activist such views are instead evidence of entrenched bigotry and irrational prejudice. For those like Ian, mass immigration must always be presented as a positive benefit, and thus they remain blind to the undermining of societal cohesion and national identity that invariably follows.

Ian takes a strong line on transgender rights, denouncing a recent ruling of the Equality & Human Rights Commission (ECHR) ‘as one of the most disreputable and irresponsible documents’ from a public body; expressing a position which he considers to be ‘on the very furthest fringes of anti-trans activism’. And what is this outrageously extremist view? Merely that ‘trans women should use men’s toilets, and trans men should use women’s toilets’. In other words that biological males should keep out of women’s private spaces, a view held by the overwhelming majority of the public for as long as anyone can remember. He hysterically concludes that this decision would lead to ‘the eradication of trans people from the country’s social fabric’. Sensibly, the conclusion of the ECHR is the only logical response to the ruling of the Supreme Court on this subject. Ian’s angry and unhinged response clearly illustrates how far removed from reality woke activists have become in pursuing their delusional obsessions about gender.

Predictably Ian is an enthusiastic supporter of the BBC describing it as ‘the most trusted news source’. He denounces attacks on the BBC by the political right on the grounds that ‘the entire notion of objective, impartial public service broadcasting is an anathema to them’. Despite this he claims that the BBC has the audacity at times to ‘accept right wing narrative frames’, so his own notion of impartiality has a clear political bias. He overlooks the reality that overwhelmingly the BBC is a bastion of woke ideology, promoting issues such as climate change alarmism, multiculturalism and favoured minority concerns at every opportunity, whilst simultaneously deriding or ignoring traditional and conservative perspectives.

During the 1960s and 1970s the political left in British politics was vocal in its support of ordinary working people. It was during this time that young middle-class left-wing activists would try and ape the manners and appearance of the working-class, whilst denouncing the ‘bourgeois’ society into which they were born. For example, they would remove books by Enid Blyton from school libraries for being too middle class and idealise vocal working-class heroes in ‘kitchen sink’ dramas. This sentimentalised outlook and patronising posturing was clearly inauthentic and was looked at with bemusement by genuine working-class people. But at least it was well intentioned, seeking to materially help those living less comfortable lives than themselves.

Today the working class that was once feted is now demonised. Ian made the mistake of arriving at Waterloo station on the day that Tommy Robinson held his massive rally against uncontrolled immigration, attended by countless thousands of ordinary working people from all over the country. He was horrified for having inadvertently joined this gathering of ‘fascists’, as he termed them, complaining that these people ‘were everywhere, surrounding Waterloo like an army and there was no way to avoid them’. He accused them of doing something ‘which can never be forgiven, they had introduced a notion of racial awareness that made brown people feel unsafe’. In reality ‘brown people’ had nothing to fear from these supporters as all the evidence suggests they were well behaved, a contrast to the alarm faced by white residents living in culturally diverse areas who have to contend with unacceptable levels of street crime, harassment and intimidation.

This summary attempts to provide a flavour of Ian’s political outlook. Although there is a veneer of good intentions underpinning his agenda he lives in a fantasy world divorced from reality. It is not clear whether his intentions are malign or his thinking just plain naïve. However, by always taking the side of minorities, and denouncing the reasoned attitude of ordinary fellow citizens, he comes across as an angry fifth columnist who appears intent on subverting and destroying the well-ordered, cohesive and harmonious society that was once widely taken for granted, and which is now in danger of being lost due to woke extremism.

Black overrepresentation in advertising

The Reform MP Sarah Pochin, who was elected in a by election earlier in the year, has put the cat among the pigeons with her comments about the overrepresentation of black people in British advertisements. This is a subject which for some time has been discussed in private by millions of ordinary citizens but which until now has been deliberately ignored by the mainstream media.

The comments occurred in a radio phone-in programme in response to a listener asking whether Reform would do anything about the disproportionate number of ethnic minorities in advertising. The MP replied that the listener was ‘absolutely right’ and that it ‘drives her mad when she sees advertisements full of black people’. She added that these do not reflect our society, and that the average white family is no longer represented, with many advertisements featuring no white people. This is a rare example of plain speaking by an MP committed to voicing the concerns of the majority of her constituents.

Needless to say, there has been a huge backlash from the liberal elite, furious that this previously clandestine agenda has now invaded the public discourse, and outraged that an MP would be willing to use such ‘racist’ language. The fact that everything she said was factually correct is totally ignored, and that the advertising industry has been gaslighting the public for years with this manipulative ideology.

Keir Starmer denounced her views for expressing ‘shocking racism, the kind of thing that will tear our country apart, and that Nigel Farage will need to root it out of his party’. The prime minister appears to be living in a fantasy world since the overwhelming number of comments on Youtube and newspaper articles fully agree with the MP, and are disappointed with the semi apology she issued. Far from rooting such views out of his party, Nigel Farage should instead fully support his MP, since the electoral dividends should be huge as he will be able to demonstrate to the British public that he is on their side, and against the woke agitators intent on undermining the cohesion of our society through continually appeasing favoured vocal minorities.

No white faces in Birmingham

The shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick gave a talk at a Conservative party dinner earlier in the year which was secretly recorded. Released by the Guardian newspaper to coincide with the Conservative party conference, the recording revealed Jenrick observing that in a ninety-minute visit to the Handsworth district of Birmingham he had not seen ‘another white face’.

Handsworth is described as a ‘melting pot of different ethnicities’, an accurate description as over a third of residents are Muslim, about a quarter are Indian, another quarter are black leaving less than 10% who are white. Predictably Jenrick has received quite a lot of flak for his observation, with the usual accusations of ‘racism’. He was denounced for fuelling a ‘fire of toxic nationalism’. Unusually, in the face of this kind of intimidatory criticism, Jenrick has stood his ground, stating that it would be wrong to ‘shut down an important debate that we need to have about integration’.

However, it is not clear what such a debate would achieve. It has been glaringly obvious for a long time that neither the indigenous population, nor the various ethnicities, have any desire to integrate whenever they can exercise any freedom of choice on this matter. Ethnic minorities prefer to congregate in their own communities, and when this displacement reaches a tipping point ‘white flight’ occurs. No amount of hand wringing by politicians of either the right or left is going to have any impact on this phenomenon, given that it is human nature for people of whatever culture or race to prefer to live with their own kind, and it is folly to pretend otherwise.

So, politicians and pundits should stop living in a fantasy world, in which exhortations are made that if only people would put aside their differences, then we could all live harmoniously together in an enriching integrated yet multicultural society where diversity is our strength. This liberal utopia will never be achieved, but instead we risk societal breakdown by playing with fire through continuing large scale open ended third world immigration. Instead of talking about integration Jenrick would be better advised to start promoting well-funded schemes of repatriation of those unable to assimilate into our country.

Soft totalitarianism

Many are asking whether the British people are finally waking up to the realisation that they have been treated with contempt for decades by successive governments on the issue of open-ended immigration from around the world. The evidence for this possible awakening is the continuing protests outside hotels holding illegal immigrants, the sudden appearance all over the country of the flag of St George under the campaign slogan ‘raise the colours’, and the huge patriotic rally in London organised by Tommy Robinson.

The liberal elite are claiming that these protests are being orchestrated by the ‘far right’ with the intention of establishing their own territories from which immigrants and ethnic minorities are excluded. But the reality is that they are almost wholly initiatives of ordinary local residents who have finally started to notice that the authorities are largely indifferent to their concerns. The problem is that we have been living under a regime of increasing soft totalitarianism, in which the priorities and agenda of the elite have become far removed from the interests of ordinary citizens.

The issue of immigration is only the most visible manifestation of a wider problem. The liberal elite that has been ruling us for decades is not particularly interested in the concerns of ordinary citizens but instead prioritizes a quite separate agenda. This has two main strands: the surrender of national powers to external international bodies, and the promotion of the interests of favoured minorities and of fashionable causes.

So, it does not much matter which political party is in government since the same top-down agenda will continue to be implemented. This agenda is driven by the left through a largely behind the scenes network of activists in universities, broadcasters spearheaded by the BBC, public sector bureaucrats, teachers, liberal media outlets, creative industries and trade unionists. These policies are then given shape by the political parties, principally Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens, Scottish and Welsh nationalists that (with the exception of the nationalist issue) share the same objectives and compete only on which party can best deliver the same agreed outcome.

Politicians of these parties all brand the Conservative Party as ‘right wing’, demonising the Tories as uncaring, bigoted, racist, reactionary, etc. The reality is very different, since far from rejecting leftist subversion, they are happy to collude in its implementation, with the result that the election of a Conservative government provides minimal protection against the determined and vocal scheming of the hard left. However, despite this appeasement Conservative politicians gain no benefit, the vitriol against them continues unabated. To be fair, some Tory backbenchers do voice their opposition to the prevailing narrative, but they are largely marginalized.

So, what is the agenda that is driving this soft totalitarianism? Well, it is the furtherance of the ideology which has become known as ‘woke’ which promotes the interests of favoured minorities at the expense of the majority and denigrates nationalism whilst surrendering administrative control to international bodies.Favoured groups are ethnic minorities, particularly Afro-Caribbeans and Muslims, militant feminists, homosexuals, those claiming to be ‘transgender’ plus green alarmists. The mechanism through which woke liberals operate is a ratchet effect whereby a genuine grievance is raised and then rectified, which leads to a campaign to address additional less deserving complaints, which eventually results in an outcome where the minority calls the shots and the majority is openly discriminated against and/or denigrated.

Black people were once subject to a ‘colour bar’ preventing them from accessing places and services open to the white population. Legislation was introduced to put a stop to this practice, but the allegations of discrimination did not end there. So, we now have a situation where white people can be debarred from jobs which are only open to ethnic minorities, immigrants largely occupy social housing that was originally built for white residents, black people dominate advertisements and disproportionately fill positive roles in TV dramas as well as falsely appearing in historical dramas. White people are condemned for their ‘white privilege’ and for their colonialist past, particularly slavery which was abolished two centuries ago. Islam is likely to be given special protection when the government’s definition of ‘Islamophobia’ is revealed.

The private activity of homosexual men was for a long time criminalized and thus they were persecuted by the state. The repeal of this legislation was clearly the right thing do. Once the risk of criminality was lifted homosexuals soon started to proselytize for equal rights, and their cause became a cornerstone of the liberal elite. Despite the fact that they could never procreate same sex marriage was legalised, a patently meaningless innovation given that the purpose of marriage has always been to provide a stable background, recognised by wider society, for the upbringing of children. ‘Gay Pride’ marches started to appear although it was never explained why what many regard as a deviant and promiscuous lifestyle should be celebrated. So, we have now reached a situation where criticism of homosexual behaviour is deemed ‘homophobic’ and risks criminalisation, matters having turned full circle on this matter. At the same time heterosexual male behaviour has been branded by activist feminists as predatory, the result is a climate in which heterosexual men are increasingly imprisoned for uncorroborated sex crimes sometimes alleged to have occurred decades ago, and normal physical attraction is condemned for ‘objectifying’ women. White liberals, particularly male, are curiously addicted to guilt tripping and self-flagellation.

Various dubious causes have emerged to become the bedrock of the woke agenda, such as uncritical support for the climate change hoax, the belief that people can change their sex by self-declaration, and that outside bodies such as the European Union and European Court of Human Rights provide superior forms of government to parliamentary democracy. These are all top-down ideas embraced by the political elite and imposed on the rest of society in the face of much scepticism.

Nigel Farage has recently compared Britain to North Korea. On the face of it this appears nonsensical, but there is some truth to his claim. Farage cites the case of an Irish TV comedy script writer who was detained at Heathrow airport by five armed police officers for some allegedly ‘transphobic’ tweets, and a well-publicised case of a woman given a hefty prison sentence for threatening comments about illegal immigrants in hotels. The language and tone of both comments were disgraceful reflecting the degeneracy of our times. Nevertheless, the response of the authorities to both remarks was wholly disproportionate. In North Korea citizens can get into serious trouble for criticizing the regime, but this is far from the case in Britain where politicians can be lampooned and ridiculed with no consequences. However, it is a different matter when the ideology is undermined or challenged, particularly when favoured minorities are involved. So, under soft totalitarianism the modus operandi employed against dissidents is cancellation leading to possible loss of employment, and increasingly the threat of imprisonment under the guise of combatting ‘hate-crime’.

The Battle of Epping Forest

Over fifty years ago the progressive rock band Genesis released the song Battle of Epping Forest about fighting between two rival East End gangs. During the past week Epping has again become a battleground. This time it involves residents concerned about a local hotel being used to accommodate illegal immigrants, almost all of whom are believed to be dark skinned young men. One is alleged to have carried out a sex attack on a young teenage girl.

These protests have gained national prominence as they reflect the extent to which ordinary people have finally reached breaking point on the level of third world immigration that has been facilitated by politicians of all the traditional political parties. Predictably some hard left agitators (in reality, establishment regime stooges) have been bussed in to cause trouble, ludicrously branding the local protestors as ‘far right’, but this tactic no longer works as videos clearly show them to be ordinary residents, many of whom are women concerned about the safety of their children.

The local council has asked the government to agree to the demands of the protesters to remove the illegal immigrants from the hotel. Such a request is unlikely to succeed as it would likely trigger similar protests at the other 200 hotels housing illegal immigrants, a process that may already have started. This would create a major crisis for the government who would be faced with protests on a national scale without any obvious remedy to quell them.

Politicians have known since the time of Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech how deeply unpopular open ended, third world immigration of largely unassimilable people, is regarded by the British public. It has led to ethnic ghettos, divided communities, erosion of national identity, pressure on local services, those on lower incomes priced out of rented housing, and creation of innumerable criminal hotspots. But the politicians have paid no attention, parroting delusional nonsense about diversity and enrichment, whilst at the same time openly discriminating against the white population through one sided DEI initiatives, and demonising as ‘racists’ those who speak out. Payback time for their persistent arrogant contempt of the British public is long overdue.

Ethnonational society v multiracial society

There are many ethnonational countries in the world. These can be defined as countries where all but a small minority of citizens belong to the same racial group. Examples are Japan, South Korea, Hungary, Poland, and all African countries except South Africa. Until the 1950s Britain was also an ethnonational country as over 99% of citizens belonged to the white European race.

At that time British people considered that such a state of affairs was completely natural and normal, and nobody gave the matter any thought. They considered it to be as permanent as the sun rising in the east, or that winter would be cold and summer hot. There was absolutely no demand for this situation to be changed in any way, and most people assumed that it would and should continue indefinitely, just like it always had in the past.

This all changed with the passing of the British Nationality Act 1948 which granted to all Commonwealth and colonial citizens the automatic right of entry into Britain without a visa allowing them to take up permanent residence. It was based on the delusional fiction held by the authorities of the time that the citizens of the UK, Commonwealth and colonies were together, one family of people united in their allegiance to the British crown. The reality was the exact opposite; almost all the colonial countries wanted an end to British rule to allow them to take responsibility for their own governance. Apart from the white dominions, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the majority of Commonwealth countries were both racially and culturally vastly different to Britain. So it must be concluded that the justification for the granting of British citizenship to non-white people from the Commonwealth was a gigantic deceit perpetrated on the British people without their consent or wish.

The implications of this global extension of British citizenship were never explained to the British people. So it came as a surprise when the SS Empire Windrush docked at Tilbury in June 1948 with nearly 500 Jamaican men aboard looking for work. Over the following decade they were followed by hundreds of thousands more from the Caribbean and Indian sub-continent. These people came on their own volition as they sought to better themselves by moving to a country with low unemployment and a relatively high standard of living. It was most certainly not the case that they were encouraged to come to fill the jobs British workers were supposedly unwilling to perform.

Opposition to this development was fairly muted during the early 1950s, the main objections coming from trade unions who feared that their members’ wages would be undercut by the importation of cheap foreign labour. Presciently, a group of Labour MPs voiced their concern that 'an influx of coloured people domiciled here is likely to impair the harmony, strength and cohesion of our public and social life’. Despite these representations, the issue of third world immigration was beneath the radar of the vast majority of British people. This was because the new arrivals began to congregate in their own ethnic ghettos, so that those living everywhere else were largely unaware that a problem was developing.

This complacency ended when the British public were jolted into reality after the Notting Hill riots in the summer of 1958. These clashes between white ‘teddy boys’ and local West Indian residents brought home to an alarmed public just how easily racial conflict could now arise in Britain. As a consequence, the government came under increased public pressure to end the open door policy on Commonwealth immigration and to introduce controls. The Conservative government of Harold Macmillan eventually responded with a half-hearted measure, the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1962, which sought to reduce the number of unskilled workers entering the country. This disproportionally impacted potential black immigrants, which was the undeclared intention, never openly stated, and which nevertheless established the principle of non-white immigration control.

The measures taken by the Conservative government remained insufficient to prevent the continuing inflow of non-white immigrants in significant numbers. The Labour Party leadership in opposition were committed to repealing this ‘racially discriminatory’ legislation believing that ‘every Commonwealth citizen has the right as a British subject to enter the country at will.' However, after Harold Wilson won the 1964 general election, he pragmatically decided to retain immigration controls, probably spooked by the success of the strongly anti-immigrant Conservative candidate in the Smethwick constituency.

Instead of taking firm action to restrict the growth of the non-white population, political parties would start to vilify those who warned of the consequences. This was brought into sharp focus with the furore created by Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in which he spelt out in the starkest terms the long-term disastrous consequences of open-ended large scale third world immigration into Britain. This was unquestionably a historic speech, of incredible boldness, which mercilessly exposed the wilful blindness of successive governments on an issue of crucial national importance.

Powell accurately predicted the potentially unlimited growth of the ethnic population and its distribution into ghettos. He identified the disproportionate concern given to allegations of discrimination against the ethnic population, contrasted this with the near complete disregard of the fears of the indigenous population on the open ended nature of immigration, exposed the naiveté of policy on integration and anticipated the cultural separation of much of the ethnic population from mainstream society. Most importantly, Powell also came forward with the only credible policy for permanently addressing the problem, namely ending all further third world immigration and instituting a well-funded high profile programme offering financial incentives to persuade the ethnic population to return to their countries of origin or ancestry.

Powell’s speech struck a deep chord with many British people - he claimed to have received over 120,000 letters as a result, the overwhelming majority sharing his concerns. Opinion polls also showed strong support for Powell’s stance. However, the British political establishment, then speedily moving in a liberal direction, denounced Powell as a populist agitator, intent upon stirring up race hatred for his own personal ends. So instead of heeding and acting upon his entirely justifiable warnings, the media, the government and even his own party leadership, denounced him in the strongest terms for the temerity of raising the issue of immigration and fuelling racial tensions.

Most unfortunately, the legacy of Powell’s speech has been the complete opposite of what he hoped to achieve. The uproar it caused galvanised liberals into the creation of a vast race relations industry with intrusive new initiatives to oversee public thought and behaviour, such as the Commission for Racial Equality, race equality officers in the public sector, race monitoring by local councils, 'hate' crimes, public funding of ethnic organizations, all overseen by the self-righteous cant of the politically correct obsessives, which has created a stifling climate in which white people have been silenced from publicly expressing their true feelings and concerns.

So what are the benefits of a multiracial and multicultural society? Well, in reality, there are very few. The most often quoted is the increased variety of cuisine that is now available to the public. Another that comes to mind was the contribution of black artists to popular music between the 1950s and 1980s, although most of the best acts were American. It is pointed out that many ethnic minority people occupy socially beneficial occupations such as doctors, nurses, carers etc. However, neither their ethnicity nor race brings anything to their competence or ability to perform the work involved in these kinds of jobs.

Although the benefits are few the disbenefits are extensive. The ethnic population is not evenly distributed throughout the country but is distributed into ghettos, from which many white residents have felt compelled to leave in order to continue living with their own kind. Many towns and cities have been divided into segregated communities where residents inhabit parallel societies. Statistics show that black people are more likely to be involved in criminal activity. Muslims have been responsible for virtually all the terrorist outrages carried out this century, all done in the name of their religion. In many occupations white people, particularly men, are openly discriminated against in pursuit of DEI objectives. Large-scale open-ended immigration has created a housing crisis preventing millions from accessing the housing ladder. In addition, health and transport services have been placed under severe pressure. TV dramas and advertising now disproportionately feature black actors rendering them annoying and alienating to white audiences. We have a plethora of intrusive laws, regulations and targets controlling many aspects of our lives, resulting in the diminution of personal liberty and freedoms on how individuals manage their day to day lives.

It is clear that the creation of a multiracial and multicultural society has been highly detrimental to the interests of the British people. So why was it allowed to develop despite a huge amount of public opposition? The reason is that governments, both Labour and Conservative, have been far more concerned about appeasing the race relations lobby and interests of ethnic minorities than listening to the concerns of white people, particularly those of working-class background. They feared being denounced as ‘racist’ by the hard left extremist elite who have captured the majority of our national institutions. The only limited opposition has come from a few right of centre newspapers, and even they sounded an uncertain trumpet.

Fortunately, with the arrival of the internet, the traditional gatekeepers of permissible debate have been considerably weakened, and a far wider range of opinions can now be voiced, giving a platform to those challenging the out-of-control immigration racket that has continued unabated for many decades. So far this has not had any impact on the level of immigration, but it has resulted in appreciable support for Reform UK, who are committed to addressing immigration concerns with more determination than has been shown by other political parties.

Reform has a policy of ‘net zero’ immigration and, although this is a step in the right direction, it is still an inadequate response given the scale of the problem, as it will merely freeze the ethnic population at the current level. The only answer, as Enoch Powell warned, is to stop completely the inflow and to enthusiastically promote measures to encourage the outflow. Recent projections have shown that white people in Britain will be in a minority within about 40 years, so the situation is critical if our descendants are to continue to live in a country in which their culture and way of life is preserved.