THE FUTURE OF MULTI~ETHNIC BRITAIN…..
In June 2005 a session of The Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain was held at
Roehampton University, London. The Commission had been created by the Runnymede Trust the exact
Same year New Labour gained power (1997).1 the 2005 meeting was chaired by Lord Bhiku Parekh2 and
Assisted by Commission panel members: Krishan Kumar3; Yasmin Alibhai-Brown; and Geoff Mulgan
(Former head of the Government’s PIU office and former director of the Strategy Unit, at Number 10
Downing Street) 4. The meeting formed a key part of the Roehampton conference on ‘The Future of
Multicultural Britain – Meeting Across Boundaries’.5
During the conference Professor Tariq Modood6 defined multiculturalism as: “the process of political
Struggles and negotiations”; and of “the challenging, the dismantling, the remaking of public identities”.7
The message, repeated throughout conference proceedings, was that despite some temporary difficulties
Paul Gilroy’s “cosmopolitan conviviality” was being created throughout the major cities of England.8 9 10
The true purpose for promoting multiculturalism – of making genocide population change seem desirable
– is never admitted. It is the indigenous people (the English) who are the victims of that process, whilst at
The same time immigrant people are cynically manipulated by authoritarian elite. It is the engineering of
Substantial demographic change, over the last sixty years, that has been used by the ‘progressives’ to
Justify the effective destruction (or expropriation) by the political aristocracy of those social institutions
Created by the ordinary, native people. The principles of government by consent, and of the right to self-determination
Are contemptuously ignored.
In 2003 the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett MP, stated during a BBC TV interview that he could
see “no obvious limit” to immigration into the UK. When asked if there was a maximum population that
Could be housed within the UK, he replied: “no, I don’t think so” – adding that he believed the net
Immigration rate (then running at approximately 170,000 per year) was “permanently sustainable”.11
The following year Home Office whistle-blower Steve Moxon revealed connivance within Government
Agencies to undermine and nullify any effective control of immigration from Eastern Europe (primarily from
Poland and Romania).12
In October 2009 the former Government adviser Andrew Neather provided further confirmation that the
Labour Party's mass immigration policy was driven by extreme ideology, and by political self-interest.13
Andrew Neather’s revelations included: “I wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister
Barbara Roche MP in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls”; and added “That speech was
Based largely on a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, Tony Blair's Cabinet Office think-tank”.
Most revealing of all was Andrew Neather’s observation that “the earlier drafts [of the Government’s PIU
Report] [that] I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the
Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”.
It is in regard to this political purpose behind mass immigration that the activities of pressure groups,
NGOs, think tanks, charities and other ‘change agents’ requires comment.
special_projects_06
© Tony Shell September 2011
Page 2 of 6
Shortly after New Labour came to power, the political think tank The Smith Institute registered as a UK
Charity. One of the Institute’s principal preoccupations has been the promotion of ‘progressive’ political
Ideology – and, most especially, the effective implementation of Government policy for mass immigration.14
15 16 17 18 However, from as early as 2001 concerns were raised regarding a perceived political bias in the
Work of the organization. Those concerns included the close association with prominent Labour Party
politicians (including Mr. Gordon Brown MP, and Mr. Ed Balls) – and also the frequent use by the
Institute of No 11 Downing Street as a venue for conferences.19 In 2008 the Charity Commission was
obliged to censure the Smith Institute for behaviours not consistent with charity law. The Charity
Commission also noted that Gordon Brown had ignored formal requests for information needed by the
Commission for its investigation into the activities of the Institute.20 21
In 2007 a Barrow Cadbury Trust report described under ‘Achievements of Barrow Cadbury funded
projects/partnerships’ that: “The Fabians partnered with Barrow Cadbury for a closed-door meeting at
Devonport House to discuss progressive migration policy. The meeting included the then Minister for
Immigration and two former ministers as well as progressive politicians and opinion formers”. The BCT
went on to say that for the COMPASS organisation “Their [COMPASS] publication on Progressive
Migration was launched at an event at Labour Party Conference involving Jon Cruddas MP, candidate for
the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party”.22
Between 2005 and 2009 the Fabian Society received grants totaling £215,740 from The Webb Memorial
Trust – an organization registered with the Charity Commission.23 The Fabian Society was therefore
receiving money for (presumably) providing a charity service, whilst also engaging in private discussions
with the Labour Government to decide future policy for “progressive migration”.
The COMPASS organisation was launched in 2003. Between 2003 and 2006 the charity Joseph
Rowntree Reform Trust gave grants totalling £143,725 to COMPASS.24 Those charitable grants appear
to have been awarded to cover start-up costs and (again) presumably on the basis that COMPASS was
providing a charity service. The COMPASS organisation describes itself as “a pressure group focussed on
changing Labour - but [which] recognizes that energy and ideas must come from outside the party, not
least the 200,000 who have left since 1997”.25 Therefore, once again, the assumption appears to have
been that improving the election prospects of the Labour Party was a legitimate charitable activity. It is also
very clear that COMPASS has a particular interest in promoting a ‘progressive’ immigration policy.26
It is therefore a politically inspired process of population replacement that is at the heart of present-day
‘progressive’ political ideology.
In February 2011 research by the independent body Migration Watch used official ONS data to show that:
“Under Labour 3.2 million foreign citizens arrived in Britain, about 80 per cent from outside the EU, whilst
nearly one million (941,000) British citizens left”.27
Observations on past census records, plus other data, can put the effects of this ‘progressive migration’
into an informative, historical perspective.
In 1851 approximately ninety-six percent of the population of England were native indigenous people (the
English).28 One hundred years later (1951) the proportion of English people in England was almost exactly
the same – despite a huge influx of refugees fleeing from famine, revolution, pogroms, the upheavals of
two devastating World Wars, and a brutal partitioning of Europe.29 It was the natural increase of the native
population over that one hundred year period (from 16.03 million English people in 1851, to 39.50 million in
1951) that played a major part in the maintenance of a relatively stable, cohesive society.
special_projects_06
© Tony Shell September 2011
Page 3 of 6
However the subsequent imposition of ‘progressive migration’ has been unprecedented in scale – and with
potentially catastrophic consequences.
As a direct result of political action, by 2001 the English had been reduced to eighty-five percent of the
population.30 On the assumption that future UK governments will continue to support ‘progressive
migration’ (the most likely scenario) it is projected that within the next fifty years the English people will
constitute less than half of the population – and will have become a minority within their own land.31 That is
the true, intended purpose behind ‘progressive’ UK politics.
In April 2011 Prime Minister David Cameron MP gave a speech in which he boasted of the Coalition
Government’s plans for managing migration.32 Notably he used exactly the same official (ONS) data as
Migration Watch, but chose to interpret it very differently, stating that: “between 1997 and 2009, 2.2 million
more people came to live in this country than left to live abroad”. The peculiar wording of that comment is
most significant – it reveals the manner in which the Coalition Government intends to mislead the public
and conceal a continuation of the State’s real agenda. Elsewhere in his speech the Prime Minister
repeatedly asserted the need to reduce net migration. However it is not net migration, but the level of
population replacement that is of most importance.
It is therefore population replacement numbers – and not net migration – that reveals the real and potential
impact (demographic, social, and cultural) of a politically directed mass immigration policy. This is
especially true for England, where the native population is already in rapid decline (with an overall birthrate
approximately 17 per cent below replacement level).33 Which leads to the obvious question – why has
there been almost no debate (by the ‘progressives’) with regard to the projected decline in the number of
ethnic English? Instead we find either a denial of the existence of a native people, or a belief that such a
decline is of no importance (or, even, to be welcomed as an opportunity to further increase immigration).
Evidence of that denial (or that the English deserve no consideration) can be found in the political
propaganda output by many of the major ‘change agents’.
For example, two years ago The Runnymede Trust published a major report on the ‘progressive’ political
agenda titled: ‘Who Cares About The White Working Class?’34 An insight into the purpose of the
Runnymede report is to be found in the introduction: “We can in large part locate the problems of the ‘white
working class’ within the broader framework of changing class inequality within Britain, and the fate of the
working class as a whole, without having to dwell on questions of ethnicity or other cultural differences”.35
In other words, by both reframing and restricting the concerns regarding social deprivation or hardship
solely to issues of ‘class’, it is possible to avoid having to discuss the effects of mass immigration,
multiculturalism, loss of social inclusiveness, population replacement, or loss of native (English)
entitlements.
The Runnymede Trust report is essentially racist in content. It includes language indicative of extreme anti-
English sentiment.36 The contributors make frequent reference to the “white” people, and to issues
concerning problems of “whiteness”, whilst giving no proper recognition to the English as the native
inhabitants. The apparent fixation on skin colour is seen as especially disturbing.37 The report also
includes material that is factually incorrect38 and employs invalid statistical reasoning.39 40
However it is what the ‘change agents’ choose not to discuss (or attempt to suppress any discussion) that
is of crucial importance.
special_projects_06
© Tony Shell September 2011
Page 4 of 6
An understanding of the political and economic forces behind the recent emergence of ‘progressive’ mass
migration is therefore of crucial importance. It is an integral part of globalization, planned and executed
behind the closed doors of organisations such as the IMF, WTO and the EU – at the behest (and for the
benefit) of the global debt industry and the major trans-national corporations (for example through secret
‘Mode 4’ trade deals to exploit cheap, migrant labour).41
The ideology of ‘progressivism’ is used to give globalization the appearance of a noble endeavour,
committed to the creation of a utopian new world order. It is an exercise in deceit.
The origins for this authoritarian ‘progressivism’ can therefore be traced to early last century, with
a change from a tradition of the people changing their governments – to that of governments
changing the people.
Which inevitably leads to matters concerning genocide.
In April 1945, Dr. Raphael Lemkin (a former adviser on international law to the League of Nations) had
described genocide in the following way: “More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of
the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that
have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social
institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may
be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity.” 42
Dr. Lemkin’s 1945 report also provided an important review of the primary techniques of genocide, as
employed by the Nazis. Those techniques included: the partitioning of previously unified countries into
administrative regions to destroy political cohesion; attacking the existing cultural structure so as weaken
national resolve and obliterate former cultural patterns; the use of schools for the political indoctrination of
children and infants; the undermining of the spiritual power of the established Church; the promotion of
pornography, alcohol and gambling so as to create moral debasement within the national group; the
destruction of the industrial infrastructure and economic independence of the country; and the use of
various means to reduce the birthrate of the targeted, national group. 43
Most importantly, there are seen to be extraordinarily close similarities between those techniques of 1940s
Nazi genocide, and the contemporary policies of ‘progressivism’ directed against the native English
people.
Despite a change in Government (in 2010), that ‘progressive’ agenda is still being vigorously pursued.
The UK State no longer serves the people, but acts as local administrators to a global oligarchy. The
intention is to be effectively rid of the native English people, whilst asset-stripping the country. Such
behaviour is entirely consistent with a State that is a servant of global finance, engages in unlawful foreign
wars, is institutionally corrupt, has no moral scruples – and is engaged in High Treason.
END