Proof that they want to wipe us out....

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

Swansea leafleters are back !

The Swansea leafleter's are back and will soon be dropping leaflets through your door as once again they take to the streets of Swansea . After a long earned rest having walked around Swansea and surrounding area's with their leaflets right up to the elections ,not only are they back ,they are back bigger and stronger as new activists join the group helping to cover areas of Swansea much quicker than before.
This morning,the Mansleton area was leafleted as they split off into two groups and was completed way before dinner time.
The Swansea leafleters have raised the bar yet again,there's no activists like the Swansea activists.
If you'd like more info on how to join these guys,please leave a comment and someone will get back to you very soon

NICK IN ABERTILLERY

Nick Griffin comes to abertillery and gets a great response

it was a pleasure as always to be at a meeting that Nick Griffin was the guest speaker, last night in Abertillery Nick impressed us all with yet another educating speech on the issues that matter to us all in Britain and in particular to us all in Wales. He covered various topics and one in particular ,shale gas and the potential  damage it will cause to the people of Wales should it not be stopped.

Shale gas is a gas product that Wales has deep in its rocks worth potential billions of pounds, but the damage it would cause the environment, the water, the wildlife and the major heath issues it would cause certainly out weigh any money to be earned from it. It is extracted from the rocks by a method known as fracking and by doing a simple search on the internet will show you how dangerous this has proved to be in other places in the world

Unlike other M E P’so from other party’s Nick has a passion for all things British and preserving our heritage and keeping us safe from the dangers others are so willing to allow us to come up against, he highlighted this to us and the need the huge need for us as fellow brits to make others aware of this danger and put a stop to it before it’s too late.

Brian Mohoney, opened up the meeting and also introduced Laurence as speaker after Nick.

It was excellent to see so many familiar faces at the meeting and always great to see new ones.

sharia law in britain

Girls are Vulnerable to Islamic Law in BRITAIN......

Sometime in march two years ago a severely autistic man with the mental age of three married a woman in Bangladesh, via the telephone. Three of Britain’s most senior judges intervened, ruling the marriage could not be legal under English law, as the man was unable to give his consent.

This marriage, said Lord Justice Thorpe, was “sufficiently offensive to the conscience of the English court that the court should refuse to recognise it and should refuse to give effect to the law of Bangladesh and sharia law.”Only six months later, sharia courts that had formerly operated illegally in Britain were reclassified as “tribunals” under the Arbitration Act, allowing them to pass effectively legally binding judgments in many civil matters.

However, with sharia law incompatible with English law and modern human rights norms, concerns were rightly raised that the sharia court system in Britain would grow into a parallel legal system. The disparity between English and sharia law was highlighted only a month later, as the House of Lords passed judgment in the case of a Lebanese woman who had claimed the right to remain in the UK with her son. An earlier Lebanese court decision, under sharia law, meant that, despite a history of abuse, her former husband would get automatic custody of the child when he turned seven Lord Hope of Craighead observed that under the sharia judgment, “[…] there is a real risk of a flagrant denial of their article 8 rights [of the European Convention on Human Rights] if the appellant and her child were to be returned to Lebanon.” Lord Bingham of Cornhill added, rather triumphantly, that her case was supported “[…] by JUSTICE and Liberty.”Justice and liberty, Lord Cornhill appeared to say, are not supported by sharia. Not even in civil cases. For, in sharia, the rights of the man supersede the rights of the woman and children, Muslims are privileged over non-Muslims, and – where sharia is the dominant or sole form of law – cruel punishments, including death by stoning, hanging, etc., are meted out for adultery, homosexuality, apostasy, etc.

Although it has generally been thought that five sharia courts were operating in Britain, just over a week ago Civitas revealed that there are now at least 85 sharia courts operating across the country.

Troublingly, Civitas says that some sharia rulings it looked at, “[…] advise illegal actions and others that transgress human rights standards as they are applied by British courts,” and that, “[…] for many Muslims, sharia courts are in practice part of an institutionalised atmosphere of intimidation, backed by the ultimate sanction of a death threat.”

In other cases, a lack of ability in spoken English, or lack of familiarity of British society, law, police, etc., will undoubtedly mean that many Muslim girls and women in particular are left vulnerable to a court system that is biased against them. The Daily Mail newspaper reported a few days ago that, for example, Muslim women have to pay two and a half times as much as a man in seeking a sharia divorce in Britain, because her word has to be corroborated. In other words, the burden of proof is on the woman, and yet her evidence is not admissible by itself.

There were up to 8,000 forced marriages reported last year in England, with the Forced Marriage Unit dealing with an 80 percent increase from the previous year. Most of the victims are teenage girls from Pakistan and Bangladesh, with some as young as 13 forced to marry in order to preserve “family honor,” or to allow foreign nationals to emigrate to Britain as a spouse.

With the problem increasing, a Forced Marriage (civil) Act was passed in November 2008, making forced marriages unlawful and allowing them to be annulled. However, the act does not make forcing someone to marry against their will, or aiding forced marriage, a punishable offense. Public funds are also unavailable to those who have been married in Britain for less than two years, meaning that victims who flee an abusive marriage often find themselves destitute. “The situation,” according to Kate Wareing, director of Oxfam's UK Poverty Programme, “is so extreme that the police turn to the Home Office to detain the women so they have somewhere else to go.”

Nevertheless, even if a victim of forced marriage does escape, and even if the marriage is annulled under English law, the problem for any Muslim girl or woman may not end there. In February of last year, a 15 year-old Pakistani girl was forced to marry a forty year-old man with the mental age of five, again via the telephone. When she arrived in England from Pakistan she was forced to work as a prostitute by her new family, who invited men to their house to rape her. “This marriage,” Victoria Golshani on Islamist Watch observes, “was not recognized by the Home Office but was and is still recognized by the Sharia courts that flourish in the UK,” having been approved by the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain, despite the minimum age for marriage being 16 under English law.

Should she have a boyfriend at some point in the future – though doing nothing abnormal in the eyes of English society – she will be committing adultery in the eyes of Britains 85 sharia courts, and, as such, in the eyes of many Muslims in England and her home country, Pakistan. Such a thought would undoubtedly make any Muslim girl rightly fearful for her safety.

In 2003, Abdulla Yones was found guilty of murdering his 16 year-old daughter, Heshu. The father had discovered that she was in a relationship with a Lebanese Christian, and later received an anonymous letter accusing his daughter of being a “slut” and a “prostitute.” “Disgusted and distressed” by her relationship, Abdulla beat her for six months, before stabbing her eleven times and cutting her throat open in a frenzied attack.

In his decision Judge Neil Denison nevertheless suggested that, “It is arguable that Heshu's conduct provoked her father,” adding in his concluding remarks [pdf] that the situation had arisen out of “irreconcilable cultural differences between traditional Kurdish values and the values of western society.”

Sharia law and Western norms of law and human rights are indeed irreconcilable. Britain’s sharia courts – as they have proven – have no respect for English law, or the rights of girls and women, but seem only to facilitate their abuse. If the Forced Marriage Act had made aiding or abetting forced marriage a criminal offense then members of the Islamic Sharia Council in Britain would no doubt be standing trial for recognizing, and continuing to recognize, the (forced) marriage of a minor – and one suspects this is precisely why it was made only a civil offense.

The desire of sharia judges to extend their reach, and to introduce harsh punishments, such as the chopping off of the hand for theft, shows that their vision of a future Britain is medieval and barbaric. Britain needs to have the courage of its convictions, and stand up for the human rights of girls and women, and the liberty of its citizens. The longer the sharia courts are allowed to operate the more these unalienable rights will be sacrificed.