Multiculturalism, Racism, Genocide

Up Pompeii picks up on an article in the Mail which states that a surge in babies born to immigrant parents has moved Britain from having one of Europe's most rapidly ageing populations to one of the youngest, according to official figures. It is perhaps worth reproducing UP Pompeii's post in full:

"The population replacement of the UK is almost complete, the demographics are now becoming a reality, by the year 2035 the elderly population of the UK will be the lowest in Europe, the host population being replaced by young children of migrant origin, the English race is doomed, inside two generations from now it will probably not exist.

This damage has been brought about over the past ten years, yes the Nu Labour years, the Blair years, needless to say the article concentrates on the Eastern European influx into the UK and completely ignores the 5-6 million from Pakistan, Bangladesh, North Africa and sub Saharan Africa, this is another example of information manipulation by the media.

The Government must have known about this prior to it publication and I would argue that they must have known for some time. this sheds light on why so little is done about the concerns of the indigenous populations concerns regarding immigration.

Our views, the indigenous populations views do not matter, we are destined to be a small minority in this land and eventually extinct.

The social engineers have won, they have created a population that will destroy the English, this was and still is their intent.

What right have they, the politicians to do this to my country and the people of England, they are truly traitors of immense proportions, they are more dangerous than any other traitor past and present and completely evil.

If you are white, English and educated your days are numbered in the UK, your gene pool has been consigned to the rubbish bin.

Of course all of this is presented as a positive for this country - it is not, the politicians have succeeded in doing what no other has done they have destroyed England, the Romans did not do it neither did William the conqueror.

The next time you are ignored by a shop assistant or petty official or your MP you now know why, we are in the process of being discarded and thus not worthy of any attention - have you ever wondered why our elderly are treated so badly, they are the remnants of a murdered race of an ongoing genocide orchestrated by our own governments"

Readers will no doubt recall the explosive accusation made by Andrew Neather in 2009 when he alleged that the increase in immigration during the Blair years was a deliberate policy to make this country more multicultural.


From Wikipedia we learn that genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious or national group"  While a precise definition varies amongs genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group children of the group to another group.". It can simply also be known as the intent to destroy a group, in part or in whole.


Some may say that the post by Up Pompeii is over the top, historically incorrect, even racist; however what cannot be denied is that our country is being changed through immigration. It is also true that the birth rates among immigrants are far higher than that experienced among, dare one say, white British is illustrated by this article in the Mail, one which states that at Ealing Hospital, in 2010, of the 3,289 children delivered, an extraordinary 2,655 babies were born to non-British mothers; that statistics also showed the maternity unit last year dealt with women from a total of 104 different nationalities; and that as a result, a team of translators, funded by the taxpayer, had to be on hand around the clock.


Whilst, as Wiki says, the crime of genocide has to have intent proven, where the ethnic rape of our country is concerned I'm with Up Pompeii in that I too believe the white British in their own country are the subject of ongoing genocide orchestrated by their own politicians. It doesn't take a degree in maths to realise that with the birth rate among immigrants being greater than the white British, it won't be long before the white British will be a minority in their own land.


It is worth noting that in this social engineering of our country, as with so much else to which we have been subjected, you were not asked if you agreed with it.


And you still wish to live under our system of democratised dictatorship?


Just asking...................

Just why do we elect these idiots?

The latest findings from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) shows, according to the BBC, that where immigration is concerned:

"....an increase from 235,000 in June 2010 but a fall from 255,000 in September 2010."

and that net migration to Britain remained steady at 250,000.


I find it incongruous that Damien Green can herald these figures as a decrease - likewise I find it incongruous for Chris Bryant to criticise the present government for failing to live up to the pledge to cut immigration, especially when one remembers it was Bryant's party that caused the problem in the first place - and for possible electoral gain. I am sure we all recall Andrew Neather


I find it totally unacceptable for politicians to, in effect, lie to the public about immigration, or any other matter. What is under discussion here is the inward immigration from outside the United Kingdom, which the government is trying to control whilst having no control of those immigrants coming from Member States of the EU - yet the impression given by our politicians is they are attempting to control immigration per se - and for the purposes of political point scoring opposition MPs allow that misconception to continue.


That MPs lie to their constituents is well known and is a deficit in our democratic system. Whilst on the subject of deficits in our democratic system, allow me to mention two others in passing. My constituency MP also happens to be our Prime Minister (a fact which may already be known), however my MP cannot rise in Parliament and highlight the plight of one of his constituents - neither can a Secretary of State or Minister. That is equality where parliamentary representation is concerned? (And please don't even mention that 'other routes' may be available to my MP or those of any others that hold ministerial responsibility). How many readers have a district councillor who also happens to be a county councillor? To take Witney as an example, the county council of Oxfordshire are hell bent on the imposition of a 'relief road', roads being their 'competence' (one which began with a costing of £12million but has now escalated to a cost of £20million), yet a growing number of residents in Witney are against this 'relief road'. What is the point in them lobbying their district councillor when that same person is also a member of the county council and has voted for that road to go ahead? Conflict of interest?


Anyway, returning to the original topic of this post, I am drawn to a post from Up Pompeii highlighting the percentage of births in this country where one, or both, parents is foreign born. And society in our country, its traditions and customs, is not being socially engineered? When the events portrayed in two books mentioned in my sidebar, namely "The Horse at the Gates" and "Invasion", come to pass - as they surely will if current policies are continued - it will be too late for our political elite to recall the old adage: as you sow, so shall you reap.


If only I were able to repeat the attempt by Guy Fawkes - but this time with a successful result!

Psychological Hogwash?

The Mail reports that human beings are 'hard-wired' to 'fancy' to other races and that Dr Michael Lewis, who led the research project, said:

"It will come as no surprise to many that facial attractiveness makes up part of the decision of who we marry. ‘And it's no coincidence that groups perceived as more attractive - black males and Asian females - feature more often in mixed-race marriages. ‘In the past more measurable features such as wealth, status and fertility have been considered more important in how we choose out partners. ‘Our study matches the same patterns observed in the Government's data on marriage."

I would argue that this 'research' is no more than yet another attempt at 'social engineering', as intimated by Up Pompeii. The case that Up Pompeii makes, that white males and females supposedly 'prefer' coloured partners; that the media will 'pick-up' on this supposed fact and promote is not in doubt, because (a) we all believe in 'myths'; and (b), the media believe everything they are told and do not bother to query or investigate claims.


Now, where does the word 'myth' enter the report in the Mail. Have we not been led to believe that men of black ethnicity are 'bigger' than white men, or in 'polite-speak', better endowed? Where is the 'research'? Are we not led to believe that Asian women are more subservient to the male? Where is the 'research'? Consequently I would argue that 'facial attractiveness' has bugger-all to do with it. As a result both men and women have been led to believe 'something' - and once into 'it' then find that it ain't so. Whereas men may be quite 'happy' with a situation in which they find they are 'top dog', where women are concerned the situation alters because I would suggest that the female gene 'kicks-in' whereby they accept their situation 'for the benefit of the children' and their desire to maintain a family atmosphere. The latter point is underlined with cases where women who accept 'violence' from their partner for that one reason, so who is to say that they do not accept their situation in 'mixed marriages' for the same reason?


It may well be that there are cases of happy and successful 'mixed marriages' but has there been any 'research' into cases where this is not so? Bearing in mind that I have now become a cynic, this begs the question whether the latest 'research' is not 'government inspired'? I would not put anything past our political bastards!


Over to my readers - but just saying.................

Racism - but what 'defines' racism?

"What 'multiculturalism' boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture - and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture."
Thomas Sowell

British Freedom links to a video of a young woman, Emma West, having a 'rant'  about multiculturalism, with further comment from Sean Gabb on the Libertarian Alliance Blog. Up Pompeii posts a video entitled "My tram experience in France". The Anger of a Quiet Man posts on what might be termed an injustice of the legal system - or to be fair, a possible future injustice.

Not too sure if anyone in the blogosphere has come up with this query previously. We, as a country, are supposed to have adopted the principle of being a non-racist, diverse people which loves all mankind and therefore with our minds cleansed of all xenophobic thoughts (well that is what the Government think we should be anyway). If we are discriminating between the entry of EU nationals to the UK, about which problem we can do nothing, but putting barriers in the way of those wishing to come here from countries outside the EU; are we not then discriminating on race?

From a post of mine on 28th December 2010:

"Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.”
David Cameron, “What I learnt from my stay with a Muslim family” The Observer, Sunday 13 May 2007."

That there is a definite decision by the political elite to impose equality and diversity within this country - one that does appear to 'favour' the immigrant is, without doubt, a fact and in this regard I would refer you to what I wrote on the subject of 'Communitarianism' during October this year.

To return to the subject of Emma West, a number of observations/criticisms can be made, at the forefront of which is her use of such language in the presence of her child and query what example that sets. Against that criticism are the words of Sean Gabb, when he writes:

"Her delivery gives her words an articulacy which is not apparent from a transcript. As you listen to her try not to be distracted by the copious swearing because the woman is a white working class Londoner, or at least part of what Jerome K Jerome called “greater Cockneydom”, and the effing and blinding goes with the territory. She is also speaking in a very stressful situation and allowance has to be made for that. She does not come across as thick. The fact that she has worked as a dental receptionist suggests that she is at least reasonably bright. She is also respectably dressed and there is nothing in her appearance to mark her out as being mentally ill or on the margins of society. Her son (aged between two and three I would judge) is smartly dressed and generally looks well cared for. (Contrary to some press reports, the child looks unfazed throughout )."

Reverting to the post by Up Pompeii, it is appreciated that this occurred in France, yet it could so easily have occurred in this country - and for all we know, probably has. If it has then the punishment meted out to Emma West would no doubt be sorely lacking in the case of this video. Similar cases of different 'justice' are only too prevalent; remember the case of the Muslims who burnt a giant poppy during Remembrance Sunday last year? Also do you recall the fire chief who banned his brigade's annual religious service to mark Remembrance Day in case it offended non-Christians?

It is not possible to throw different religions and races together and expect peace will prevail because the more 'equality' that is imposed, the more one 'group' will seek dominance. This fact is compounded by the purveyors of political correctness - who are the 'drivers' of this equality and diversity 'mantra' - and who, in the final analysis, will not even allow others their judgements. They celebrate 'difference' but they will not allow people to be truly different, to think differently and to say what they think. As a result the indigenous population of this country - and those who have fully assimilated the 'British way of life' - are being changed, or socially engineered.

On the question of 'multiculturalism', an interesting quotation from Angela Merkel; one that is true of religion as it is of race - and is an indictment of the aims of the European Union's wish for ever closer union:

"This multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side and live happily with each other has failed. Utterly failed."

But I digress.........................

A Challenge..........

UP Pompeii posts and asks: "Just what in the name of sanity is happening in this country....." whilst homing in on the remarks of Ian Duncan Smith on the matter of benefits payable to EU citizens, wherein IDS claims 'foul'.

Bearing in mind Article 4, 5, & 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), can anyone name one - just one - aspect of policy in which the EU cannot 'interfere'?*

As ever, just asking...............

*Similar to IPJ's '6 things' question (6 things in your life not regulated, in one form or another, by the state) - and as far as I know he's still waiting an answer......!