Virtually all European nations and North America cannot afford to ignore the social and cultural implications of this eventuality. Given that white Europeans constitute less than 15% of the worlds population, and that percentage is falling annually, there is a sound basis for patriots to be concerned about their prospects. At the moment the speed of this change is apparent in cities and urbanized areas. Already in London [England], population trends strongly indicate whites will become a minority in the capital by 2010, and a minority in the UK potentially by 2100. Across the Atlantic in the USA, people of European descent are predicted to become a minority by the middle of the century due to similar factors. Nationalist parties across Europe are experiencing surges in popularity in response to public unease about demographic trends and immigration. Governments have consistently shown indifference that such trends present a serious danger to national stability and social cohesion. Politicians generally fail to acknowledge how race binds a nation together, and that a substantial proportion of their kinsmen mainly wish their nation to retain a indigenous white majority, even if they are not deeply hostile to other ethnic groups or foreigners in limited numbers. Politicians are conscious of the powerful emotive reaction this subject incites in the public arena. They are reluctant to openly advocate their own racial groups interests, lest their careers be jeopardized by accusations of racism from the media or political adversaries. The late British MP Enoch Powell, an outspoken critic of mulitracialism, learnt this lesson to his personal detriment back in the 1960s. Meanwhile contemporary leaders like George W Bush or Tony Blair are unlikely to offer balanced or objective comments on race and immigration. Even the chronic influx of illegal immigration on Americans southern border with Mexico was avoided in the Bush-Kerry election campaign debates, despite its dire impact on Americans from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. In fact, the only ethnic group George W Bush has pledged unwavering support to have been Jews. At a May 2004 AIPAC meeting (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) Bush conveyed approval for a Jewish ethnic state in Israel in the following quote "The United States is committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state". Recently in October he further signed an Orwellian 'Global Antisemitism Bill', which empowers the State Department to monitor and combat any harsh criticism or attacks on Jews worldwide. Since George W Bush knew little about international affairs when he first entered office in 2000, this strongly biased support to a foreign nation and diasporic group strengthens existing claims that US government policy is influenced by Jews, or neoconservatives as they are often euphemistically referred to. Well, if Bush does back Israel as an ethnocentric state, then why doesn't he or any other politician in Congress promote the ethnic self-determination of any other nation, including his own? After all, aren't politicians professed egalitarians these days?
Immigration resistance in Britain
Back in the UK, although race and immigration ranks low on the policy agenda of the main political parties, the British National Party (BNP) stands as the leading political force striving to thwart the looming demographic crisis that awaits white British citizens. Against a backdrop of total legitimacy for the BNPs concerns, an assortment of assailants have exerted pressure to stifle its progress. In late October 2004 the BNPs bank account was closed for the second time round (by HSBC), and the party web site suffered a major denial of service attack from an unknown culprit. BNP members that have publicly revealed their affiliation have sometimes been threatened with dismissal from their jobs or professional associations. Media publicity of the BNP is uniformly dismissive, if not slanderous. Ironically, the national newspapers themselves publish articles about asylum seekers or immigrants receiving illicit benefits, or engaged in racketeering, yet denigrate the BNP as extremists for alerting the public about essentially the same problems. In the minds of the journalists who occasionally write these articles, its ok to complain about the problem but somehow immoral to desire to stop it.
It's hardly surprising that the word immigration evokes negative connotations in western countries nowadays. The concept of immigration however is not necessarily historically harmful in itself. Its proponents would point to how the United States was successfully built up by it. A neutral stance against this common argument, is to highlight that the world has now congealed into well defined nation-states with delineated boundaries, and that most countries do not have the capacity for more immigrants without negative repercussions racially, environmentally, and socially. Britain is already a full house. In 1999, net immigration reached 185,000, an all-time record. The Immigration Minister, Barbara Roche at that time announced plans to attract migrants to fill specific skills shortages, such as in the computer industry. [Note: this is pure bs, there is no need to attract migrants to fill computer jobs, as I can personally testify being unable to resume computer work for two years]. Many Americans now believe they have reached full capacity there, and that further immigration at current levels will harm the environment. This couldn't be truer for the UK, which has a severe shortage of affordable housing. Recently the government formulated plans for 500,000 new homes in the east of England to meet the demand. Environmental groups have rejected this proposal, correctly realising that such a scheme will be another step forward in turning Britain into a sprawling concrete concourse.
Demographic change in the USA
Traditional white majority founded nation-states around the world face the same challenge of adjusting to uneven racial population growth rates. The United States for example is usually regarded as being a multi-cultural country, but in fact for nearly two hundred years of its history it was approximately 90% European with a 10% ethnic population consisting mainly of blacks descended from slaves imported from Africa, and a smaller dispersion of Native Americans [Iroquois] that survived the colonization years. The turning point in Americas racial future arose in the civil rights era of the 1960s. The Lyndon B Johnson administration passed the landmark 1965 Immigration Act which abolished immigration eligibility based on national origin. This effectively reduced the number of European immigrants and opened up the gates to the wider world. The advocates of the 1965 bill insisted it wouldn't upset the ethnic balance of the country. A different picture has emerged now. Today the US population has declined to 72% white, and houses a fast growing Hispanic population expected to overtake whites as the largest ethnic group in a few decades. Many patriotic Americans, especially white ones, do not eagerly welcome this prospect. Unlike in France or Britain, there is no mainstream nationalist party in the USA that can garner the votes of white Americans at the polling booths. Maybe Americas long tradition of immigration hasn't compelled dissidents to form a successful political party. Opposition to large scale immigration and anti-white legislation has mainly originated from a variety of campaign groups at state level, and the National Alliance, a pro-white organisation created by the late physics professor Dr William Pierce in the early seventies. The NA incidentally operates an excellent, accurate daily news service called NationalVanguard.org that covers world affairs with racial implications, and features guest writers articles and reader letters.
It is worth noting that both the UK and USA share the same social infrastructure where white race relations are concerned. Both have media institutions biased against whites in their coverage of interracial confrontations, or that refrain from publicizing that whites have legitimate group interests in preserving their racial heritage. Both have governments that do not listen to public opposition to immigration, and both have consumer advertising institutions that promote disproportionate multiracial representation.
The Asylum Issue
Every year thousands of immigrants from poor developing countries attempt to settle permanently in Britain, many under the pretext of political asylum. That is, the process by which individuals may apply for refuge in another country if they can prove they are being tortured, persecuted, etc due to their politically related beliefs or activities. The right to seek political asylum is outlined in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drafted by the United Nations in 1948. The United Nations itself was created in 1945, shortly after the end of the Second World War. Britain signed the 1951 United Nations Convention and its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. Later in 1981 the United States enacted a similar law. These treaties recommend that asylum seekers granted legal refugee status should enjoy treatment at least as favorable as that accorded to the indigenous population. The right to seek asylum doesn't guarantee a state is forced to offer asylum to every applicant. Interestingly, the term asylum wasn't used much in colloquial parlance in Britain until as late as the 1990s. The public became accustomed to this term from media articles on the subject i.e. scandal stories of asylum seekers receiving excessive social security benefits This is surely a clear indication that a large scale asylum problem didn't exist until this time. I would suspect many asylum seekers must have learnt of a right to apply for asylum, even if unaware of its ideological origins in the UN declaration. The asylum system in reality is nothing but an alternative method for foreigners to enter the country by deceitful means. It has been long abused by applicants, the bulk of applications are bogus. The cost of supporting asylum seekers in the English county of Cambridgeshire alone has totalled £8 million over the last six years. All this must be paid for by the tax payer, through increased council tax bills and other forms of government taxation. A system appealing to the idealistic notion of humanitarian compassion has in fact caused misery for numerous communities across the UK that have been inundated with impoverished newcomers. The rapid metamorphosis of these communities have often forced existing longtime residents to seek safer sanctuaries elsewhere. The asylum system may seem fair in principle, but in a world of never ending conflict there will always be a constant exodus of refugees to popular destinations. That alone is the most practical argument against it, along with the cost to the taxpayer and the social unrest it creates.
Causes of world migration
First of all, we must understand why such a large mass migration of people is occurring now in the early 21st century, when in decades past i.e. in the early years of the 20th century the numbers were far less conspicuous. There are further explanations for this besides relaxed immigration controls. Improved transportation and global communications are a clear cause, though discussions on immigration tend to overlook the role it has played. But think for a minute: how did aspiring migrants discover what countries were the best places to move to, aside from recommendations by émigré relatives? The invention of the television in the 20th century and its dissemination throughout the entire world has likely assisted as an educational tool here, allowing a wider audience to see the opportunities available in foreign lands. The aviation revolution should be mentioned too. Following World War II the growth of commercial air travel has drastically reduced migrant journey times, and opened up a wider array of destinations. The cost of air travel fell significantly in real terms during the 1990s, enabling poor migrants a chance to afford an air ticket to a better life. Not all migrants pay directly for their tickets however. In extreme cases, prospective migrants overseas hand over their entire life savings to smuggling gangs with dreams of making a fortune in the west. The willingness to pay such high amounts demonstrates that it's not simply the poorest of people who desire to leave their homelands for greener pastures. Desperate immigrants are even prepared to risk a long harrowing journey hidden in road vehicles. In 2002 58 illegal Chinese entrants suffocated to death while hidden in a lorry carrying tomatoes at Dover, England. This led to the conviction of the Dutch lorry driver and Chinese smugglers who organised the operation.
Once immigrants have established communities in host countries, they often encourage relatives to join them, tactfully taking advantage of extended citizenship laws. In the case of Britain, the decline of its empire, and a common British nationality introduced via the 1948 Nationality Act throughout its colonies offered many new citizens a passport by which they could emigrate to the British Isles. Britain was an attractive magnet for Commonwealth immigrants in the post-war economic boom. A substantial portion of the original Afro-Caribbean population in the UK emigrated to England from Jamaica and other parts of the West Indies during the 1960s. Many of them settled in inner London and gained employment with London Transport.
The burgeoning world population has also fuelled migratory urges. As outlined in my essay Consequences of an overpopulated planet the worlds population trebled from an estimated 1.6 billion in the early 20th century to a staggering 6 billion by the year 2001. The bulk of this rise was amongst Asiatic peoples in Africa and Asia, partly from medical advances and humanitarian assistance from the West. However, the rise in fertility rates and human longevity hasn't necessarily engendered a great improvement in the quality of life in certain areas there. If that were the case then there wouldn't be such a strong desire to seek a new life in wealthier western countries. As a population grows unevenly across ethnic groups in shared territory, so does rivalry between them. Africa is still ravaged by conflict between its numerous ethnic groups, providing a constant source of refugees to neighbouring states and destinations further afield. A chronic example was the mass genocide of Rwandans in 1994. Whites too are undergoing genocide in Africa. After the demise of the apartheid era in South Africa in 1994, overall crime has soared, particularly murderous attacks on the shrinking white community. South African patriot Jan Lamprecht has documented a catalogue of disasters that have befallen his country on his African Crisis web site.
The wrecking of London
From a personal standpoint, I base my opinions on racial trends not only on firmly accepted facts, but also on a history of change I have witnessed in Greater London over the years. Greater London itself has accommodated a mosaic of ethnic groups for several decades now. Most of the Black and Asian population arrived during the fifties and sixties from Commonwealth countries in the post war boom cited earlier. During my extensive bus excursions as a boy in the 1980s I observed distinct ethnic minority communities distributed across the capital, mainly concentrated in inner London. These communities didn't particularly concern me at the time, as their population levels were still relatively low compared to the white population of London. Furthermore, there was certainly no feeling in the suburbs that white areas were threatened with displacement. I held views on race that would typically be regarded as 'average'. It wasn't a subject that dominated my thoughts. I understood there were inherent behavioral differences between the races, but I didn't contemplate the significance of these differences because they weren't impacting English society adversely enough at the time. In later years, the question of race and white social cohesion elevated to the forefront of my thoughts as I noticed Londons white population steadily dwindle due to uneven birth rates, immigration, miscegenation, and perhaps even white emigration. Immigration continued steadily during the Conservative government led by 'Iron Lady' Margaret Thatcher from 1979-1990, followed by John Major until 1997. For all practical purposes, the Conservative party were no tougher on immigration than past Labour governments, in contrast to the common misperceptions about them. By the late 1990s the social decay and alienating atmosphere in many parts of London compelled me to acquire a heightened sense of racial consciousness, and made me more sympathetic and curious about white nationalism. Nowadays when I visit London I can't help but feel a grave sense of loss from the place it has become. I see fewer and fewer white English faces aboard the buses, and the ones I do see are tense and withdrawn. I must confess I am sickened by the proliferation of white Anglo-Saxon women that have chosen black partners and sired mixed race children. I can only imagine the majority of these mindless, naive women do not realise they are wrecking a future for white children, who will find themselves a minority in a black and mixed race culture. They cannot grasp the concept that they are playing a decisive role in shaping the future. Sadly some of these women have no love of white beauty or their own races welfare and integrity. I wouldn't balk at the odd interracial couple, but the extent to which this has spread is hastening the eventual demise of whites in London. The media and advertisers are partly culpable here, as they have frequently published adverts with black men and white women in suggestive positions, and of course have suppressed discussion of rational objections to interracial relationships. I would say roughly since the late 1980s there has been an accelerating campaign by the media to instill white guilt and stultify love of their own race. Typically Hitler and the Nazis have been the primary method of nurturing this shame, as numerous television documentaries over the years attest to. As a side note, Nazi bashing is a favorite pastime of liberals in general. In the USA, some liberal commentators have even gone as far to denounce their country as 'Nazi America' for the unwarranted invasion of Iraq. This comparison may satisfy feeble minds, but in fact is quite a poor analogy. To begin with, George W Bush didn't invade Iraq for colonization purposes, neither does he have any concern for white Americans. If he did have any racial ideology, as the National Socialists undoubtedly did, then he certainly wouldn't sanction the ongoing invasion of illegal invaders from Mexico into his country and casually grant many of them amnesty to gain citizenship.
Home grown events in England have been equally effective in nurturing white guilt, even if they don't outwardly display this agenda. Take the case of Stephen Lawrence for example. He was an 18 year old black teenager stabbed to death by white youths at a bus stop in Eltham, South East London in 1993. The media generated an uproar in the country because the killers weren't immediately caught after the incident. The government subsequently commissioned a lengthy report by Lord MacPherson which accused the Metropolitan Police of institutionalised racism for improperly investigating the case and recommended an overhaul of the 'stop and search' policy of ethnic minorities (also known in the USA as racial profiling). Ten years later the media were still reporting the case. The overall effect of Stephens tragic death was an unfairly demoralized police force, excessive media coverage on every aspect of it, and an inculcation in the publics mind that only non-whites are the targets of race attacks. Compare this fanfare with 30 year old Scott Anthony Osbourne, who was kicked to death by three blacks outside a supermarket in nearby Lewisham in November 2002. There was no coverage of this shocking murder in the national press or television whatever. The incident was only reported by local newspapers like The News Shopper here, and the ethnicity of the killers withheld where possible. The implication is always the same: whenever whites attack non-whites then it must be racially motivated. When the reverse is true it is just another crime in the eyes of the media and judiciary system. To the average person, racism is a moral stigma that they rarely apply critical thinking to.
A pet gripe of mine is the aggressive and self-hating demeanour of white teenagers in London that have adopted the speech and mannerisms of black youth. I would describe these pitiful hooded white boys as 'Eminem' rebels (the worlds preeminent white rapper) -- products of a dysfunctional society who see no positive white social community to identify with. Thus, as black culture is pervasive in music and fashion now, they naturally try to conform to the predominant culture around them. These boys have little sense of self-respect or white racial responsibility. They exhibit an aspect of a larger problem of what I classify as 'white self-hate'. This phenomenon manifests in various ways across all ages. For years, I haven't been able to work out why so many of my fellow white Anglo-Saxons in London, and even in the provinces to a lesser degree, frequently shun each other, and act in a anti-social manner that works against our collective interests. I've lost count of the times I've received a sneering glare from a white person, or found myself ignored by my own kind. This issue of irrational anti-social behaviour is a complete saga in itself that I may divulge in future writing. Anyway, to continue -- the increasingly incidences of intermarriage now apparent between whites and ethnic minorities are a manifestation of this self-hate. Really, if white English people had a deeper love of their own people then they wouldn’t be courting non-whites in droves. The development of these interracial relationships cannot be solely explained as ‘individuals’ who just happen to get on with each other because their personalities are compatible. If that were true then you’d see Chinese people arm in arm with Blacks, Indians with Blacks, Polish with Nigerians or Jews, etc. Occasionally you might see non-whites of different ethnicities together as friends, but from my careful observations it’s very rare. Interracial relationships involving whites inevitably arise because their non-white partners adore the physical beauty, and/or the traits of generosity and compromise that are inherent in our race. For example, most people concede that black men have a preference for white women, just as oriental women are attracted to white men. A programme I saw on television several years back confirmed this by stating 1in 3 black men have a white partner.
Some of you may wonder why I am bothered about preserving white society given my diminutive assessment of it; the internal divisions, the masses of consumer oriented lemmings, the lack of idealism, and moronic uncultured yobs that are typical of the housing estate where I now live in the north west. Why don't I just resign myself and let it implode on itself from negligence, self-hate, and irresponsibility? The reason being is that I do have a love of the best elements of my people; the polite, morally upright middle classes in the main who do have self-respect and love of their race. It is this segment of society that I cherish and hope prevails during this time of accelerated demographic change. Being a patriot I also think we should honour our ancestors struggles to help build the foundations for the quintessential trappings of society we now take for granted.
Having unambiguously expressed my concerns for white society and integrity, please do not infer I abhor all other races, nor have I only sought to learn about white culture. I'm not saying this, by the way, out of an urge to declare an obligatory anti-racist disclaimer. Throughout my life I have regularly sustained cordial acquaintances with individuals of non-European extraction. For example, I usually get on well with Indian and other South Asian peoples, and admire the self-respect they have for their family, race and culture. I also appreciate the respect they have for polite middle class English people. I can also get on with blacks, of West Indian descent usually, and actually studied black culture during the late 1980s when I was a college student, and relatively impartial on racial matters. The revival of rap music at the time (freed from its former association with breakdancing) by artists like Public Enemy, NWA, and Ice Cube, enticed me to learn more about black culture as a whole. It partly inspired my first holiday to the United States in 1990, when I travelled by Greyhound bus from Detroit to Los Angeles. As you may know, rap music 'crossed over' to the mainstream music scene during the 1990s to become an influential cultural force. The 1990s really was the decade of political correctness in the English speaking world, especially the United States and Britain. In Americas buzzwords like 'affirmative action' (preference to non-white job applicants irrespective of merit ) and 'diversity is our strength' entered colloquial speech. In Britain there were similar developments, and racial issues were increasingly discussed in newspaper articles.
A simple analogy I can construct on my racial worldview is similar to that of a father who loves his family. He may actually like, or even love his neighbors down the road, but he carries that extra special devotion to his biological relatives. Naturally I too have that extra bit of predisposition to my ethnic family, their heritage, and group interests. Now that my 'family' is in serious jeopardy, partly through their own negligence, I cannot refrain from expressing this concern, and putting their welfare first.
I have been intrigued with scholarly academic research on group traits particular to white northern Europeans, and have read various authors findings. Kevin MacDonald, a California State University professor who has written a trilogy of books on Judaism, has suggested that white peoples tendency towards individualism, low birth rates, monogamy, and a lack of extended kinship outside of the immediate family may have originated from their common roots in a harsh, low resource environment. It was the demanding nature of this environment that required these behavioural traits to develop as a survival strategy. Indeed, there is some evidence to indicate that 80% of European genes share a common ancestry in northern Europe 30,000 - 40,000 years ago, which includes the period of the last ice age. MacDonald also goes on to say that individualistic societies (like those of Europeans) are not instinctively inclined to erect defences against outsiders, unlike the collectivist social structures in the Middle East and other parts of the Asiatic world. What this means in other words is that whites are not unified enough to recognise external threats to their future well being, and they let their sense of fair play work against them, practicing a kind of moral altruism.
To survive and prosper in the times ahead, whites need to break free from their evolutionary shackles that predisposes them to behaviour ill suited to a competitive multiracial environment. Firstly, white society at large must grow out of its childish interpretation of racism and learn that it's not unreasonable of us to make distinctions between ethnic groups in order to secure a stable future for white children, all the while maintaining respectful relations with the rest of humanity. They must think of themselves as being part of a group with a destiny instead of rootless individuals with obligations only to their egos. Whites deserve to be exposed to both sides of the coin of the race debate, and not the shallow one that panders to universal sentimentality pushed by the media and government. More often than not, however, whites are intimidated into passivity by the charge of racism, much like Superman is weakened by Kryptonite. I could talk about this subject and its facets until the cows go home; there are volumes of text written on it elsewhere. Ultimately, the most important question for inquisitive responsible minds is what can be done to avert the demise of white society in the UK in the long term, and rest of the west in this predicament . This is a difficult question that patriots cannot easily answer as well as they can analyse the problem. Most reasonable people desire a strategy that is safe, fair and nice. As the situation continues to deteriorate, as it surely will in coming years, a nice solution will be less attainable. At this stage the most practical measure would be to halt all asylum and immigration, curtail anti-white/anti-Christian propaganda in education, broadcasting, and public bodies (such as the ridiculous decision by the Royal Mail to remove Christian themes from its Christmas 2003 stamp range), and repeal politically correct policies that give unfair concessions to minorities based on race or religion. I'm not a hardcore separatist at heart though. I still approve of an open door for all foreign visitors to travel on holiday, as it would admittedly be mean spirited to bar people from other cultures from discovering and appreciating ours. To recap, the underlying foundation of the alarm about the racial demographic and immigration situation is about preservation, self-respect and order. This is at odds with the liberal doctrine that asserts we should "move with the times", or "come together as one world", and similar superficial excuses. Ultimately we could encourage all resident ethnic groups to pursue their autonomous aspirations, rather than the current modus operandi where whites are discouraged from an exclusive culture, and are goaded into abandoning loyalty to their race and heritage.
10 November 2004: China arrests 58 UK bound migrants16 November 2004: 9% rise in UK asylum seekers into UK