Five minutes to midnight

One of the commonest arguments used by the promoters of today's multi-racial society is the claim that Britain has always been 'multi-racial', taking in new ethnic groups over the centuries.  This is of course downright rubbish; all the migrations into Britain, up to those of the Jews from Eastern Europe in the last century, were by peoples of racial types very similar to ourselves and therefore easily assimilable within a generation or two (this is excepting the Jews who came over here in the wake of William the Conqueror and were subsequently expelled by Edward I, as mentioned earlier) [but invited to return to England by Oliver Cromwell].  In more recent years, we have taken in refugees from Poland, Hungary and the Baltic states, and these have caused few if any problems, again being Europeans sharing with us the same basic culture.  These people have settled into our society and got ahead by their own efforts.  They have not demanded, nor needed, 'positive discrimination' to get them jobs in preference to native British people.  Their presence here has not resulted in riots.

We nationalists have, from the start, opposed Asian and Afro-Caribbean immigration specifically because we have been convinced that the immigrants concerned, not being European and therefore not sharing our cultural heritage, could never be successfully integrated.  I came to hold this view in the 1950s, when I saw with my own eyes what was happening in the inner cities where these people had begun to settle, and, with others, I spoke out against the policy.  We warned of catastrophe if it were continued.  Instead of being listened to by the politicians and being given a fair hearing by the media, we were treated with scorn, and given every unpleasant label that the political dictionary can supply: 'extremists', 'bigots', 'haters', 'troublemakers', 'racist fanatics', 'nazis' and so on.  You name it, we were called it.  No epithet was considered too abusive to describe those of us at that time and since who forecast that multi-racialism in Britain would not work.

Many of us sounded these warnings long before Mr Enoch Powell made his entry into the racial controversy.  By the time that Mr Powell decided, in 1968, that the moment had come to speak out in protest against what was happening, I had been saying just the same things for more than 10 years and I was 22 years younger than he and, not occupying any public office, had none of the facilities and information that were available to him whereby I could find out what was going on.  And I was not unique or alone; men such as A.K. Chesterton, Sir Oswald Mosley, Colin Jordan and John Bean had been awakened to this situation before I was, and had used the very limited means available to them to warn people about it.

Naturally, we welcomed Mr Powell's conversion to our viewpoint on immigration on the basis of "better late than never."  But we found it difficult to suppress a smile when we heard him described as the 'leader' of public protest on the issue.  In this, as in many matters, the true lead in pointing forward to what had to be done came, not from parliament, but from men regarded as being on the despised 'fringe' of politics - a fact which surely says something about the political situation in post-war Britain.

Over the past three decades, as is common knowledge, the predictions made by Mr Powell, and by others long before him, have all been more than amply vindicated.  The appalling riots of the 1980s, continuing into the 1990s, have served as a monument to the failure of the whole multi-racial policy that has had the backing, with only minor variations of commitment, of every government in Britain since 1945.

But with characteristic gall, those responsible for this disaster, instead of acknowledging honestly that events have proved them wrong and their opponents right, and setting to work to rectify the harm they have done by throwing the policy into reverse, have tried to shift the blame for the whole debacle onto the very people who warned correctly about the policy from the beginning.  The promoters of the multi-racial fiasco do not indict and chastise themselves; they accuse and penalise those whom they call 'racists'.  With every further piece of evidence that multi-racialism is not working, and that those who have opposed it have been right, they attempt to solve the problem by hounding, slandering, gagging and jailing those whom events have so decisively vindicated.

To back up this policy, our rulers and their acolytes of politics, the mass media and the Church have invented a phrase which conveniently sidetracks public attention from the core of the issue, and at the same time grossly misrepresents the motives of those who disagree with them: they have classified all opposition to the idea of a multi-ethnic Britain as 'racial hatred', and those who voice that opposition as 'hatemongers'.

The truth is that hatred does not come into the issue at all.  We simply love our own race and want to preserve it.  We have no hostile feelings towards members of other races; different individuals among those races are agreeable or disagreeable, just as is the case with our own white people.  Our whole position on the race issue is based on a recognition of differences.  With those Asians or Blacks who recognise these differences as we do and wish to co-operate with us in bringing about the peaceful separation of the races that is the only solution to the problem, we have no quarrel, and we are prepared to enter into amicable negotiation with them at any time.  In fact, in the case of our party some small co-operation has already begun with members of a black group seeking repatriation from these shores.

Tyndall J, The Eleventh Hour: A call for British rebirth, Third Edition, Welling: Albion Press, pp 346-8