Wednesday, 18 May 2011

Ethnic Cleansing of England and Wales Quickens - 1 in 6 now 'non-white'.

Well, it seems that the ethnocide of the true British people continues apace.  According to this article in the London Evening Standard, the figures are pretty much what we all suspected - but it still never fails to shock me all the same when I read this kind of news in plain black and white, pardon the pun.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23951216-uk-ethnic-population-has-risen-40-per-cent-in-the-last-eight-years.do

Britain's ethnic minority population has risen by nearly 40 per cent in just eight years because of immigration and high birth rates, official figures revealed today. The Office for National Statistics said that 9.1 million people living in England and Wales - equivalent to one in six of the population - were now from a "non-white" background.

The new total, based on statistics compiled in 2009, is 2.5 million higher than the comparable figure of 6.6 million in 2001 and is certain to prompt renewed debate about the impact of Labour's immigration policies.

The biggest increase over the eight-year period, of 553,000 people, is among the "other white" group which includes Europeans, such as Poles, as well as citizens of countries such as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

Other groups registering a sharp rise include the Chinese, whose numbers have increased by 8.6 per cent each year, and black Africans, who have recorded a 214,000 increase in population since 2001. The largest ethnic populations, however, are of Indians, who account for more than 1.4 million people living here, and Pakistanis, who represent a further one million residents.

Explaining the increases, the statisticians say that the rise in the Indian population, which is 291,000 up on 2001, is "primarily due" to international migration, while high birth rates are a key factor behind the combined 190,000 growth in the Pakistani or Bangladeshi population.

Despite the overall surge in numbers, a regional split shows that London's ethnic population has remained virtually static at just over 40 per cent even though the capital accounts for 28 per cent of the net inflow of "non-white British" migrants.

The statisticians say this is because the influx is outweighed by a net outflow of more than 600,000 ethnic people from London to other parts of the country.
Well. For once, I do not really have anything to say. I am lost for words. What the hell have they unleashed onto us? This situation is so horrific to me that I often wish I could wake up from this nightmare. The speed of this annihilation can only quicken again now that this "jump" has occurred. These are just the ones they know about too.....and more arrive every single day of the week.

I do not know what to suggest in order to deal with this situation, but something tells me that campaigning about "culture" is just not going to cut the mustard in time, even if it ever was viable. The choice is coming between all or nothing. Not a good choice.

15 comments:

  1. 1 in 6 people equates to 16.66%! Now consider that the 2001 census had the UK's ethnic population at 9+%, then one can surely see how it IS rising exponentially, as we both know.

    Again taking into account the growth in miscegenation, the higher birth rate amongst ethnic minorities and their relative youth, and it's not hard to see how in twenty years they may account for 30% of the population, and fifty years 50+%.

    If you and I live to our eighties then we will have witnessed us become a minority in our own land!

    But what can one do? Wait and see if people wake up. I predict a gradual decline into a third world slum, in which case people MAY just see what they're losing.

    Righ now, I'm off to watch Little Fish on Film Four, it has received a decent review on Rotten Tomatoes...

    Later,

    UBN

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Despite the overall surge in numbers, a regional split shows that London's ethnic population has remained virtually static at just over 40 per cent even though the capital accounts for 28 per cent of the net inflow of "non-white British" migrants."

    The AV referendum prooved London is another country. The Guardian published the full results list here.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/06/av-referendum-results-map

    Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Lambeth and Southwark voted "YES".

    These are the LibDem heartland; no, areas of mass immigration ? I expect the political take-over of East London to be complete by the next General Election.

    Truely depressing. But I sense the general feeling among nationalists is moving towards more militant activity. Although I was confused by the Andrew Brons broadcast, he is definitely on our side, but will a new chairman introduce new policies. Here is another link

    http://www.4liberty.org.uk/2011/05/15/an-inout-referendum-has-to-be-carefully-managed/

    giving step-by-step instructions regarding an EU Referendum. Just wish the BNP would do likewise.

    Cheers

    Mike O.
    (The other "YES" votes were Oxford and Glasgow Kelvin.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not to downplay this utter tragedy, but I wish we in the US had only 1 in 6 people be non-White. Demographically speaking, Brits are were America was in the mid to late 80s. The time I was born.

    What can be done to turn the tide? A few things pop to mind, but until enough of the people finally realize they are in a war for their own survival, not much can be done in the immediate short-term. Education is still one of the top priorities at the moment.

    Other than continuing to persevere, might I suggest arming oneself with what you can legally obtain and encourage others to do so.

    I know I know, the UK gov. makes it a lot harder to get a gun (or at least hand guns) than here in the states, but it's not impossible. I'm not suggesting one starts up a para-military group or some such, but simply having a firearm for hunting or skeet shooting can give one peace of mind.

    LoA <-- stands for Lawrence of Appalachia btw.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  4. Thanks to all for the comments.

    Unrepentant, if it is officially 16.7%, we can bet that we are talking at least 20% in reality. As we know, in the "under 5" age group they already account from anywhere between 33% and 66% right now.

    Mike O, for some reason yours was automatically lingering in the "spam" area. I hope that I have not missed any older ones which may have been sent there, and sorry for the delay in spotting it. I do not know much about AV, but will try and have a look at those links of what the results point to.

    Regarding Andrew Brons, I am now wondering what aspect you were unsure about.......however, regarding the militancy, I have noticed a slight tip in the sheer 'exasperation' factor and people wanting to "do something" besides play the game - but I haven't personally seen much to give me the indication that things are going to take another (more drastic) route.

    I think given the demographic plight we are presented with, it may end up being an "all or nothing" situation before long - should general people out there grasp the end game and its significance.

    I do not think we will have the luxury of time to pursue a 'softly softly' approach because the explosion of demographics has already taken place - it is the fallout which has yet to be felt by all.

    Other than that, we all know what happens when people are backed into a corner with no options available to them - and it is never a pretty sight. I still hope it does not come to that kind of militancy. I do not get the feeling that the country is anywhere near that stage of self awareness yet. Apologies if you meant something different!

    Lawrence of Appalachia, yes, things are getting very bad in the States. Strangely enough, the time of ultimate "minority status" seems to coincide between ourselves and yourselves within a decade or so, from what I remember.

    I hear some Americans suggest that the country be partitioned, especially as it seems to be much more sparse than the United Kingdom (which is cramming us all in cheek by jowl at double the capacity the land mass can sustain for food).

    I do not know how or where the UK could be partitioned if it came to that (and nor would I ever concede land in this way!).

    Is this partition idea actually feasible in the United States, or just a pipe dream? Farnham O'Reilly over on the Occidental Observer wrote something along those lines earlier this year in a 5 parter series of articles. Perhaps not really partitioning, but regrouping and establishing a counter culture.

    Regarding self protection and self sustainability.....I had better not go into that! lol.

    I think my initial duty is to get fitter, stronger, and more able to defend myself for when I will be in those situations later down the line where I will be "standing my ground" in the face of hostility from our new guests.

    I am not heavily built, I am not particularly fit, and over the last few years it has been on my mind to try and do something about it.

    I was at a local petrol station a few years ago where all of a sudden a load of Pakistani youths pulled up to all the pumps in their cars, hip-hop blaring out the windows, attitude problems, car horns blowing, and myself being stared at as a piece of unpleasant smelling stuff who shouldn't even be there.

    I was outnumbered, out gunned so to speak, no other whites around at all for the duration. The atmosphere was horrible and intimidating. Say the wrong thing, look the wrong way, and well, who knows what could have happened.

    It is not a good feeling, but one which can only be a more frequent event in the upcoming decades.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Part 1

    TOO is a great site, indeed. I highly recommend it.

    "Is this partition idea actually feasible in the United States, or just a pipe dream?"

    It depends on which partition plan is being discussed, they are many and varied. And it also depends on other factors. Disregarding issues such as geography, infrastructure, regional culture, etc., perhaps the most important question is: what is the goal behind a particular partition plan? Is it to create a new, smaller entity (PNW or neo-Confederacy), or a plan of Strategic Retreat(fallback, consolidate, then re-claim later)?

    Personally, I believe a partition is feasible but only if it has a chance of being not only sustained in the long-term but beneficial militarily. And I believe this is only possible under a plan of Strategic Retreat. Essentially this means most of the country stays together, with some elements removed to be reclaimed at a later date. Although a neo-confederacy option could work, but only if it included not only the original confederate states but the mid-west at the very least. But that's a debate for another time.

    Here's how a general Strategic Retreat (SR) could take place in the US: The greatest concentration of foreign invaders is in the Southwestern states (California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada) and the big metro areas.

    Taking back a city is comparatively easier than a whole state, this is primarily because cities can be cordoned off and starved of resources (e.g. electricity and food) and thereby bring the enemy to heel. This is much harder to do with a whole state (Rhode Island excepted, perhaps). In that case, at least a good chunk of the SW will have to be abandoned, but with the purpose of regaining it in the future. This would mean that the area in question would have to become as close to a no-man's land as possible without resorting to, say, nuclear weapons.

    I could go into more detail, but I think you get the idea. And this is all assuming enough people 'get it' and are willing to take action. Which I don't see happening here in the States before it will happen in Europe. Which is ironic. Or maybe not.

    But before I leave this topic, I do believe the concept of SR and the re-taking of cities can certainly be applied in the UK (and the rst of Europe) as well.

    With the exception of Metro London, I don't think you'll necessarily have to lose great chunks of your country, in my opinion. I think even Birmingham could be cordoned off and be back in British hands in a short amount of time. London, I think, will have to be isolated for a while longer I'm afraid.

    Or am I way off here? (I am under the impression that London is more screwed than the others. I know places like Leicester are perhaps more "enriched" but they don't command as much of a presence.)

    Of course, I hope none of that has to come to pass. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

    LoA

    ReplyDelete
  6. Part 2

    "Regarding self protection and self sustainability.....I had better not go into that! lol. "

    Do what you feel is right and prudent. This of course includes making sure posters like me don't accidentally get you into trouble with Big Brother. I'm not sure what the Online rules are in the UK regarding what can or cannot be written, so do censure me as needed.

    Your experience at the pump that day is made all the more antagonizing when one realizes that if you had become a victim at the hands of those degenerates, and you were forced to defend yourself, seemingly the whole weight of the state would fall all over themselves to shield the aliens from prosecution (or at least media attention).

    Where did this take place? Because if this was close to you or your family, I reiterate my call to purchase a firearm or two. Even if you don't live in an "enriched" area, do it anyway (when feasible of course).

    As for your fitness, since I'm far from a health or fitness guru myself, might I recommend classes on self-defense. Doesn't have to be anything fancy, just the basics of hand to hand combat would do. It's not like these feral gangs are all that talented in the combat department. Their greatest weapons are numbers and bluff.

    Hopefully soon, we'll be able to call that bluff. Course by that time either a Nationalist government will be in power (God willing) and there will be little to no bloodshed involved, or...well, civil war will be at hand.

    That's America's destiny, let's hope it's not yours too.

    Lawrence of Appalachia

    ReplyDelete
  7. LoA, thanks for the insight into those options you have.

    I am currently at work, so I need to keep this reply quite short.

    Perhaps I over state the nature of the pump event (in terms of the differences between our nations)....because what you might have to bear in mind is how England has been such a peaceful, tranquil, law abiding country for so long - we have become quite unaccustomed to any form of hostility or belligerance from people in society.

    We are therefore quite taken aback and uncomfortable when something potentially hostile or abrasive happens. We have imported people who are from very harsh countries who do not act as we do, or have the 'reserve' we used to be famous for.

    I could have been beaten (with a slight risk of a non fatal stab wound) if something about what I did or said was not to their liking...but I doubt more than a heap of verbal abuse, shoving, bravado would have happened in reality, especially as the forecourt has CCTV to catch non-payers.

    Things are getting bad, but I do not think we are at the stage of hostility and violence where we need "extra security", so to speak. At present, as you say, fitness and self defense are more the right levels for those kinds of situations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Andrew Brons, he said all the right things about Nick Griffin, but I get the feeling any contest will be between two personalities, not a choice of party strategy or policies ( although I expect the constitution to be amended).

    Andrew Brons does not offer answers as to the cause of the election failure.

    I will suggest one. General Elections apart, BNP activism seems limited to leaflet distribution. An arduous task, yet not one which has shown any quantifiable return.

    That's why I included the link to EU In/Out referendum blog. It was these sentences which caught my attention.

    ....All eurosceptic organisations have urged their members to speak and write to their MPs but there has never been any serious organisation to build a disciplined core of (say) 2 dozen people in every constituency to keep the issue before MPs and press perpetually. Individuals have written, gone to see their MPs, asked a question at a meeting and usually got a dusty answer. Then they have retreated to the comfort zone of like-minded eurosceptics to complain about it and the MPs (for the most part) have heard nothing more. So they can say with all truthfulness (or as much as can be expected) that “Europe” is not an issue which troubles their constituents....

    Just change "Europe" to "immigration".

    Come on, BNP, organise your activists like this, log the actions taken and publish the results.

    Nationalist cannot fight their corner if nobody else stands there with them. The future BNP policies must identify targets, besides immigration, which appeal to the wider electorate. That's why I am unsure about the Andrew Brons broadcast. Both he and Nick Griffin speak in the EU parliament on many relevant topics which somehow do not find their way back here to the BNP in the UK.

    Spam filters, don't you love them ! Maybe yours dislikes links to Libertarian blogs. So here is another from 2007 (apolgies if already read).

    http://paulweston101.blogspot.com/2007/12/coming-third-world-war.html

    Stay positive. Cheers

    Mike O.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks for filling in the gaps with the Andrew Brons doubts Mike, and sorry for the long reply here too!.

    It is always good to hear a different perspective of something which I listened to at the same time as yourself. I have to admit I took away a slightly different impression to yourself.

    One of the main things that struck me during the debate was what Andrew had to say about turning issues to our moral advantage.

    Ever since I became swayed to Nationalism, I have been trying to push the concept that 'nationalism' has it's own hidden medal cabinet when it comes to gaining the moral high ground.

    It has been a bone of discontent for me for years now regarding how we have thrown away so much we have to offer when it comes to being seen to be saintly. Rather than do this, we always look murky, defensive, aggressive, nasty, spiteful and having to generally protest against everything and everybody.

    As a party we thrive on negativity, fostering the sense of doom that we know is coming..... but what if people do not want to feel bad all the time and need to feel they are doing the right thing?

    The "left" have a hell of a lot to answer for in my opinion - and for years it has been my hope that the BNP turns the tables around and properly constructs for itself a more professional "doo gooder" attitude with current affairs and the promotion of its values and principles.

    We have to show there is rationale and merit in what we say - and I think that we just do not tend to do that enough. I think Andrew may recognise this, citing his argument and work/research in Europe.

    Over the last few years I have kind of "dropped back" myself on this I suppose, via depression, relentless bad news, finding bigger issues to fry. But under my older "guise" (before "British Activism" was my screen name), I recall occasionally pushing more virtuous issues and strategies - probably a lingering from my prior "Old Labour" idealistic youth viewpoint.

    Andrew mentioned immigration and using people as objects and pawns (and how he called his opponents up for it, to make them look like the nasty ones).

    He may also have mentioned stealing the brightest and best from the Third World nations (including doctors)....but in my mind it goes much further.

    I think it also treads into things such as resisting conglomerates smothering the market, stopping the sending of toxic waste to other nations and poisoning people, stopping our household rubbish being dumped in god knows where and being fished by peasants, stopping conglomerates like Coca Cola from depleting poor farmers water tables by stealing their nations cheap water supplies they need for their crops, stopping the facilitation of people trafficking, drug smuggling.....and on and on it goes.

    Nationalism (for me) is quite a well intentioned thing on a lot of scores. People don't know the half of what is done in "our" name as British people around the world.

    ReplyDelete
  10. (cont'd)

    Take for example a theoretical shipment of toxic waste that has been "offloaded" in some crap hole country around the world with the quiet nod from the government bodies.....say that this leaks into the ground eventually and starts to make people ill, cancer, leukaemia, abnormalities.....

    Those people know where the stuff has come from, they know what makes them sick, they hate this country for its "greed" at such cheap dumping they are often powerless to stop.

    We could do a lot to take up causes like this and show we DO care for other nations and races/cultures - and that we can provide measures to end the closet imperialism that is still going on by the ruling elites and the EU.

    Will it resonate with the voter though? I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps it could be a wider strategy to employ on top of the usual subjects.

    But lets take forced prostitution and drug smuggling for another example of something direct here at home.

    We hear a lot about immigration on the BNP/Nationalist sites.....but we never look at it from the perspective of the plight of the smuggled, the prostituted, and just how WRONG it is to let this process continue as it has.

    It is always "Woe Be Us!" - but what if we made more of the horrors it has on those who suffer under those conditions and how the "Liberals" have helped facilitate this by not allowing proper debates on immigration to take place, and purposefully putting all obstacles in the way of ever getting on top of immigration reform or dealing with "backlogs" of cases?

    Not only does it then explain how we are against immigration for the effect it has demographically, religiously, monetarily, and job-wise on the indigenous Briton - but also that we find it disgusting that such things are happening in Britain - and that we have human empathy for those caught up in this, that we have contempt for drug dealers, organised criminals, and the liberals who have rape, prostitution, misery and hardship on their hands.

    The liberals are evil scum for allowing such things as 200 people to be packed on unseaworthy boats in an effort to try and reach Europe, where there are dead bodies being thrown off to sea after sickness and dehydration. People try and cross deserts to get to places, the carcasses of humans dot the desert landscape.

    Nick Griffin was right to challenge the boats coming over. He is right to suggest that more people are going to die and suffer if they are still allowed to embark and know there is a reception of liberals and welfare for them at this end of the journey.....

    ...but.....but......saying "we should sink their boats" is hardly the kind of explanation or rationale we need to be giving off!!!

    This is where I think we can be much more smarter, articulate, upstanding, and give people something more comfortable to "back" the virtues of, instead of just sounding poisonous and bitter.

    ReplyDelete
  11. (cont'd)

    Personally speaking it is not a "gimmick" or "strategy" - I really do mean it, and so should other people in my opinion.

    Perhaps I am projecting some of my own "foibles" and "ideas" onto what Andrew was casually suggesting......but it strikes me time and time again how people do not "understand" where the party is coming from. This includes race.

    I am a big believer in "Race Realism". I intend to re-compose some material along these lines soon - as I think that it a sorely under used way of explaining where we come from as a party and ideology.

    People look at the party, such as the former "exclusion" of membership for example, and do not even begin to understand why it is there or what we are even thinking when we imposed such a rule.

    Whatever one may make of the old rule - we did not explain it in real terms. This left people ignorant and confused, they saw no sense in it - and thus saw no sense in the party position.

    They were ignorant of it, the subjects behind it, the plight we are in...and thus in their ignorance, they perceive us as ignorant because they don't "get it" or "why it matters".

    People told me they thought it was there because we see black people as "sub human", others told me it was because we thought non-whites were "inferior" and "not good enough" to join the party (like the much fabled "no dogs, no Irish"), or most often because we "hated" other races.

    None of those things were true, none of those things were even on the same page as what the issue really is.

    I don't think we should "bang on" about race. I do think we should keep the issue though and know how to better argue the case and defend those positions and explain them.

    Why don't we show what we mean....why don't we explain history and what happens to multiracial and multicultural nations for example?

    Why don't we collate the patterns that happen everywhere in the world when people undertake "white flight", have segregated schools, get their nation partitioned after bloodshed.....

    Why don't we untangle the "liberal" lines of how we need a "diverse mix" for "strength" and "world trade" (for example) and point out how they are actually saying what we are saying (ie, that if it takes a Chinese business man here to be able to trade with the Chinese, that is an argument in our favour of race reality and not theirs).

    It is just one idea.....but there are hundreds of these avenues we never even touch.

    ReplyDelete
  12. (cont'd)

    I will have to listen to the debate again, but I came away with the idea that Andrew would like to see a very different managerial style and different structure to the party.

    This is why I would think any incarnation with Andrew near the top (or at the top) would be a very different party to what we recognise today.

    I think he would me more willing to listen to strategy advise - such as what you have suggested - and more willing to let people with experience and "track record" get on with what they do best - rather than surround himself with cronies and yes-men.

    However, as we know, Andrew is not standing....so regrettably you might be right that it ends up another personality squabble akin to rearranging those much touted deck chairs on the titanic.

    We need guidance, we need our hands holding to undertake activism properly and coherently. We need to be pulling roughly in the same direction (ie not some doing street brawls whilst others are sweating in ties and suits over the latest EU treaty wheeze of the day).

    We are thrashing around like a drowning economic refugee, hacking and slicing in to thin air with our arms in order to be seen and rescued - but actually achieving very little.

    We are all over the place, all with our own issues, own visions, own ideas, own suggestions..... and nobody is harnessing this energy, so everyone's efforts just fizzle out in isolation (and with no back up from the party structure whatsoever).

    On this score, you are right. We need templates, addresses, procedures of how things should work, what to expect, how to respond the second time, who is doing what where so we don't bombard one MP and not even tackle others..... Unless these kinds of things are in place to make it fast, easy, well explained - people will not bother.

    Too many issues and you may get the "facebook group" fatigue. "stop halal meat", "write against the local mosque", "send a letter to back up our troops"..... - So it has to be done right, well, differently, so an better uptake is achieved.

    The buzz word at the moment is "unity" and "working together" - but look behind those glossy front window words, and what is there?

    I cannot see anything. No strategy to embrace us all, no solutions, no working model.....just everyone saying we need unity.

    That's the easy part to suggest - what we do once we achieve unity is something I have yet to hear!

    ReplyDelete
  13. (cont'd)

    Regarding the spam filter....very strange! You never used to be in there, and were not today.

    You reminded me how I need to check the Libertarian blogs soon, I haven't looked properly for a while. There is one I used to like called "Living in a Madhouse" - maybe you know it?

    Talking of links, I really need to add some to my site here.

    I spent a while figuring it out when I started the site up....then thought I would wait and collect those who I might add to a shortlist.....

    .....then forgot all about links for the best part of a year, then haven't really researched who I would add and who I wouldn't - and now I need to get back in the dashboard and re-learn where the bit it is to do it!

    Perhaps it is best as is it is....at least, in an ironic kind of way, it lives up to the sites title!

    Regarding Paul Weston, yes, he is a great writer. In some ways I have kept him a secret because I always liked his articles but at the same time thought I might sneakily fisk through them one day!

    He stopped blogging for ages, but then he popped up with something from time to time and now tends to hang with the G.o.V website people. I think he stood for UKIP the other year.

    I have saved some of them (in particular) to my hard drive as a back up because they were quite spectacular. (The police one is good too, for example, also 'ethnic cleansing the English' - and a new one he did recently on the Gates of Vienna is superb).

    I am sure I will have read the article before....but I will look at the link tomorrow and have another read of it.

    Thanks for your time,

    British Activism

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mike, I have re-read the Paul Weston piece you linked to. I must have read it at the time, but it was like coming to it anew all the same.

    Some subjects and scenario's are timeless, and that article is one of them. Current affairs go around and around, discussions on the perilous state of wider affairs remain static. Cheers for the reminder.

    ReplyDelete