Now, I’d like to start by talking about the killing that occurred recently in Liverpool of an 11-year-old boy by probably a 13-year-old white boy who was a member of a gang from a particular estate on the margins of the city. The estates from which these gangs come were quality estates. They weren’t sink estates. They were deliberately designed estates built after the war and well into the planning days of the 1960s. So, the idea that these are totally deprived communities that produce these types of adolescent gangs is partly, at the very least, untrue. The phenomenon of the gang that we’re seeing is, although this gang’s in Liverpool which is still 90% white and is in one sense where England partly ends on one particular English seaboard, there’s a degree to which these gangs are importations from the Third World within the West, because their model is in the United States.
In the 1950s and 1960s, in many black areas of the United States, the acceleration of family decline was such that many males had five or six fathers, only one of which is their biological father, before the age of majority. The average age of a criminally inclined black male’s lifespan in Washington D. C., which in one sense is the capital of the world, is 26 — 26 because they’re usually, if they’re criminally involved, dealing in crack cocaine and their shot by somebody nastier and more heavily armed than themselves. That lifespan is less than half the one they had even under slavery in the Deep South before manumission.
This type of phenomenon whereby people without families and without male guardians or fathers and are in a chaotic mental and other state seek solidarity, seek a pseudo-family, and seek a community of themselves through the gang has spread out from these ghettos to include Latino groups in Los Angeles and in Chicago and in New York and elsewhere. Others who feel themselves dispossessed or marginalised, including lumpenproletarian white gangs, have proliferated in these cities. There are 8,000 gangs in Los Angeles alone.
Without really noticing it, during the last 20 years since Margaret Thatcher was Premier this phenomenon has begun here because whole generations have grown up in inner cities and in suburban zones always on benefits with no fathers, with little education, with little structure, drinking from 13, sexual relationships from 14, no proper structure in their lives, no national service, little idea of who they are. Seven million can’t read or write in this country amongst the adult population. 40% basically completely fail at school. And they feed these gangs in the cities. In parts of western Birmingham, there are Asian gangs of different dispensations from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, there are mixed race gangs, there are black gangs and there are white gangs. The mixed race gang is a sort of compartmentalization of all those who don’t fit into the others. Kosovans and so on would join at this present time such a gang until they mass together enough to form one of their own.
They get guns by virtue of the fact that they can create them through replicas, they buy them in pubs, they’re decommissioned and other weapons that come over from ex-paramilitary organizations Northern Ireland — that’s where a lot of them in Liverpool get them from — southeastern Europe, after of the Yugoslavian civil war, is awash with weapons, they come over. Gradually, they creep in. After the Dunblane Massacre, where a lone psychopath went mad in a gymnasium ten or more years ago, handguns even for our Olympic shooting team have been outlawed. But there are now more than a million more of them in the society than there was prior to the ban.
Now, these gangs proliferate because there is an absence of any social structure for those at the bottom, and they prey on many of the young men who join them and who achieve socialization through them. Gradually, their influence creeps out into middle class and upper middle class areas which is usually when politicians begin to notice them and seek to corral them and push them back into ghetto areas.
In the United States, increasingly, cities are not only racially zoned but are racially policed, where policemen from different ethnic and racial groups police their own groups because they will only respect a degree of authoritarian discipline from somebody inside their own group. Police forces are ethnically aligned and have unions within them, and this is already beginning in our own country. In the Metropolitan Police, there is a Muslim Association for police officers; there is a Black Association for police officers, which occasionally contain Asian officers, who of course are not black; and there is a Homosexual Union for police officers in the Metropolitan Police. So, what you have is the segmentation and ghettoization of the society and those who police it, because those who are in it will not accept authority unless somebody is giving it to them, if you like, who is of the same partiality or grouping as themselves. You’ll see the breakdown and fissiparity in law and those that wear the yellow fluorescent jackets over the blue and you will see it in the society that they are attempting to “police.”
In many American cities, citizens in the know know the districts that you can’t go to, literally can’t go to and can’t even pass through. New York is a famous example. Even under Giuliani, who has probably attempted as hardline an anti-criminal drive as any Western liberal-minded, democratic politician can possibly do within present circumstances, so much so that there were times during his tenure that technically part of New York was safer than parts of our own capital, London. But nevertheless, irrespective of all that, when white commuters come in from the outer parts of New York they seal the train and they go through the black areas and end up in the centre in the commercial districts of the city of Manhattan and then they go out again in the same way. These cities are zoned and although our society has not yet reached that point much of the early signs of it are already here in tacit segregation, in groups in northern towns that shop at different times. In Oldham, it’s known that Asians of different dispensations will shop at different times and it’s sort of known. They go from different bus stops into the centre. It’s sort of known. The whites are in the town at a certain time and the others at a certain time. Groups arrange these things semi-privately and volitionally amongst themselves.
Many liberal politicians and religious leaders are now warning about the dangers of segregation. We’re sleep-walking towards Apartheid. Voluntary Apartheid, they call it. It happening because in a sense people naturally crowd together with their own group for comfort and security in relation to where they live, where they shop, where they play, where they want their children to go to school. This means that schooling becomes an issue of internal cultural civil war within a society where people do all sorts of things, particularly if their children approach secondary school age. They suddenly become religious, because they want to get their children into a school which is religious.
Why do they want to do that? Because the sum structure and sum residual resistance from the past to the processes of what characterise comprehensivization. This means that a significant number of the youths who go to religiously-minded schools leave at 16, and they’ve been in school for 11 years by that time and they’re able to read, they’re able to write, they’re able to do arithmetic. They’re able to function in the society. They’re not culturally illiterate, which gives them a chance in the society. That’s why people get religion when they’re children are around 10 or 11.
Even the leader of the Tories, Cameron, is doing it. People have seen him with his wife going to church. And his children are approaching this age of sort of secondary school majority. Everyone plays these games. Middle class people move from one cathcment area to another. They swap houses and move around in relation to particular schools, because when that comprehensivization came in there’s a hierarchy in comprehensive schools just as there was a hierarchy before them, and there’ll be a hierarchy after they’ve gone, and New Labour has to get rid of them because, although they won’t tell you, the comprehensive schools have been a failure. A mass failure generated in from the 1970s and ideas that preceded it that all can be equal and all can have prizes, that the grammar schools were invidious and should be done away without an idea of something better to replace them.
One of the reasons that youth is increasingly felt to be threatening by people over 30, specifically when they gather outside pubs, outside shopping centres on Friday and Saturday nights when they go twocing vehicles [TWOC = taking without consent, i.e., car theft] on the edge of towns and so on. 43% of people who are over 18 say they are frightened to leave their own homes because of the amount of crime that’s designated in the media. Now, much of this is mental, because Britain is a slightly safer society than many others. And yet the creep of each year as violent crime becomes more ingrained and people become more tolerant to its effects or have adapted their own lives in the prospects of it. People move around and know when there are certain situations to avoid. Many of our town centres have been turned into drunken binge zones particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. This is because bar after bar has replaced business after business that’s either gone to the shopping centres on the periphery or moved further afield or been replaced by warehousing hypermarkets which have driven out small traders and ripped the civic centres out of many towns and the smaller parts of cities as you go in, because cities really are interconnected suburban towns leading towards the centre.
Now, many people as they walk around this society dimly discern that there are all sorts of things wrong with it and that they don’t like it, but although there’s a lot of moaning and there’s a lot of complaining particularly from indigenous English and British people, there still is a reluctance to take the political course of action that will lead to a reversal of the decline that has gone on since the 1960s and was based on ideas that preceded them and came to a crescendo in that particular decade.
In that decade, ideas which were regarded as radically alternative and even obscene became regarded as normal. 50 years on, we can see that many things that would have been regarded as anathema to our grandparents’ generation are now norms which are imposed by social policing, and if you disagree with them you’ll lose your job, particularly if you work in the state sector but also elsewhere. You will be harassed for opposing things now which would be regarded as normal to oppose prior to 1960.
I was born in 1962, and when I became conscious of the decline in this society it seemed to have slightly accelerated, with the odd period of arrest or deceleration, but it’s basically gone downhill in the texture of our life in each decade, ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, ’90s, and into the new millennium. Everywhere you look there are significant problems in this society. 14% of England is now non-white and the model of the society is the United States.
Since the 1960s in the United States, between 70 and 100 million persons of colour have entered the federal American republic. America is now about 200 million whites and 100 million not. White Americans will, on present demographic trends, be a clear and evident minority in 50 to 60 years. Political correctness, so called, has partly been introduced by many liberals as an insurance policy for when whites are in the minority. They are already in the minority in California; they are already in the minority in the city of New York; they are on the cusp of being in the minority in George Bush’s own state of Texas. They are the three linchpins and pillars of major political and electoral success in the United States. You’ve got to take Texas or New York or California. You’ve got to take two of those three to get into the White House, and if the Democrats take America back and push it even slightly further to the Left, there’s a degree to which they will have to take two out of those three states.
Now, what happens to the United States globally and internally tends to be followed on by Western Europe and residually post-Communist Eastern Europe as well. This is because America dominates the rest of the world without really knowing how to manage it, and its system is reflected elsewhere.
People as they wander around British towns and cities today wonder why the better part of a quarter to a third of the people in the streets are not European. People talk vaguely about conspiracies or “it didn’t happen to be like this when I was younger” and this sort of thing. These people are here because accepted governments, New Labour very radically in the decade since their landslide election in ’97, have opened the doors wider and wider and wider, because a system is being introduced whereby capital — money, raw money, moves around the world endlessly. Someone in the city of London or the Hong Kong Exchange or the German and New York markets can put his thumb on a screen and $10 million can move in 20 seconds to the Japanese exchange, and just as money moves, labor moves. Migration is partly the movement of labor, which corresponds to the movement of capital. We now have it that every Western society is making less and producing less. They have to make their money on the margins. It’s called market utility economics. This means you have to keep wages low; you have to have lots of service sectors; you have to fiddle around post-production; you have to have lots of immigrants coming in from all over the world – this is the theory – and you keep everybody spending — spending on services to keep things going. This is why all of our societies now are endlessly in credit and in debt and in debt upon the debt and then people trade on the debt and they trade on the debts that others have. They have markets on markets that trade on the prospects of debt in the future. Grey markets they’re called.
There’s a crisis that’s going on in world economics at the moment where at the margins markets are shuddering and losing hundreds of points a day and going down 4% or 8% or 10% in a day, in an hour, in New York, in Tokyo, in Hong Kong, in France, in Germany, in Canada,, here, and elsewhere. The Indian and Chinese exchanges are now being added into this global system. China and India will have an economy equal to the US now in 45 years. China will be the equal of the US militarily in 45 years. Chinese diplomats talk of the next century, in which we’ll all be dead, as the Year of the Yellow Man. China certainly dreams of a degree of world domination once they have the economic power so to do.
Other groups do not delude themselves that life is liberal-minded and kindness to others will beget reciprocity at some stage in the future. China is buying Africa now and is arming the insurgency in Iraq. In the next 2 to 3 years, my view is that the America will go down to a catastrophic defeat in Iraq. They are fighting to stave off defeat now. There’s no talk of victory. The greatest general in their generation, Petraeus, who is now in charge of their army inside Iraq . . . And America is partly fighting now for its future in the world. They’ve got too few troops in Iraq and they can’t contain it and if they lose it and it fails as a state and it splits into three a wave of energy will be released across the Middle East, which is already begun, and it will be the greatest boost to radical Islam. The defeat of the West! The defeat of the whites and the Jews, as they see it.
Their eradication in Iraq, the taking of large parts of Iraq and its oil by Iran. We retreated from Basra, and for the last year we have served no military function by being there, which is why we retreated. It’s not unpatriotic to say so. It’s a factual statement, and the soldiers on the ground know it. Spin can say contrary and propagandistic things on the front of The Sun about the truth about our boys and so on, but we were being attacked 600 times a day before we left Basra Palace. Those were the Shia militias and the Sadrists attacking us every day. 90% of the violence was directed against us, because they wanted us out so they could divide the spoils amongst themselves once we’re gone.
Now, we created Iraq, just as we created Nigeria, just as we created many of these other countries, and when America invaded they had no plan. They had planned to take down a Third World regime they didn’t like. They wanted revenge for 9/11. There were about ten interconnected reasons to why they took down Iraq, but they had no plan for what follows, and this is the trouble with American power. Enormous strength, they’ve got the greatest strength of any state of federation in the history of our species, but they don’t really know what to do with it.
After the Second European Civil War, as I call it, the Second World War, white people across Europe lost their nerve. They lost their nerve morally and collectively and the energy went to the Communists in the East, who have now gone in the European and Eurasian context, and the American global capitalists in the West, and we’ve been stuck in the middle. My view, and this is a dissentient one, is that we haven’t really had a proper government in one respect or another since before the First World War. We’ve moved with the times; we’ve shuffled and shifted; we’ve had one bourgeois group in after another, slightly centre-Left, centre-Right, in the middle; we’ve blundered and made do during the hungry ’30s; we staggered into the Second World War; we lost all our money and had to be bailed out by the Americans; we had a mildly state socialist regime after the Second World War.
The process which began in the mass culture began, mass multiculturalism began in 1948 with the Nationality Act. An act which said – and this is what Attlee said in the House of Commons during the vote on it – the races of the world needed to be mixed together. We have learned from a history of war and change. We have learned that peoples need to be mixed together so that they will become friends and hostility will end. That is why 50,000 passports were disseminated in the Caribbean basin and in post-Raj India, which we left when the flag was hauled down under Mountbatten in 1948. Then everyone started coming; then their extended families started coming; then when they had beachheads they brought in other people; then you added the refugee quotas to the UN treaties we’d signed up to in the mid-to-late 1940s in the backwash from the Second World War. Then you added various other post-imperial groups in Africa and other societies, such as the Ugandan Asians and the Kenyan Asians, who Heath said he wouldn’t let in but then he did for allegedly compassionate reasons during his Left-Tory administration between 1970 and 1974.
Gradually, more and more people have come. There’s at least 6 million resident “foreign Britons” in the country. The better part of maybe one million plus illegals beyond that, and then you have all the people who are passing through. 17 and a half million just pass through every year on visas and otherwise. Half of them white, half of them not.
The Tories managed this change to a certain degree. The Tories are at least in contact with the premises of masculine identity that they’re worried about things if they turn sour. The illegals nobody knows and it’s difficult to assess and the state refuses in part to have proper statistics, but they are difficult to acquire.
Up until ’97 under Major and Thatcher before, there were 100,000 coming in. Blair tripled it. It’s 300,000. That’s 300,000 a year over ten years. That’s 3 million who have come in under New Labour. New Labour partly sees many of these people as new voters for them. As a Labour councilman once said to me, “They’re the new proletariat. They’ll vote for us, because we give them the benefits, and we give them the cheap jobs, and therefore they’re our people.” Of course, life’s more complicated than that, because when Labour gets in they suddenly find themselves part of the global elite and they have to make decisions about Third World wars in the Third World: wars in Iraq, wars in Afghanistan, wars in Sierra Leone, which are very unpopular outside of the West. Turn off Western telly and listen to English version of Al-Jazeera. You’ll realise what the rest of the world thinks about these wars. So, on the one hand, they’re the immigrants’ friend, but on the other hand they’re bombing many of their co-racialists and co-religionists elsewhere in the world. That’s what real power is like. You have to make choices. They want American strength. They want the American nuclear umbrella. They want the money that flows in. They want the kudos of being the 51st state in the union on this side of the world. They want to be the bridge between the US and Europe and the structures of the European Union. Paradoxically, they want to go further into Europe, which means technically going further away from the United States, but you can configure it in a different way. But they don’t really like the struggles that go with the reality of American dominance. Dominance always gets people against you.
Before 9/11 at the turn of this millennium, there were certain people who had said history had ended. There was a Japanese-American social scientist and historian called Fukuyama who wrote a book called The End of History. It’s all over. The future is shopping and mass sport and TV for all and peace and harmony and plenty for all. He’s not an ecologist.
Then planes went into the towers in New York, and people looked around and realised that the world had changed, because when you have great power you raise great enmity in other groups. Islam has been asleep, in some respects, external to itself, external to the crescent between Morocco and Indonesia, for a thousand years. It’s woken up now in this millennia, and it doesn’t like many Western policies.
Blair is in the Middle East. Remember him, our ex-premier? He’s in the Middle East pleading for peace, that the Palestinians and Israelis will make peace, which would certainly make things a lot easier for the present elite that runs the West. But they’re not going to because there’s no real possibility of a solution to that particular conflict. One group will dominate the other. That’s how it always is with two groups on one bit of land. There’s not room for two states.
Persons of colour throughout the world support the Palestinian cause. All over the world. Even if they’re the weaker ones now.
When we have non-white MPs in our parliament they go two ways. They either adhere to the present elite and mouth their politically correct slogans. Or they adopt the view of the Third World, if you like. There was, by the end of his life, a blind MP from Tottenham Hale in North London. He had diabetes, which can make you blind when you approach about 80, 75 years of age. He once praised the murder of a white policeman in Tottenham in a mass black riot that occurred at an estate there. Before he died, he was asked in the Commons about his view on the First Gulf War. Never mind the second. He said, “It’s a war by the white racist West against persons of colour all over the world.” And he said that as an ex-Afro-Caribbean, not as a Muslim, not as someone who had any particular identification with the Third World, because they view the same events the other way around.
We have a new Prime Minister now called Brown, and he says he’s a “listening Premier,” and he’s going to listen to what we want and he’s having consultation exercises where he invites people to schools and asks even 9-year-old children what they think about the world and what they think about Britain and what they think about New Labour’s educational policy. He said he’s listening, listening, and listening. Well, he’s not listening to a degree to his own manifesto, because he was elected on a manifesto that said he would allow a referendum on the European constitution, which has now been reworked in an enabling treaty but has kept 95% of its codicils in effect. So, it’s the same document really apart from a few symbolic things on the edge. And we won’t have a referendum about that. Even some trade union leaders want one and maybe a hundred of his own MPs want one, but they’ll fight tooth and nail not to have one because they know it’s going to be rejected. That’s the reason they don’t want it. Those who want the referendum know it’s going to say no. That’s why they want it.
And suddenly all these liberals who are completely all over us for a vote on everything don’t want to have a vote and think the masses are really that stupid and inane and influenced by Murdoch and The Sun and “we can’t trust them with these votes.” That’s the point. That’s why they don’t want to have one.
When we had our referendum on European entry in the 1970s I was a grammar school boy then and I’d walk through the town that I was in and every bus shelter – there was about 50 of them – said, “Vote Yes!” Every shelter had a poster! Union Jack, European symbol of yesteryear. Remember the old one with the wimpy, limpid, yellow stars in a circle? A real European flag, of course, would have an eagle in the middle of that circle, but you won’t have it on this very anemic, light blue background. But it was every bus stop that said, “YES!” This is democracy now. “Vote Yes!” Don’t remember your own. “Vote Yes! Yes! Yes!” The CPI says, “Yes!” The BBC says, “Yes!” Prominent newsreaders say, “Yes!” The leaders of the Tories say, “Yes!” The liberal democrats say, “Yes! Yes!’” Labour leaders say, “Yes!” This is democracy! Everyone says yes. How dare you say no!? I saw one vote no poster. Probably put up by the Socialist Workers’ Party of that era. This is ‘74/’75. It was skewed on the bus shelter because it was an illegal fly poster. You get the glue, you stick it on the thing, and if you don’t put the brush at it right it sort of goes slightly to the side. It said, “Vote No!” Skinner says, “No!” Ben says, “No!” and very interesting for them, anathema, Enoch Powell says, “No!” And their headquarters was a P.O. box number somewhere in East London. You know, I think I’ve seen 57 “Vote Yes!” posters all paid for by big capital and big trade unions and one tiny little “Vote No!” poster. But a third still voted no. And that’s called “the angry third,” the third that can’t be relied on. The third that’s against everything, as Robert Kennedy once said in US politics.
The interesting thing is that on Europe the liberal project has failed. And why is that? Why can’t they even get these votes through continental countries where philosophically and societally they are actually more predisposed to the project than we are here? And they increasingly don’t trust them to have a vote. Every country is trying to get out of their own people having votes on these matters, because they want it decided by the liberal elite at the top.
The reason is a lot of Right-wing patriotic feeling has channeled itself. The issue of race and immigration, the issue of crime, the issue of falling social standards, and the absence of elitism, discipline, and hierarchy in Western societies is too difficult. It’s too difficult. That’s why people vote UKIP in the European election rather than the British National Party.
My own father said to me, “Come here. I’ve done something very radical.” Fearing the worst, I thought, “Struck out of the will again.” But he said, “I’ve voted UKIP!” I thought, “Well, for someone who’s voted Right-liberal and Tory all his life, UKIP is radical.” There will be people in the box whose hand will shake when they vote UKIP. This is what it’s like. UKIP is a far-Right party as parts of the liberal-Left media denounce it. It’s all channeled into that one issue which is, in part, a soft issue, because people feel as though they can do that because it keeps you away from the other thing.
But now the UKIP leader, and I’ve known people who’ve known him and met him, Farage, and he’s regarded as Powell-like even within UKIP, when he’s on the box or the radio the first thing he says is, “Of course, we’re not a racist party.” He doesn’t say what the party’s actually about. The first thing he says is to deny that it’s a politically incorrect organization, because he fears the onslaught that will come onto him.
Of course, there’s a degree to which what’s happened, the fact that the liberal consensus has slightly broken its tooth on the European issue, is very useful, because the desire to vote for integration, to have a formal and federal state in Western Europe partly is a response to the Communism of yesteryear, but now that that’s gone that’s no reason at all, and partly it’s to create a bloc. A big bloc for big capital that can then trade with the United States. The ultimate ideal of some of the federalists, who have actually hit a high water mark now and they’re going down, was the creation of the USE, the United States of Europe. That’s why each name changes as it goes on.
First, it was the Common Market. Trade, you know, nothing too important. Then it’s the European Community. Ah, change. More integration. Then it’s the European Union. Union! A bit deeper, a bit deeper, but not quite yet the United States of Europe. We don’t have a European president who we regard as a president and he’s on our stamps. We don’t have a European parliamentary leader who speaks for Europe on Iraq and everything else as a bloc. We don’t have a European Defense Minister. We don’t have yet a European army. Although all of these institutions exist in embryo. You know, like those pop-up books for children. You open it, and it springs up. These institutions are sort of embryonic. If they’re given life by further integrative treaties they will emerge. So, you have a United States of Europe as against the United States of America and maybe China as a bloc, a race that’s a nation that’s a state, if you like. 1.3 billion of them coming up economically. So, it’s a world of blocs. It’s odd actually, because liberals preach about breaking blocs down, that we’re all the same, that we’re all interchangeable yet the world that they’re building is actually slightly defensive and bloc-based as well, because everybody partly gets the opposite of what they want.
When Blair invaded Iraq he said, “We’re doing it for peace.” “For peace,” said Campbell. Do you remember Alastair Campbell whose political autobiography and diary is the book that’s the most left in hotel rooms in the last six months? So, you know, but Campbell was Blair’s Rottweiler and PR man, and when he went Blair began to dip down, because the gloss well and truly came off what was called the New Labour Project.
Campbell said some remarkable things in the run-up to Iraq. He said, “We haven’t lied about the war. The weapons of mass destruction exist. We’re invading for peace!” He said we’re actually going into war to impose human rights! This is very odd, isn’t it? In Iraq, it is alleged that 600,000 died. The Americans have lost 4,000. They’ve had 25,000 maimed. We’ve lost 200+ men. There’s 4 million displaced in Iraq, it’s widely believed, and 2 million have exiled themselves from the country. Several hundred thousand of them want to come here. Oh yes, and there’s many of them here! Many tens of thousands are here. Their view being, “You started this. You can give us asylum. We can’t open shops in our towns without somebody sort of manhandling our sister and sending us her hand in a Jiffy bag later with a ransom.” Because Iraq is convulsed with fear and violence now. But we invaded to give them democracy. We invaded to give them hope and a liberal future. This is the problem with these incredibly naïve and ferociously adolescent ideas and their imposition on the whole world and ourselves.
Now, there are many people who say, “What is this chap talking about the rest of the world? Why don’t we just focus on this country? Because this country is all that matters.” But the truth of the matter is that although this is our country and this is the one that matters we are now locked into systems that bring much of the rest of the world here in one form or another. It brings immigrants here; it brings foreign money here; it brings foreign ownership here; it brings foreign weaponry here; we go out into wars over there; and violence comes here by virtue of rebound.
A couple of weeks ago, about two months now, on the weekend after Brown became premier, a series of Arab doctors, pretty well-educated men, tried to blow themselves up in the centre of London outside a female night club. They had a nail incendiary bomb, and they also drove a truck, a 4-wheel drive vehicle into the frontispiece of Glasgow Airport. There was consternation in Scotland, because of the rise of the SNP there’s quite a bit of liberal nationalist and Celtic nationalist and sort of liberal tartan feeling in Scotland. But people said, “It’s nothing to do with us! We’re not tied into these English imperialist adventures!” There are Scottish regiments in Iraq! There are Scottish regiments in Afghanistan! They’ve often been the backbone of the British Army. They go wherever the English are fighting in the rest of the world. No Western nation that’s sucked into these things is immune. They hit Glasgow because from the outside Brown is a Scot, and they’re going to hit to make a symbolic point.
The one who got out of the vehicle who was on fire and attacked people who tried to stop him from attacking them or even try to put the fire out was smiling as he was on fire, because he’s going to heaven because he’s engaged in jihad. These were doctors. These are not men from the slums of Baghdad. They’re not from Sadr City where people can’t read or write. This is people from the elite in these groups who are prepared to engage in revolutionary war at a personal level, because they’ve probably seen an American attack helicopter take down houses in their villages, and people they’ve known have been napalmed. Of course, they don’t call it napalm anymore. They call it white phosphorus, and white phosphorus burns down to the bone. When this happens people want revenge, and they then associate themselves with networks that put them in touch with other people that facilitate the prospect of that revenge.
For the moment, it is exploding trucks and bombs and gases and things like that, but not forever. We’re now living in a world where people can hijack a plane and fly it into a nuclear power plant, which is certainly one of the things that they probably would like to do, and nuclear weapons are proliferating. By the end of this century, almost every Third World society will have nuclear weapons. It’s a conservative and old-fashioned technology. It’s 60 years old! The Germans, ourselves, the French, and the Americans begun the experiments that led to it in the 1930s. 34 countries, according to the United Nations, including Iran, about which we hear a great deal because it’s a threat to Israel, but 33 others are developing these weapons, and they will have them relatively soon.
The trouble with it, of course, is in a strange way it makes everything very dangerous at one level, but it also stabilises it as well. In actual fact, if Iran gets nuclear weapons — Israel has them already and Turkey will get them very quickly — they’ll all counter-balance each other and freeze because they’ve got these mass weapons of destruction. Pakistan and India hated each other and fought four wars since independence. About 8 years ago, on the borders they massed a million men on the green line who were waiting for the signal and their leaders couldn’t do it. There was a nationalist party in India then called the BJP and they couldn’t do it, because they had nuclear weapons. There was a policy paper written by the Indian government which said, “We’re prepared to lose 160 million in a nuclear exchange, because we can win.” But then other people thought, “But then again will it be worth winning on a continent that’s lost that much in order to ‘win.’” And then mutually assured destruction was adopted so they backed off.
So, nuclear weapons are odd, but the problem that we have now is that states may not use nuclear weapons, but if these weapons are decanted down into paramilitary groups and into terrorist groups and into groups which are partial states like Hezbollah and others, and if they have the delivery systems for these weapons then the world does face a devastating future, because these are groups that aren’t states and that will use these weapons for ideological reasons. That’s a problem, and in the future certain Third World countries will seek to get their own back by decanting mass weapons from rogue states and from Third World societies that feel alienated and estranged from contemporary versions of Western power, and they’ll give them to groups like Hamas and like Hezbollah and others, because the whole wave of this thinking and feeling is growing within parts of the Third World.
As all this is happening and convulsions are occurring, we’re asleep, and we’re pretending that life is like it’s always been, and we’re pretending that as long as we go on apologizing for our past and we apologise for slavery and we apologise for dominating a quarter of the world — this is in a British context now — and we go around as Mayor Livingstone does in London saying that the bombings on the 7th of July were an attack upon multicultural and multiracial London, that they were an attack upon the civic pride of white and black and yellow and brown Londoners all united as one fist. These were the sorts of things he said when he came back from the country, from his Singaporean jaunt where he was trying to get to the Olympics or wherever he was at that time. “They’ve attacked us,” he said.
The reason why he wants to get rid of many our classical statues from the centre of Trafalgar Square and elsewhere is because if we go the whole hog, we deny our own history before 1912, we repudiate empire, 300 years of it and all, we repudiate slavery, we repudiate crushing suttee and the worship of Kali in India, we repudiate everything we’ve ever done, we erase everyone, we apologise for everything, we say everything is equal, we say that we love all, and love is the principle of life that we will not face any ire or any blowback from other groups inside or outside the West. Well, the world isn’t like that! The world isn’t like that!
America’s senators now say, “We didn’t see the insurgency coming.” What did they expect when they invaded a country where every male owns a Kalashnikov? What did they expect when they broke down the Iraqi army, but allowed them to keep their grenades and their bazookas and their Kalashnikovs? What did they expect from the Ba’athists? Saddam’s last laugh even when he was hanged. In the last days, his regime opened the door to al-Qaeda and to other groups. And al-Qaeda’s only 10% of the insurgency in Iraq. Most of the insurgents are killing Westerners because they want them out of their country. They’re nationalists, that’s why. And many Western jurists and liberals, and conservatives, say . . .
Petraeus is going to report this week on Capitol Hill about the surge. He says that to win that war America has to stay there for 20 years, 9 to 16 years, and he knows because Petraeus is a very intelligent man. Probably the most intelligent general his generation produced from West Point. He knows they don’t have the stomach for 24 months. By saying they’re going to have to spend 20 more years there, he knows that that’s the signal to pull out, because the whole political class has lost the courage. They don’t have the fight in them for it. Many of the Americans who were maimed in combat are paraplegics and there’s nothing left, because many of their enemies use perforated bullets. One of those goes through you and your spine goes out the other end and then you go back to Kansas and live in a chair for the rest of your life. There’s not much left. And they haven’t got the stamina for 20 years of that. No way.
They’ll be out. We’re out by the end of the year, and we’ll have a residual special force there around the airport in Basra attacked 24 hours a day, not doing very much as a symbolic statement that we’re standing by the Americans, but really we’ve gotten out. We will then switch plenty of our men to Afghanistan. Many of our men are woefully under-equipped and they’re badly paid in relation to what they could be doing, but the fighting devolves to them.
The war in Afghanistan was probably lost as well, actually, because the truth is these liberal imperialist wars don’t work. You either have naked imperialism, which is pretty hard and pretty vicious, although we run it in our way pretty well for centuries, or you don’t invade these countries at all and you keep well clear and you sort your own society out before you go around the world blundering into other places. Particularly in the case of the United States where there’s a generalised affection for everyone but a knowledge of nobody in their specifics.
This is a very odd thing about liberalism. They say that we’re the bigots, that we’re the ones against everyone, but they don’t really care for these groups. They impress them with a shallow, universal love, but there is no knowledge of these other groups in their specificity.
Iraq is three nations in one. It’s a totalitarian religious society. “Oh, well, they’re just like us!” They are distinctively different! They’re fighting for the right to their own difference now! If you understood the nature of identity you would understand what motivates these people. But in the end we’re concerned with our identity and our future and our nationality and our culture. This is what concerns us.
We’re at a dangerous stage in our development as a nation and as white people. Depending on how you look at it, we’re now 8% to 12% to 14% of humanity, of mankind. We used to be over a third at one time, but we’ve contracted. No politician in the West evinces direct Western pride except for fringe politicians like Le Pen in France. Nobody in the mainstream says they’re proud to be British, French, white American, and so on if there is any ethnic or racial tag that relates to Caucasians. Nobody says they are proud of the West’s history in a way that takes direct responsibility for the elements of ferocity and destruction. It’s been part of our group and it’s been part of every other.
If we don’t have a political leadership that will defend the indigenous majority throughout the West in England, in Britain, and further afield, we will become prey to other groups as more come here, as we’re dragged on the coattails of American decline towards more conflicts, because more are stoking up. Although America may face humiliation in Iraq, people would like an attack on Iran, which some believe is 3 years away from nuclear weapons now. Iran is far more powerful, 10 times more sophisticated, adaptive, and advanced than Iraq, even though they killed each other in a stalemate war, the Iraq-Iran War of yesteryear, where we supported Saddam because he was our man in the Gulf. This is how it works, you see. You’re a demon one minute, and you’re a liberator the next. You’re our friend one moment, you’re out on your rear the next. This is the reality of power.
He was a tyrant, but he was a tyrant we could live with, and, in fact, if we had had any sense about Iraq the West, under American guise, would have invaded, taken over his regime, put in a military dictatorship, and left. Instead, we’ve stayed there. We’ve become bogged down there. We had a totally falsely idealistic premise on which the war was fought that you fight a war to liberate a people and introduce mass democracy. Even that’s based on lies!
One of the things that’s happened to the West is that so many people know nothing about their own history. Their entire imperial past to most people is just a blank. They walk around our cities, they look at these buildings, they look at these statues. It actually means nothing to them. It’s just a sort of theme park, basically.
Blair said at the height of the early part of the Iraq War that they’d never had an election there, that we’re bringing them elections. That’s a lie! We arranged an election in Iraq in 1924, and the Shia boycotted it, and the Sunnis took the state until Saddam was overthrown, because he was a Sunni leader not an Iraqi one. There’s a degree to which lying becomes possible when the people know nothing about anything and when the people are totally miseducated, when it’s as if “English culture” is what the Beckhams do. Then you can make anything up. You can make the world up as you go along, because there’s no past to anchor it to and to base itself upon. A people that has no past or recollection of it has no future, because its present is a confusion. That’s a fact and that’s the state that many of us are in.
Many people would say, “The bloke’s going on a bit, isn’t he? But I do agree with him actually.” But they will vote conservative, they will vote liberal democrat, probably as a meaningless protest against the other two blocs depending on where they are in the country, and they will vote New Labour. People say they hate Labour and they’ll still vote for it! You’ll knock on doors in Newcastle and Liverpool and people will say, “I’m Labour. I’m Labour till I die.” “Well, do you like mass immigration?” “Labour!” You say, “Crime, isn’t it going up?” “No, no. Labour’s got my vote, mate.” Labour! And, of course, although the language will be different and the articulation will be posher in the blue suburbs down here, it’s the same the other way around.
It’s so funny, because I canvased once for this party in Havering, and Havering consists of an enormous number of white working class people who’ve moved out to Essex. Why? To get out of the East End. Why do they want to get out of the East End? Because if you stand in Mile End Station, whites are 10%. 10%, that’s why they’ve gone into Essex. And many of these people have made good, of course. They’re partly Thatcher’s children. You go down their drives and there’s three jags. You knock on their door and they say, “Alright, mate!” And you say, “I’m with the British National Party.” And they say, “Eh, you don’t look like one of those.” But many of them will vote for you. 20%, something like that. So, there’s an element there. But Labour people just look at you. You know, you can hear the leaflet ripping behind the door as it closes.
The Tories are interesting, because you’ll knock on the door and a Tory will look at you and she’ll go, “British National Party? Oh no. No. No.” A bit of snobbery there. That’s what it is and the door closes. Click! The click. The finality of rejection. I knocked on one door, and an old girl answered it. She said, “British National Party? Aah! Aah! Aah! Oh no! You’re Nazis! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!” And I said, “Can I put you down as a possible?” And she veered across the road to talk to her dear old mate about this dreadful bloke who was on her doorstep. I was nice. You know, I had a tie on. I had taken my pagan symbol off, you know. I was being very polite.
But various roads that I canvased — it’s interesting, this — exactly correlated to the vote. A couple of screamers, very small Labour support, big Tory and residents support, which is Tory in another guise, a few fringe people for UKIP, and 20% for the British National Party. Lo and behold, that was the breakdown in that particular ward. In actual fact, if you do canvas you know virtually, unless its a very mixed ward, sociologically you know what you’re going to get.
Now, when the British National Party stands across Britain with any sort of a campaign and anything beyond just one leaflet who bummed out a week before with a face that could be anybody’s they get 15%. Bear in mind that England is now 15% non-white. That means a much bigger proportion of the indigenous population has voted. It’s basically one in five, and that’s why there’s very little mention of this political party in the mass media.
In the past, extremists sold newspapers and magazines. And silly, frothy Channel 4 horror videos were made, basically. Don’t have them now, because they realise there is a vote there, and it’s dangerous, because if the party emerged suddenly, if there was a catalytic, if there was a shock, and people came through, got in parliament, got into the lower assembly, got into the European parliament . . . It’s not another liberal party, you see. The UKIP and the Greens and the others don’t really matter.
Everything will react to the success of the radical Right coming in. Everything will react. The centre Right will have a choice. They’ll either join the rest of the centre, the liberals per se, or they’ll actually try tapping it rightwards to soak up some of that energy. The Left will be ferocious: “We fought the Second World War to stop these people! They’re coming back! They shall not pass!” The screaming will begin.
But of course we are now in societies where large proportions of cities are partly ethnically in the Second, Third, and Fourth World. White people are already a minority in Leicester. Within 5 years, we’ll be a minority in Birmingham. In large parts of London, parts of inner London, Bethnal Green, Tower Hamlets, Limehouse, Chapel, Bow “Cockney if you can hear the” Bells 20% non-white now and so on.
My mother was born in Manchester. She was born some place called Moston. Moston’s 80% Asian now.
So, these areas in central Birmingham. Whites call these areas the “occupied territories.” That’s what Brummies call them. Because they’ve moved out. Handsworth is 99% non-white. All the whites have left. They’ve up and completely gone into other areas like Erdington and so on. They’ve gone! The irony is that in a sense we’re a memory these areas, because all of these groups now partly just about get along, but they organise against each other. Sikhs will have their own district. They have their own shops. They have their own light posts, which they actually paint in their own ideological colours because they want their own country called Khalistan inside India, and they paint it in those colours. Blacks will have their own districts. Afro-Caribbeans often get into the next. Africans don’t really like them. Africans will put up different colours on lamp posts. They celebrate their own New Year. Each group celebrates its own festivities with a little subsidizing from Birmingham City Council and so on, because in a way they’re doing what all human groups do.
They seek territory. Birds of a feather flock together. They maximise their own strength. They put forward their own culture. Belonging, identity, power. All groups seek power, which is the energy of where you are and where you can live. Liberal theories that all can come and all can have plenty and all are pleasant and all can join in are false, because it’s not the nature of ourselves or them. It’s not the nature of our species to be like that.
If everything’s rosy, people can just about nod along, but as soon as there’s a dip and there’s difficulties the tension and the energy comes out. All groups have vanguards that are more aggressive, more leadership oriented than the bulk of people who are just passive and want an ordinary life.
My father says to me, “Why are you speaking at these meetings for? Why can’t you be normal? Why can’t you be like the others? Why can’t you just leave it all alone, leave it to somebody else? We don’t want any trouble.” And, of course, life isn’t like that.
The idea that we don’t want any trouble, and we don’t want any difficulty will mean that within a hundred years we will technically and absolutely be reduced to a minority north, south, east, and west. In England in Scotland and Wales and Ireland, north and south. In the whole of the British Isles. It’s coming. And when you are a minority you play all the games. It’s all political correctness is. It’s a game. Anyone has said anything you use it against them, assert yourself as a victim, and we’ve got a right to say it, and we play all these games, which is what it is. Wrestling and arm wrestling. “No, you said this remark. I’m hauling you up before this committee.” You do all this sort of nonsense. We’ll be playing these games. We’ll be reduced to this in our own country, in our own land, in our own society. You can knock on a door and some people say, “I don’t care. It’s got nothing to do with me.” And that’s because, you see, people are leaderless. People need leadership, and the problem is our leadership, the political class, Labour, liberal, Tory, and others, that people actually look to, they’ve have gone elsewhere. They don’t care about this country anymore.
I’ve spoken to many Tory leaders. I knew William Hague when we were both 18. And Hague like him once said to me . . . people on Cameron’s team said to me years ago, “The old Britain is over. We can rule what’s left.” Members of the Shadow Cabinet have said that to me. They see themselves as ruling the ruins. The culture of ruins, the ruins of culture. One of the shadow ministers once said to me, “We’ve gone global. The world’s our country now, because they all speak English. What will happen is that the poor whites we don’t care about. We’re the elite. We will run the country in our own image, and who’s in the streets doesn’t matter, because we have the power.”
This is the voice of the real elite. This isn’t the soft words you get on the telly and everyone gets on EastEnders or the sort of Asian marriages and transsexuals on Coronation Street. This is the real elite talking, and we have a choice, because every time you vote Tory, New Labour, and liberal with different wordage and discussion about the 20% they agree to disagree on, that’s what you’re going to get and you’re going to get more of it not less. If you vote for them you’ll get more immigration. If you vote for them you’ll get more laws to prevent people from saying they have an issue about it. If you vote for them you’ll get more foreign adventures. If you vote for them you’ll get less indigenous jobs and more people leaving the country. 1.6 million whites have left this country and never come back, they stay, since 1997. Probably about 3 million since 1990. They live in Australia. Argentina even, the US, Canada. Some of my own family are living in America and Canada.
I said to one of them, “Why have you gone?” He said, “Don’t you know.” I said, “Well, I do know, but . . .” He said, “I can’t say.” I said, “I’m your brother-in-law, for God’s sake, can’t you come out with it?” He’s so gutless he won’t come out with it. “It’s a transatlantic phone line. Who do you think is listening?” But he said, “No, it’s the country’s changed out of all recognition. All that matters is my family. I’m off.” And it’s an honest answer in a way because there are millions who are thinking like this, but the trouble is that they will find that the processes that are unleashed here may be a bit more dormant in Vancouver where this particular individual lives, but they are coming.
One lives in Texas. The city he lives in has an enormous black ghetto in the centre that no one ever goes near even to drive through, and they’re a minority when you add in Hispanics, white Americans, in that part of that state. Bush, for instance, is regarded as an absolute hardline man. Leftists in Britain will say that he’s a Christian fundamentalist; he’s a reactionary; he’s a moron; he’s this and that. He wanted to pass a law that naturalised 18 million illegal immigrants inside the United States and he told the Senate and Congress, “We do it out of love. We do it out of Christian compassion.” The idea that Bush is a hardliner on these salutary issues. Maybe under the influence of the Christian Right he can reject stem cell research, but when it comes to something like mass illegal immigration, which is completely changing the character of the United States, which the whites took ruthlessly from the Red Indians who were there don’t forget. Life always involves conquest, and if you forget that principle you become a marginal group pleading for pity later on.
We’ve got a parliament in the centre of London with the two houses: the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We’ve just erected a statue to Nelson Mandela in Parliament Square. It was initially going to go in Trafalgar Square, but that space is presently occupied by a neo-classical work of a pregnant thalidomide victim. So, it couldn’t go there, so it’s gone to Parliament Square instead. Initially, they wanted £400,000 by a private subscription, I think it’s (??? 1:01:19). They got about a half of it, which is why it’s slightly shorter, because the money was left to fulfill the sculpture obligation. So, in Trafalgar Square we’ve got a thalidomide victim in the central thoroughfare in the centre of the post-imperial city celebrating the greatest naval battle that we’ve ever had, and we’ve got essentially a philo-Communist but now liberal ex-terrorist in our Parliament Square.
What does that say about our elite? Which country other than ours would have these sorts of people? Most Second, Third, Fourth World countries they’d have some ferocious military commander, or they’d have an ex-leader, or potentate or they’d have a religious leader, or they’d have somebody from their own group that manifested strength and power. In Argentina, in Brazil, in Iran, in Kazakhstan, in Nigeria, they wouldn’t have sculptures which are jeering and laughing, essentially, at the premises of the culture of the indigenous population on display and paid for in part by our money. It’s a part of the liberal elite laughing at their own population. And if people say, “Oh, I don’t quite agree with that,” and so on if you’re a reactionary, you’re one of those fascists that negates progressive futures!
It’s only when people are prepared to do political acts and vote in a way that’s contrary to those ideas that that sort of stuff will be swept away or put in fringe exhibits at fringe galleries and so on, because that manifests what exists now.
Livingstone was asked last year why the Greater London Authority didn’t celebrate St. George’s Day, and he said, “Because it’s racist.” He said, “It’s a fascist ceremony.” Livingstone is real. He really is a Left-winger. And he said, “It’s a fascist ceremony of indigenous white racialism, and we celebrate a multicultural London.” He said, “Any of this indigenous stuff brings the BNP and the Right in this country.” And he’s totally right and he’s totally ideological on one level, because he’s a hard Leftist not one of these soft-spoken Leftists. He began in an anarchist group called Solidarity on the extreme Left. He’s come in a bit into the Left-wing of the Labour Party. He’s always been a populist Leftist and individualist go-his-own-track politician, but he’s real about these sorts of issues. Far more truthful in his own way than Brown or Blair. He gives it to you straight and in reverse.
He was asked about political correctness in the ’80s when the GLC existed, a big London forum if you like that Thatcher later abolished. He said, “Political correctness? Forget all this garbage in the media that it’s about “Ba Ba Black Sheep” and banning gingerbread men and silliness. Political correctness is about imposing hardline ideas to enforce racial and gender equality. It’s hard Left ideas, which we’re imposing on people who don’t want to join progressive modernity.” This is the real Left talking, not shallow stuff around the edges. Political correctness is about manipulating power so people can’t say they’re against what’s happening now. That’s why it was introduced. Everything else is just fluff, and that’s why people have to realise that if they’re going to stand up against this it’s not risk-free, and it’s difficult. That’s why people are averse to doing it.
But everything changes, and there will probably come a time when a significant subsection of our own population has a choice whether they go abroad or they decide to do something in a very English and British way about what is occurring. The only political vehicle that exists at the moment is the British National Party and Right-wing politics. The future is uncertain. Causes can suddenly emerge in the scope of 2 years. Turkey is now controlled by a party that was only formed about 7 years ago. Things can change extraordinarily quickly, particularly when people get worried, and the reason that political correctness is imposed now from every braying radio station, on every TV channel.
A politician could be hunted to extinction for the slightest remark that’s incorrect. They’re forced to make Soviet-style mea culpas. Tories weep and say, “Oh, I’m sorry! I made a racist remark at a rugby club dinner. I’m sorry!” You know, these atonements are forced on people, but that very fact indicates that they’re worried in the system. There’s a shudder in the system, because when you impose things like that, totally contrary to our traditions, a sort of tolerant freedom and respect for opinions within our own group, when you impose it like that it means that there’s a danger. That a significant section of the population is thinking the contrary, which is why you have to push them in public to say the opposite.
In closing, I’d like to ask people to do what they can to give money to Right-wing organizations such as this, to leaflet and canvas for it, to persuade people to join it, to come to its meetings, and to support their country and their civilization and their ethnicity and their race and the culture which it created — for England, for Britain, for the Western and European civilization and what we have given the world and what we still can if we revive.
Thank you very much!
Q & A
Audience member #1: Jonathan, do you think there will be a type of crash going against the grain in this country like there was in the Eastern bloc in 1990, or do you think it will go out with a bang?
JB: Yes, I think changes are either grinding and slow or quick and rapid. I think if there’s going to be a change it will be very quick. If there’s not going to be a change it will be a grinding and slow winter. So, I think if change is possible and it occurs it will be rapid. You won’t get a slow sort of endless sea of change. You’ll get a slow endless sea of decline. Change means radicalism, which could be something worse than we’ve got, but opens up the other side, the prospect of something better, and the energy of reversal is coming from the people who are against what exists now.
Audience member #2: A couple years ago I went to a dinner of the Traditional British Society of Right-wing conservatives. It was the day your leader was acquitted. All they talked about was the BNP. Hope you know Simon Hepburn was the editor. He said that day that donations had trebled, and there were three protest meetings in America demanding free speech for England, and the establishment were very worried. Furthermore, some of the things that you said, this racialism, the word, is to you abracadabra. I wrote a booklet on it. They looked for a magic word and called it what they wanted, and they found this, but nobody knows what the bloody hell it means.
JB: It means what you want it to mean.
Audience member #2: It means what you want. When I was in Africa, we were told ad nauseam “Africa is for the Africans. If there’s any jobs, it’s got to go to them, and I had to go, and hundreds of my friends. When I came to England I’m told, “Oh, you’re racial!” But I thought England was for the English! Their blasted saint Nyerere was the first man to ethnically cleanse all the German settlers who built the country, and he said, “Africa is for blacks! Hard luck! You’ve got to go!”
JB: Indian subcontinent.
Audience member #2: When the Race Relations Act came in ’65 it wasn’t done to stop hatred. It was done to stop discussion, so the British people would not be allowed to discuss what was happening. And you talked to anyone in the street, they all worried what they could say. They ganged up with it and the next step was . . .
JB: Yes, and your question is?
Audience member #2: My question is do you think we’ll have a violent revolution?
JB: Well, we had a lot of it in Ireland, of course. Marx in the 19th century said, “England’s and Britain’s suppressed violence comes out in Ireland.” It was a political remark that had a streak of truth to it. The idea that nothing of that sort could ever happen here is untrue. The fact is that few people want that, because that’s just the nature of human life. Violence in England is complicated and in Britain generally. The idea of many foreign Europeans when they come here that this is a very pacific island, that nothing ever goes on here is quite false. You walk through many a city on Saturday night and there will be 40 year old men rolling in the gutter fighting with each other. There’s always been a strong subtext of social quarrel and internal violence in English life, and yet it completely avoids the political area and locates itself around football, family tribalism, north/south disputes, drunken forays and so on. It hasn’t really taken a really violent political form since 18th-century electioneering and our Civil War in the 1600s, but the trouble is there was very serious racial rioting in Oldham and in certain northern towns in the early part of the millennium, because when things start areas segregate as occurred in loyalist and republican areas where people of completely the same race, of course, but far more divided by religion and communitarian belonging in Ulster.
Yeah, there’s always that possibility. Democratic politicians can’t want that to happen and wish to sustain a situation where that doesn’t occur partly by giving political representation to identity. Indeed, if you actually allow politicians to emerge that represent identity you often stop conflicts because you give people another option and another choice in which they can express who and what they are.
Another question please?
Audience member #3: Do you run any columns in the national newspapers?
JB: No, I wouldn’t be allowed to. Although I did write things in the past when I was in the Tories many, many years ago. I made a choice a long time ago, because the generation of Michael Gove… Cameron’s younger than me, but the generation of the people around him just about were in the Tory Party, were in the Federation of Conservative Students, were in the National Association of Conservative Graduates when I was in it, and they’ve made peace with what exists now.
William Hague said to me, “Jonathan, why are you becoming a fascist?” You have to understand that’s the term they use. And I said, “Well, I don’t want this party to become what it’s quite clearly beginning to become.” This is the early ’80s. And he said, “There’s no alternative. You either stick with us or you go outside.” Cameron’s actually been saying that for 5 years long directly. A Mancunian councilor from a white part of South Manchester said she didn’t want an Asian Tory MP to be selected as part of the A-list that Cameron’s introduced and Cameron said, “Get out. There’s a party you can join, love!” You know which party he’s talking about. He’s making it quite clear. In the past, the Tories would tolerate some Right-wing populism, some Powellites, some anti-Federalites who shifted a bit further. No longer! If you come out with this stuff you’ll be purged.
When I was 18 there were a brace of MPs who could have been in Le Pen’s party inside the Tory Party. Bell, Amery, all of these people. Everyone knew they were there. They’re dead now. That’s gone. The coherent Right within the Tory Party no longer exists. The choice is accept what’s happened or go outside, and if Cameron and the others were here and had to be honest they would say, “If you want to oppose what’s happened it will involve conflict within our society, and we don’t want that.”
I’ve attended dinner with people like them 15 to 17 years ago, and they said, “Powell was a genius. He was the last to speak, but it’s happened now. It may have been a disaster.” They could be in serious trouble for even saying this now. “But nothing can be done.” An editor of a national newspaper sat at the table where I was with others and said, “Nothing can be done.” This is what they say amongst themselves. “These far Right parties are for the plebs. They’re for those who can’t accept what’s happened. If you can’t take it, go abroad.” This is what they think, because they’re too cowardly to do anything else, and they’re too integrated into what exists now to want to do anything else. But in their hearts they wish it hadn’t happened.
One of Cameron’s aids said to me 14 years ago, “It’s un-British to oppose what’s happened, because it involves intolerance.” And I said, “Well, what about tolerance for our identity?” And he said, “We can’t go there. We’ve got to go with what’s happened, and we’ve got to plead for forgiveness from these other groups.” Plead for forgiveness from these other groups, because they might come for us later. This is what they say amongst themselves!
You see, there are two discourses in this society: what people say in the public space and what people say behind. It would be very, very interesting if people could actually know what the people they see on the box all the time actually say behind. In actual fact, they’d be quite amazed actually in a sort of dispiriting way, but they’d have to realise that that entire establishment has given up.
“Powell was the last to speak.” That’s why when he died they all attended his funeral. Every one attended his funeral. “What a great man he was!” But the reason they were attending the funeral wasn’t because he wrote lyrics in Ancient Greek, wasn’t because he became a Unionist MP, wasn’t because he was opposed to the EU. It was because he spoke about race and immigration in ’68, which catapulted him from a fringe Right-wing liberal economist in the Tory Party to a person of universal importance. That’s why he spoke. When Paul Foot, the Trotskyist journalist, said, “This man is the most dangerous man in Britain,” it was because he’d become so.
Skinheads on the Chelsea shed used to shout, “Enoch! Enoch! Enoch!” A man who had nothing in common with them at all, but what they were chanting his name for is because he’d spoken for them, and he was the last to speak for them.
I attended a meeting with Powell the year before he died and somebody said, “But you want violence. You talked about rivers of blood.” And, you know, he never lost his Birmingham accent. He said, “My dear, ‘rivers of blood’ is from Virgil. I was just looking into the future. If you allow the world to come to your own country what do you think will happen?” He said, “Look at the reverse. If we were Vietnamese, and 17 million whites came to us what do you think would happen?” And the chap just sort of threw up his hands and said, “We can’t do anything.”
So, that’s what it’s like. I think we will have the courage to form a new elite from out of the indigenous population, from rather tough-minded people from the three major parties. Or we won’t. That’s that.
Any more questions?
Audience member #4: Jonathan, you mentioned class, but wouldn’t you accept the thesis that the politics of social class is in fact dead, and what is taking place is the politics of identity as expressed by our own party?
JB: Yes, that’s what’s happened though of course you will get overlap of the old class politics. It’s a paradoxical situation. BNP voters, broadly, are working class people. The Left has always said they’ve represented the working class, and the white working class is now the most Right-wing part of the society. That’s sort of the paradox. But a lot of white working class people loathe the Tories but like Right-wing ideas, because they’re very, very, socially conservative. That’s why the far Right appeals to them.
If I was at a Tory Party meeting probably a lot of working class people would look at me, look at the bowtie and all this. You know, they wouldn’t like it. But if I was at a far Right meeting they’d think, “That’s all right. That bloke’s speaking for us.” That’s what they think, explicitly.
The middle class, of course, is a problem for the radical Right. Leaders will emerge from it. Articulate, intelligent people. But the bulk of them will hang back, frightened of tribalism, frightened of raw expressions of national identity, but of course there’s deep wells of Right-wing and patriotic feeling dammed up, deep radicalism there well beyond just blue types of radicalism.
The problem about these things is they are never clear cut. You see, it’s true we’ve really shifted to a type of radical politics, but no one dares say so.