Typos p. 5: autorities [= authorities]; p. 5: coutry [= country]; p. 5: owners' control." (In Essex [= owners' control" (in Essex]; p. 5: accidents) [= accidents),]
The black invasion of Britain
Anthony M. Ludovici
The South African Observer 1.3, 1955, pp. 56
- p. 5 -
For from the standpoint of the food-supply, alone, this incessant and considerable influx of extra mouths to feed, greatly aggravates the already disquieting situation.
When, however, to the problem of available sustenance in an island already grossly over-populated, we add the serious problems of employment and race-mixture, the grounds for prompt and energetic Government intervention appear so compelling and urgent, that, in order to understand the supine inactivity, let alone the quiescence, of the authorities, we have to recall and briefly summarize all that has happened in England since 1939.
This is the more necessary seeing that during almost the whole of the period covering this black immigration, an alleged "Conservative" Party has been in charge of the nation's destinies.
Without pausing to draw up a list of what this Party imagines it has conserved in England since it took over the reins of Government from Labour, we are entitled at least to ask what it has done to conserve the identity of the nation as composed of people of supposed English descent and blood. And when we have to acknowledge that it has done nothing in this matter, and does not dare to do anything, we very naturally wonder, Why?
As indicated in my last article, it is impossible to understand the antics of English Conservative politicians and statesmen if we fail to bear in mind that for generations now they have been servile imitators of the Left, without any original and essentially Conservative principles and policies. But when, added to this intellectual penury and Socialist bias, the Conservative Party, ever since 1939, stupidly felt itself constrained to embrace all the anti-Hitler propaganda of the War days as if it had been the soundest political philosophy, the result was naturally what we are witnessing today a complete surrender of all the wisest and most vulnerable Conservative principles.
In order to persuade the populace that the Nazi ideology was utterly perverse, it became customary, if not compulsory, after 1933, and certainly after September, 1939, loudly and emphatically to contradict and denigrate everything the leaders of the Third Reich improvised and affirmed. If, therefore, they argued and acted on the principle that discipline was essential to a sane and healthy national life, and, at the risk of exasperating their well-to-do classes, compelled all young Germans, irrespective of social rank, between the ages of 17 and 21, to undergo strict and strenuous training as common labourers for at least six months in one of their 13,000 Labour Camps before undergoing the further discipline of their military service, no one of influence in England hesitated for a moment to condemn such practices as palpably revolting.
Thus, despite the fact that every newspaper reader in the land could not help knowing that English children and adolescents were steadily getting more and more out of hand (vide the soaring incidence of juvenile delinquency ever since the early thirties), and that even the odd 3,000,000 dogs in the coutry were for the most part "beyond their owners' control." (In Essex, alone, in the last 12 months, dogs have been responsible for 1,445 road accidents) the authorities and their Press stooges felt it incumbent upon them to pooh pooh discipline and actually to revile it as "goose-stepping" the nation.
If the Nazis, in order to resist the steady deterioration of the sound stocks in Germany by their intermarriage with disease-tainted families, passed laws like that of July 14th, 1933 "To Prevent The Transmission of Hereditary Diseases," it followed that in England such measures must be frowned upon and contemptuously dismissed as "Farmyard Regulations."
The same remarks apply to the Nazi law of October 18th, 1935, "To Protect the Hereditary Health of the German People," by empowering local Authorities to refuse marriage certificates to all applicants who failed to reach certain standards of health.
Finally, with a view to conserving the identity of the German people, the intermarriage of men and women of German stock with people of Oriental, African and Negroid blood, was not only firmly discouraged, but the parties to such matings also incurred various social drawbacks and forfeited many privileges.
Unfortunately for England, this aspect of Nazi legislation had to be just as vehemently discredited and condemned as the rest, especially as a large and most influential section of the population in these islands, regarded it with particular horror.
The consequence was that, like the politicians of other parties, the Conservatives, in accordance with their now routine practice of shouting "Nay!" to every Nazi "Yea!", had to subscribe to any number of slogans and their cognate practices, which, with the traditions of their World-Empire behind them, were as novel and strange as the atom-bomb itself. Joining the chorus of the Press-inspired crowds, they were forced to intone the slogan, "No Race Discrimination" in all octaves.
Even subservient scientists volunteered to lend their authority to this sudden swing in the direction of indiscriminately mixing different human stocks, types and races, by advancing all kinds of highly dubious arguments
"No Colour Bar!" and this in a nation which for over a century had held itself so much aloof from the natives of India, that even after generations of our occupation of that great peninsula, Eurasians were still a rare exception, and more often than not the offspring of the lower, rather than of the "upper" class Englishman.
When, therefore, most inconvenient consequences of this last and, from the standpoint of conserving the nation's identity, most dangerous slogan, began to follow its vociferous acclaim, and black and coloured men and women poured into England from her colonial possessions in the Caribbean, the Conservatives were naturally not a little perplexed.
If not actually delighted, they had to appeal to be so; if not genuinely stirred by brotherly love, they were obliged, with the ready help of Church of England prelates, to pay lip-service to "Fraternity"; and, if secretly dismayed, they durst not for their life reverse the anti-Nazi slogans they had been shouting only yesterday.
Alas! it is a commonplace that war is a breeder of lies. Nobody any longer doubts that, from the moment the drawbridges between the nations are raised, no matter who else is defeated, prevarication always wins. But, as a rule, when once hostilities cease, most of the lies which have served their turn are in time wholly forgotten. Very rarely do they prove double-edged swords that mutilate the hands that have wielded them.
In the case of the determined opposition to the Nazi racial laws, however, this has not proved so. England, even Conservative England, has now calmly to acquiesce in a profoundly disturbing new feature of her immigration policies, or else to eat her words.
Will she find a way out of this dilemma? If she does, and if the Conservatives above all contrive to wriggle out of the present awkward situation, they will display more resource and sagacity than their past records entitle us to expect of them.