Britannia Radio

special_projects_06

© Tony Shell September 2011

Page 1 of 6

Progressive Politics:

Being Rid of The English

Tony Shell

In June 2005 a session of The Commission On The Future Of Multi-Ethnic Britain was held at

Roehampton University, London. The Commission had been created by the Runnymede Trust the exact same year New Labour gained power (1997).

1 The 2005 meeting was chaired by Lord Bhiku Parekh

2 and assisted by Commission panel members: Krishan Kumar

3; Yasmin Alibhai-Brown; and Geoff Mulgan

(former head of the Government’s PIU office and former director of the Strategy Unit, at Number 10 Downing Street)

4. The meeting formed a key part of the Roehampton conference on ‘The Future of

Multicultural Britain – Meeting Across Boundaries’.

5 During the conference Professor Tariq Modood

6 defined multiculturalism as: “the process of political struggles and negotiations”; and of “the challenging, the dismantling, the remaking of public identities”.

7 The message, repeated throughout conference proceedings, was that despite some temporary difficulties Paul Gilroy’s “cosmopolitan conviviality” was being created throughout the major cities of England.

8 9 10

The true purpose for promoting multiculturalism – of making genocidal population change seem desirable – is never admitted.

It is the indigenous people (the English) who are the victims of that process, whilst at the same time immigrant people are cynically manipulated by an authoritarian elite. It is the engineering of substantial demographic change, over the last sixty years, that has been used by the ‘progressives’ to justify the effective destruction (or expropriation) by the political aristocracy of those social institutions created by the ordinary, native people.

The principles of government by consent, and of the right to selfdetermination are contemptuously ignored.

In 2003 the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett MP, stated during a BBC TV interview that he could see “no obvious limit” to immigration into the UK. When asked if there was a maximum population that could be housed within the UK, he replied: “no, I don’t think so” – adding that he believed the net immigration rate (then running at approximately 170,000 per year) was “permanently sustainable”.

11

The following year Home Office whistleblower Steve Moxon revealed connivance within Government agencies to undermine and nullify any effective control of immigration from Eastern Europe (primarily from Poland and Romania).

12

In October 2009 the former Government adviser Andrew Neather provided further confirmation that the Labour Party's mass immigration policy was driven by extreme ideology, and by political self-interest.

13

Andrew Neather’s revelations included: “I wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche MP in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls”; and added “That speech was based largely on a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, Tony Blair's Cabinet Office think-tank”.

Most revealing of all was Andrew Neather’s observation that “the earlier drafts [of the Government’s PIU report] [that] I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”.

It is in regard to this political purpose behind mass immigration that the activities of pressure groups, NGOs, think tanks, charities and other ‘change agents’ requires comment.

special_projects_06

© Tony Shell September 2011

Page 2 of 6

Shortly after New Labour came to power, the political think tank The Smith Institute registered as a UK charity. One of the Institute’s principal preoccupations has been the promotion of ‘progressive’ political ideology – and, most especially, the effective implementation of Government policy for mass immigration.

14 15 16 17 18

However, from as early as 2001 concerns were raised regarding a perceived political bias in the work of the organization.

Those concerns included the close association with prominent Labour Party politicians (including Mr. Gordon Brown MP, and Mr. Ed Balls) – and also the frequent use by the Institute of No 11 Downing Street as a venue for conferences.

19 In 2008 the Charity Commission was obliged to censure the Smith Institute for behaviours not consistent with charity law. The Charity Commission also noted that Gordon Brown had ignored formal requests for information needed by the Commission for its investigation into the activities of the Institute.

20 21

In 2007 a Barrow Cadbury Trust report described under ‘Achievements of Barrow Cadbury funded projects/partnerships’ that: “The Fabians partnered with Barrow Cadbury for a closed-door meeting at Devonport House to discuss progressive migration policy. The meeting included the then Minister for immigration and two former ministers as well as progressive politicians and opinion formers”. The BCT went on to say that for the COMPASS organisation “Their [COMPASS] publication on Progressive Migration was launched at an event at Labour Party Conference involving Jon Cruddas MP, candidate for the Deputy Leadership of the Labour Party”.

22

Between 2005 and 2009 the Fabian Society received grants totaling £215,740 from The Webb Memorial Trust – an organization registered with the Charity Commission.

23 The Fabian Society was therefore receiving money for (presumably) providing a charity service, whilst also engaging in private discussions with the Labour Government to decide future policy for “progressive migration”.

The COMPASS organisation was launched in 2003. Between 2003 and 2006 the charity Joseph

Rowntree Reform Trust gave grants totalling £143,725 to COMPASS.

24 Those charitable grants appear to have been awarded to cover start-up costs and (again) presumably on the basis that COMPASS was providing a charity service. The COMPASS organisation describes itself as “a pressure group focussed on changing Labour - but [which] recognizes that energy and ideas must come from outside the party, not least the 200,000 who have left since 1997”.

25 Therefore, once again, the assumption appears to have been that improving the election prospects of the Labour Party was a legitimate charitable activity. It is also very clear that COMPASS has a particular interest in promoting a ‘progressive’ immigration policy.

26

It is therefore a politically inspired process of population replacement that is at the heart of present-day ‘progressive’ political ideology.

In February 2011 research by the independent body Migration Watch used official ONS data to show that:

“Under Labour 3.2 million foreign citizens arrived in Britain, about 80 per cent from outside the EU, whilst nearly one million (941,000) British citizens left”.

27

Observations on past census records, plus other data, can put the effects of this ‘progressive migration’ into an informative, historical perspective.

In 1851 approximately ninety-six percent of the population of England were native indigenous people (the English).

28 One hundred years later (1951) the proportion of English people in England was almost exactly the same – despite a huge influx of refugees fleeing from famine, revolution, pogroms, the upheavals of two devastating World Wars, and a brutal partitioning of Europe.

29 It was the natural increase of the native population over that one hundred year period (from 16.03 million English people in 1851, to 39.50 million in 1951) that played a major part in the maintenance of a relatively stable, cohesive society.

special_projects_06

© Tony Shell September 2011

Page 3 of 6

However the subsequent imposition of ‘progressive migration’ has been unprecedented in scale – and with potentially catastrophic consequences.

As a direct result of political action, by 2001 the English had been reduced to eighty-five percent of the population.

30 On the assumption that future UK governments will continue to support ‘progressive migration’ (the most likely scenario) it is projected that within the next fifty years the English people will constitute less than half of the population – and will have become a minority within their own land.

31 That is the true, intended purpose behind ‘progressive’ UK politics.

In April 2011 Prime Minister David Cameron MP gave a speech in which he boasted of the Coalition Government’s plans for managing migration.

32 Notably he used exactly the same official (ONS) data as Migration Watch, but chose to interpret it very differently, stating that: “between 1997 and 2009, 2.2 million more people came to live in this country than left to live abroad”. The peculiar wording of that comment is

most significant – it reveals the manner in which the Coalition Government intends to mislead the public and conceal a continuation of the State’s real agenda. Elsewhere in his speech the Prime Minister repeatedly asserted the need to reduce net migration. However it is not net migration, but the level of population replacement that is of most importance.

It is therefore population replacement numbers – and not net migration – that reveals the real and potential impact (demographic, social, and cultural) of a politically directed mass immigration policy. This is especially true for England, where the native population is already in rapid decline (with an overall birthrate approximately 17 per cent below replacement level).

33 Which leads to the obvious question – why has there been almost no debate (by the ‘progressives’) with regard to the projected decline in the number of ethnic English? Instead we find either a denial of the existence of a native people, or a belief that such a decline is of no importance (or, even, to be welcomed as an opportunity to further increase immigration).

Evidence of that denial (or that the English deserve no consideration) can be found in the political

propaganda output by many of the major ‘change agents’.

For example, two years ago The Runnymede Trust published a major report on the ‘progressive’ political agenda titled: ‘Who Cares About The White Working Class?’

34 An insight into the purpose of the Runnymede report is to be found in the introduction: “We can in large part locate the problems of the ‘white working class’ within the broader framework of changing class inequality within Britain, and the fate of the working class as a whole, without having to dwell on questions of ethnicity or other cultural differences”.

35

In other words, by both reframing and restricting the concerns regarding social deprivation or hardship solely to issues of ‘class’, it is possible to avoid having to discuss the effects of mass immigration, multiculturalism, loss of social inclusiveness, population replacement, or loss of native (English) entitlements.

The Runnymede Trust report is essentially racist in content. It includes language indicative of extreme anti-English sentiment.

36 The contributors make frequent reference to the “white” people, and to issues concerning problems of “whiteness”, whilst giving no proper recognition to the English as the native inhabitants. The apparent fixation on skin colour is seen as especially disturbing.

37

The report also includes material that is factually incorrect

38 and employs invalid statistical reasoning.

39 40

However it is what the ‘change agents’ choose not to discuss (or attempt to suppress any discussion) that is of crucial importance.

special_projects_06

© Tony Shell September 2011

Page 4 of 6

An understanding of the political and economic forces behind the recent emergence of ‘progressive’ mass migration is therefore of crucial importance. It is an integral part of globalization, planned and executed behind the closed doors of organisations such as the IMF, WTO and the EU – at the behest (and for the benefit) of the global debt industry and the major trans-national corporations (for example through secret ‘Mode 4’ trade deals to exploit cheap, migrant labour).

41

The ideology of ‘progressivism’ is used to give globalization the appearance of a noble endeavour,

committed to the creation of a utopian new world order. It is an exercise in deceit.

The origins for this authoritarian ‘progressivism’ can therefore be traced to early last century, with a change from a tradition of the people changing their governments – to that of governments changing the people.

Which inevitably leads to matters concerning genocide.

In April 1945, Dr. Raphael Lemkin (a former adviser on international law to the League of Nations) had described genocide in the following way: “More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight. The end may be accomplished by the forced disintegration of political and social institutions, of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion. It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity.”

42

Dr. Lemkin’s 1945 report also provided an important review of the primary techniques of genocide, as employed by the Nazis. Those techniques included: the partitioning of previously unified countries into administrative regions to destroy political cohesion; attacking the existing cultural structure so as weaken national resolve and obliterate former cultural patterns; the use of schools for the political indoctrination of children and infants; the undermining of the spiritual power of the established Church; the promotion of pornography, alcohol and gambling so as to create moral debasement within the national group; the destruction of the industrial infrastructure and economic independence of the country; and the use of various means to reduce the birthrate of the targeted, national group.

43

Most importantly, there are seen to be extraordinarily close similarities between those techniques of 1940s Nazi genocide, and the contemporary policies of ‘progressivism’ directed against the native English people.

Despite a change in Government (in 2010), that ‘progressive’ agenda is still being vigorously pursued.

The UK State no longer serves the people, but acts as local administrators to a global oligarchy. The intention is to be effectively rid of the native English people, whilst asset-stripping the country. Such behaviour is entirely consistent with a State that is a servant of global finance, engages in unlawful foreign wars, is institutionally corrupt, has no moral scruples – and is engaged in High Treason.

END

special_projects_06

© Tony Shell September 2011

Page 5 of 6

REFERENCES and NOTES

1 The Commision On The Future Of Multi-Ethnic Britain was established by the charity Runnymede Trust in 1997. Source:

http://www.runnymedetrust.org/projects/meb.html

2 Lord Bhiku Parekh was the (then) Professor of Political Theory at the London School of Economics, and author of ‘Rethinking

Multiculturalism, Cultural Diversity and Political Theory’ (2000) and ‘The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain – The Parekh Report

(2000).

3 Krishan Kumar was the (then) Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia, and author of ‘The Making of English National

Identity’ (2003).

4 Geoff Mulgan was the (then) Director of The Young Foundation, a co-founder and Director of the think-tank Demos, a columnist

for a number of newspapers including Marxism Today, and had been the Head of The Policy Unit and the Director of the Prime

Minister’s Strategy Unit at No 10 Downing, under Tony Blair, from 1997 to 2004.

5 ‘The Future of Multicultural Britain: Meeting Across Boundaries’, CRONEM hosted conference, Southlands College,

Roehampton University, London, 14th – 15th June 2005

6 Tariq Modood was the (then) Professor of Sociology and Director of the Leverhulme Programme on Migration and Citizenship at

Bristol University, author of ‘Multicultural Politics: Racism, Ethnicity and Muslims in Britain’ (2005).

7 Taken from my conference notes (I attended as an independent delegate), and from ‘A Defence of Multiculturalism’ by Professor

Tariq Modood, The Centre for the Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship’, The University of Bristol. A copy of the Modood

presentation was emailed to conference delegates in September 2005.

8 As espoused, for example, by social theorist Professor Paul Gilroy, in: ‘After Empire, Melancholia or Convivial Culture?’, by Paul

Gilroy, Routledge, Abingdon, 2004

9 See also: ‘After Empire, Melancholia or Convivial Culture?’, by Paul Gilroy, Routledge, Abingdon, 2004: A Critique by Tony

Shell, February 2009 – downloadable from: http://www.thisisourland.info/docs/Critique_After_Empire.pdf

10 This is based on my recollections and notes taken during the two-day conference. I attended the conference, on both days, as an

independent delegate. The comments are also based on a detailed examination of conference material (primarily copies of Power-

Point presentations) supplied to delegates by Roehampton University, following the conference.

11 ‘Blunket: No Limit on Immigration’, BBC2, Newsnight interview, published on the 2003/11/13 15:33:43 GMT source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/3265219.stm

12 ‘The Great Immigration Scandel’, Steve Moxon, Imprint Academic, Exeter, 2006 (2nd Edition, first published in 2004)

13 ‘Don’t Listen To The Whingers – London Needs Immigrants’, by Andrew Neather, The Evening Standard, 23rd October 2009,

source: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers---london-needs-immigrants.do

14 ‘Perspectives on Migration’, edited by Tony Pilch, The Smith Institute, 2005; contributors included Barbara Roche MP, Wilf

Stevenson, and Claude Moraes MEP. The report was produced in partnership with Barrow Cadbury Trust.

15 ‘Transforming Britain: The Politics of Modern Progressive Reform’, by Chris Bryant MP, The Smith Institute, 2005

16 ‘Britishness: Towards a Progressive Citizenship’, edited by Nick Johnson, The Smith Institute, 13th March 2007. Contributors

included Geoff Mulgan, Trevor Phillips and Wilf Stevenson.

17 ‘What Next For Labour and Immigration?’, by Nick Johnson, The Smith Institute, date unknown

18 ‘Migration: Where Next?’, edited by Nick Johnson, The Smith Institute, February 2011, Contributors include Barbara Roche.

19 It is reported that between 1997 and 2008 The Smith Institute had used No 11 Downing (the official residence of the Chancellor of

The Exchequer) to hold events on at least 160 occasions. See: ‘Watchdog Verdict on Smith Institute’s Links’, by Jean Eaglesham,

Chief Political Correspondent, The Financial Times, 18th July 2008

20 ‘Think-Tank With Links to Brown Breached Charity Law By Getting Involved in Party Politics’, by Benedict Brogan, the Mail

online, 18th July 2008

21 ‘Smith Institute Links to Labour Breached Charity Laws’, The Telegraph, 18th July 2008, source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/2433508/Smith-Institute-links-to-Labour-breached-charity-laws.html

22 The Barrow Cadbury Trust (reg. no 1115476) statement of accounts for the period 5th June 2006 to the 31st March 2007, submitted

to the Charity Commission in January 2008 – page 6, ‘Achievements and Performance’.

23 Based on information on the submission of accounts to the Charity Commission, by The Webb Memorial Trust, for the year

ended: 31st July 2006; 31st July 2007; 31st July 2008; and 31st July 2009.

24 From: ‘Grants Awarded, Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust’, source http://www.jrrt.org.uk The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust is

registered with the Charity Commission (registered charity No 247498).

25 ‘About Compass’, source: http://www.compassonline.org.uk/about/ downloaded on the 2nd August 2011

26 See, for example, ‘Towards a Progressive Immigration Policy’, edited by Don Flynn and Zoe Williams, COMPASS organisation,

downloaded 3rd August 2011

27 ‘Mass Immigration – Labour’s Enduring Legacy to Britain’, Migration Watch UK, 22nd February 2011

special_projects_06

© Tony Shell September 2011

Page 6 of 6

28 Based on ‘A Vision of Britain: 1861 Census, General Report’, [which includes data from the 1851 Census], source:

http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/text/chap_page.jsp ; and ‘A Nation of Immigrants? – A Brief Demographic History of Britain’, by

David Conway, The Institute for Civil Society, London 2007. For 1851 the (approximate) population numbers are: 16.03 million

English; 0.67 million other British (mostly Irish); and 0.06 million Eastern Europe (mostly German, French and Italian ethnies).

29 Based on 1951 Census data – see Office for National Statistics data; and also data given within ‘A Nation of Immigrants? – A

Brief Demographic History of Britain’, by David Conway, The Institute for Civil Society, London 2007. For 1951 the (approximate)

population numbers are: 39.5 million English; 0.8 million other British (mostly Irish); 80 thousand Asian; 100 thousand Black

Caribbean; and 0.56 million Eastern Europe (mostly Jewish, Polish, and Baltic ethnies).

30 From calculations based on data given in: ‘Estimates of The Population by Ethnic Group for Areas Within England’, by Pete

Large and Kamak Ghosh, Office for National Statistics, January 2006

31 Based on population modelling given in: ‘Projections of The Ethnic Minority Populations of The United Kingdom 2006-2056’,

The Oxford Centre for Population Research, 2010 (also published in Population and Development Review No 36, 3, pages 441 to

486, 2010)

32 ‘David Cameron on Immigration: Full Text of The Speech’, The Guardian, Thursday 14th April 2011, source:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/14/david-cameron-immigration-speech-full-text

33 From data given in: ‘Estimates of The Population by Ethnic Group for Areas Within England’, by Pete Large and Kamak Ghosh,

Office for National Statistics, January 2006, page 11 (Table 3)

34 ‘Who Cares About The White Working Trust’, edited by Kjartan Páll Sveinsson, The Runnymede Trust, January 2009

35 ‘Who Cares About The White Working Trust’, edited by Kjartan Páll Sveinsson, The Runnymede Trust, January 2009 – page 14,

‘Introduction: The White Working Class and Multiculturalism – Is There Space For a Progressive Agenda?, by Kjartan Páll

Sveinsson (Runnymede Trust)

36 ‘Who Cares About The White Working Trust’, edited by Kjartan Páll Sveinsson, The Runnymede Trust, January 2009 – page 6,

reference to “the trite expression of white working class as homogenous, static, and exclusively rooted in and defined by the

immediate locality”; page 51 “For Klein, it would seem, not only is the label ‘indigenous’ reserved for the white working class, as

though the latter was some kind of lost tribe, but the ‘British working class’ is used interchangeably with the ‘white working class’”.

37 For example, in the Runnymede Trust report the term ‘white’ or ‘whiteness’, used as an identifier for ethnic English people,

appears a total of 445 times – an equivalent of almost 6 times per page, of the 76-page report.

38 ‘Who Cares About The White Working Trust’, edited by Kjartan Páll Sveinsson, The Runnymede Trust, January 2009 – page 6,

that “being Black is a disadvantage whatever your social status; being white is not” and “But they [the white working class] are not

discriminated against because they are white”; page 35, “it is usually visible minorities [BME] who endure the burden of racism

and must be ever alert to the risks of racist terror on the streets” and “the majority of racism is still targeted at visible [BME]

minorities”. These assertions are not supported by factual evidence of: (a) operation of ‘positive discrimination’, quota schemes et

cetera; or (b), on racist crime data available from such sources as the Home Office and the British Crime Survey.

39 ‘Who Cares About The White Working Trust’, edited by Kjartan Páll Sveinsson, The Runnymede Trust, January 2009 – pages 15

to 22, ‘2. Education: The Numbers Game and The Construction of White Racial Victimhood’, David Gillborn, (Institute of

Education). The technique employed is commonly referred to as ‘invalid inference by false comparison’.

40 The January 2009 Runnymede report was published shortly before another report, by the Equality and Human Rights Commission

(EHRC), was criticised for using invalid and misleading analysis to refute claims regarding preferential treatment to immigrant

families in the allocation of social housing – see: ‘EHRC report on social housing allocation to immigrants relied upon invalid

statistical reasoning’, press release, Institute for the Study of Civil Society, 20th July 2009, source:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prcs93.php

41 See, for example: ‘Comment: The Secret Immigration Policy They Try To Hide”, by Linda Kaucher, politics.co.ok, Thursday 1st

September 2011, source: http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2011/09/01/comment-the-secret-immigration-policy-they-tr

42 ‘Genocide – A Modern Crime’, by Dr. Raphael Lemkin, Free World magazine, Vol.4, April 1945, pages 39-43

43 ‘Genocide – A Modern Crime’, by Dr. Raphael Lemkin, Free World magazine, Vol.4, April 1945, pages 39-43, ‘Techniques of

Genocide’