WINDRUSH (How Liberal Imperialism Led to Reverse Colonisation)

There is much hand-wringing over the treatment of the so-called Windrush generation at the moment. For those who do not know, HMT Empire Windrush was the passenger ship which brought the first wave of mass migration to Britain from the West Indies in June 1948 as part of the political elite's plot to make Britain even more multi-racial by use of the open immigration policy implied in the British Nationality Act of 1948. The Liberal Party had already attempted the same treasonous ploy in 1918, bringing over West Indians to take the place in society of the young White Men they were sending to die in the trenches of World War One. Upon discovering this wicked scheme, the returning soldiers turned on the interloping Negroes, who were largely sent back. The soldiers should have turned on the politicians; still, this and other betrayals of the people would give impetus to the burgeoning nationalist movement in Britain.

 

 

 

 The first part of the British Nationality Act reads thus (one must bear in mind that colonies such as those of the West Indies are not mentioned because they are still part of the British Empire and their citizens are automatically British subjects, as will be explained):

 

(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a citizen of that country shall by virtue of that citizenship have the status of a British subject.

(2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed, or made before or after the commencement of this Act, the expression "British subject" and the expression "Commonwealth citizen" shall have the same meaning.

(3) The following are the countries hereinbefore referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.

 

Yet the fact is that the native European peoples of these British Isles have never been treated with any more respect than those of the British Empire's colonies. As soon as a colony was established, the indigenous peoples of those colonies became British subjects under the crown and were entitled to come to Britain and be entitled to all the same rights as an indigenous Briton. Liberals debating the merits of the British Empire like Nigel Farage pride themselves on this fact and bring it up whenever an SJW accuses our colonising ancestors of 'racism'. I do not share Farage's enthusiasm, but what the Farages of this world say is indeed true. As Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe said in parliamentary debate on 7th July 1948:

 

"All are matters connected with the true rights of men and women, and let us say, without any boastfulness but with modest pride, that we had much to offer the people of the Dominions, and more to people of the racially distinct and smaller countries of the Commonwealth, because, and I think the right hon. Gentleman and I are at one on this, we were proud in this country that we imposed no colour bar restrictions, making it difficult for them when they came here. These people, broadly, in so far as the matters I have discussed are concerned, found themselves as privileged in the United Kingdom as the local citizens."

 

One can see how reverse colonisation was inevitable with such a conception of identity and citizenship. The then Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee had been very open throughout his political career about his plans to transform Britain and the world at large if he ever got the opportunity:

 

"We ought to envisage the creation of an international police force as a deliberate attempt to build up a World State. I know that a great many points can be raised against it, but, after all, the objections are purely relative." -- 13th December 1933

"Finally, there is general support of the policy indicated by the Foreign Secretary for the closer integration of Europe—for closer political integration and closer economic integration, coupled, I believe, with a recognition that Western Europe cannot live by itself as an economic unit. Hence the desire for wider integration with Africa and other overseas territories, and with the great Western democracies and with our own Dominions....

"Europe is composed of a number of small countries, and, even if they all come together, they are not economically complementary. There comes in the point which my right hon. friend stressed, the importance of Africa and Asia, and also the importance of the close economic relations with the Western Hemisphere." -- 23rd January 1948

 

Despite the fact that, as Sir David Maxwell Fife correctly stated, all subjects of the crown without title were equal, few non-Whites had been inclined to take up residence in Britain, largely due to the expense of travel, the effort of relocating involved, and the fact of becoming a stranger in a strange land. As colonies throughout the British Empire gained independence and managed their own immigration policies, yet also became members of the Commonwealth, it became necessary to update the existing British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act of 1914. However, as the independent countries could control who and what type of people came into their countries, we could not. The legislation prevented it. Literally anyone from the Commonwealth could become a British citizen and particularly those who were deemed undesirables in their own countries:

 

"The effect of the British Nationality Act, 1948, is that British subjects who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and who fail to obtain the citizenship of any other country of the Commonwealth shall be given United Kingdom citizenship." -- Patrick Gordon-Walker, 3rd November 1949

 

This piece of legislation explains why over 27,000 ethnic Indians expelled from Uganda in 1972 by Idi Amin Dada came to Britain and were granted British citizenship. What Idi Amin did was not wrong from a Ugandan perspective, for the Indians had been brought to Uganda by a corrupt and foreign imperial elite. Indeed, much of the propaganda that singles out Amin as an unspeakably cruel and insane despot I believe comes from anti-nationalist liberals and the Zionist media, Amin having positioned himself against Israel and its interests. This is not to say that he was a decent man, but no worse in the context of African leaders, and certainly no worse than Nelson Mandela or even European ones like Tony Blair. While the architect of the Act of 1948 James Chuter Ede ostensibly talked in rather politically incorrect terms of "backward peoples" not having full rights in Britain, this was dishonestly done to disarm the critics, for no legislation regarding a difference in rights regarding "backward peoples" was ever put in place:

 

"A further drawback is that as the United Kingdom has not defined by law its nationals or citizens, and that the only status possessed by the people of the United Kingdom is that of British subjects, there has grown up a tendency to regard the term "British subject" as meaning a person belonging to Great Britain, and to obscure its true meaning of a person belonging to any country of the Commonwealth who is a subject of the King. We think it highly desirable that a definition should be discovered which will make it quite clear that that is a term which applies to every person in the British Commonwealth and Empire who owes allegiance to the King...."

"If a person who is a British subject by reason of his birth in this country goes abroad and has a son born abroad, that son is a British subject. If that son has a son, the grandson of the first man is not a British subject unless his birth is registered at a consulate."

 

"It is true that we cannot admit all these backward peoples immediately into the full rights that British subjects in this country enjoy; but wherever the British Dominions are, what Lowell called, "the homespun dignity of man," is at least recognised to the extent of the denial of the right of anyone to have a chattel slave. By linking the United Kingdom and the Colonies, we must give these people a feeling that on that homespun dignity of man we recognise them as fellow-citizens and that our object, as far as they are concerned, is to hope to raise them to such a position of education, of training and of experience that they too shall be able to share in the grant of full self-government which this House has so generously given during the last few years to other places. It is in the full faith that the future development of this great bulwark of democratic civilisation will be helped and strengthened by the Measure that we commend it to the House." -- James Chuter Ede, 7th July 1948

 

One notices that ancestry is also slyly being disprivileged here in favour of place of birth. This is in line with the unscientific liberal "accident of birth" tabula rasa and 'magic soil' religious beliefs that have displaced spiritual and scientific heredity as we have moved from aristocratic to bourgeois thinking. The entire bill was also slyly draughted in private:

 

"The right hon. Gentleman referred to the meeting of experts that preceded this Bill. It has several odd features. Its report was not published. Nothing was heard before the introduction of this Bill of the discussions among the different Commonwealth Governments that had been pursued before and after. I suggest that this secret manner of considering a subject of the greatest importance to the whole Commonwealth and its individual citizens emphasises how much has been lost by the lapse of the Imperial Conferences...." Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, 7th July 1948

Others were less than honest on the racial question in history, coming either from socialist or liberal backgrounds. In Viscount Simon's case, he came from fundamentalist Puritan Christian stock, his father having ministered the Zion Chapel in Hulme, Manchester:

 

"Originally, the conception of British nationality was the simplest thing in the world. The test which decided whether you were or were not an Englishman—and here I deliberately say "English"; I am not including Scotland—was: "Where were you born?" If you were born in England, you were an Englishman; a natural-born Englishman. It did not matter what your race was. It did not matter what your father was or what your mother was. The only thing that mattered was whether you were born here. It was a feudal conception." -- Viscount Simon, 11th May 1948

 

The viscount has either no grasp of history or is wilfully lying. As we know, the original designation 'English' relates to a Germanic tribe called the Angles who, along with the Saxons and Jutes, conquered and then mingled with the racially very similar indigenous Brythonic tribes to form several kingdoms that would later be unified as England. As anyone who has read Tacitus' Germania knows, the Germanic tribes only bred with those who were of like kind. The feudal conception of the English was equally an ethnic one in that it was a Norman conception in viewing the Anglo-Saxons as Other, despite their virtually identical racial roots. The Norman ruling caste viewed themselves as of a continental ruling elite, whether born in England or France, viewed all others as inferior no matter their race, and created the rigid class system that for generations negated the meritocratic element of aristocracy. They also privileged the Jews above the native Anglo-Saxons as a financier and mercantile caste, setting a precendent for the later British Empire. It is no coincidence that when the triumphant bourgeoisie took the place of the aristocracy after the British Civil Wars, the Jews were invited back on 13th December 1655, although by that time one could no longer tell aristocrat from bourgeois. 

 

Yet the Jews were dealt with as Other not for any racial reason, but for one of religious practice, for Christianity has always been a globalist concern and denies the importance of physical matter. As the book says, 'there is neither Greek nor Jew.' This flies in the face of natural and reasonable aristocratic principles. Even when Christianity's poisonous flower wilted somewhat under the bourgeois Enlightenment, the notion that racial characteristics could be fundamentally changed under ideology persisted. Thus did Christians and atheists strange liberal bedfellows make, and one can see why the two ended up forming blocs in the Whig Party. And so, as the British Empire expanded and took control of coloured populations, there was a fervent belief among the political caste that they could magically become White in all but colour. This they called their civilizing mission or later 'White Man's Burden', the perceived 'improvement' of 'lesser races' easing their consciences about exploiting them and their land for personal gain. Ironically, when it came to giving those lands back, a bizarre sort of schizophrenia existed in which coloured peoples were acknowledged as unique and worth preserving, even as the British political elite sought to alter them through 'civilizing education':

 

"Let me pass on to the more general question. In this, of course, we go back a long way before the present Administration there. It has always been a fundamental principle of British policy in the Gold Coast, as in other West African Territories, that non-African settlement should be discouraged, so that the African peoples may progress economically and politic ally without the complications which would be created by the establishment of settled non-African interests. In the last year or two, since the war, arrivals of non-Africans seeking a home in the Gold Coast have increased. In particular, a class of immigrant has been seeking admission whose intended occupation is in trade and commerce, generally on a small scale, and in a few cases in farming, and who will buy up property for the purpose. With the growth of education and general social development in Africa, the African is advancing into new fields, not only in the Administration but in trade and commerce and in the professions. The Governments of the West African territories have a duty, therefore, to see that African ambitions are not frustrated by an overcrowding of these fields by immigrants of other races." -- The Earl of Listowel, 15th February 1949

 

Why then is the subject of race here brought up in relation to peoples far away and not peoples at home? Why are the effects other foreign races might have upon the indigenous races of the Gold Coast such a concern if they are of no concern to the native British peoples? The double standards are typical when one has such bourgeois liberals dressed up as aristocrats. It was left to the Earl of Portsmouth, with Lord Tweedsmuir (the politician and novelist John Buchan's son) seconding him, to fight the White Man's corner:

 

"If we are to have a healthy, balanced life for our people and military and economic security, we should aim at a maximum of 35 million as the healthy population of this country. I do not believe that can be achieved or ought to be attempted to be achieved by the anti-biological and anti-social method of excessive birth control. There remains only one other course, that of careful, ordered and planned voluntary migration of whole cross-sections of the population, including dependants. Does this marry with the needs of the British Commonwealth to-day? I feel certain from many points of view that it does. Take defence alone. There are widely scattered areas in the Dominions and Colonies which require a far greater stiffening of population. The white population of the Commonwealth is less than half the population of this one small group of islands. I will leave military security to those who are experts. The Commonwealth have in principle, for the most part, agreed ​ already on the advisability of taking a cross-section of our population....

 

"Our tropical Colonies demand a far greater administrative technical population than they have had up to date—namely, farmers, civil servants, engineers, business men and so forth. There is no question that our own population will thrive at the expense of the native African, for instance. After all, Africa would starve if it were not for the white man's ability to check erosion as much as he has done; and there is need for him to be there to ​ check it far more in future." -- Earl of Portsmouth, 26th May 1948

 

 Again, however, one notes that the discourse has to be framed in what white emigration has to offer to the coloured man. This was the whole essence of the Empire he so loved: the exploitation of colonies for the bourgeois clique always had to be justified in terms of the 'White Man's Burden' to the lesser races at the expense of the poor Whites at home. And it is odd that the Earl of Portsmouth, who was concerned here and elsewhere with overpopulation, having also written the book Famine in England, would not consider that the White Man's influence in Africa would bring about overpopulation on that continent, which is exactly what has happened and resulted in ever more emigration to Europe. Furthermore, his argument is rather redundant in the context of coloured immigration, a matter which is not brought up - rather strangely, as the Windrush immigrants had already arrived. Even the most outspoken racialists of the time seemed browbeaten and cowed into acceptance and complicity in this regard.

As ever, the corrupt establishment have turned the narrative around. When the British were forced out of the countries of peoples of colour, we are told this is a good thing, but yet anyone not greeting the black interlopers to Britain with anything less than reverence is deemed a monster. To paraphrase Malcolm X, we did not board the Windrush; the Windrush boarded us. The passengers aboard the Windrush had choice in the matter, whereas we did not. Of course, both socialist faux-utopianism and corporate interests went hand in glove, as ever. When the Windrush docked in Kingston, Jamaica on its way back from Australia, as it ferried servicemen around, adverts were placed in Jamaican newspapers publicising the opportunity to go to Britain for as little as £28. Several of the first passengers were ex-servicemen whose wartime experiences in Britain had made a return trip to Britain less daunting and they had been lured by opportunity in all its forms. Later immigrants like Darcus Howe saw the opportunity to make trouble for Whites. Blacks were then cheaply housed by Jewish slum landlords like the notorious Peter Rachman, who charged them small fortunes for run-down flats.

 

 

 

The great Yorkshire and England fast bowler Freddy Trueman tells us in his autobiography As It Was how the England cricket team in their tour of the West Indies (1953-4) during the move towards Jamaican independence were greeted with chants of 'You white bastard!' by both fans and players alike. It is an episode of history the elites have always tried to cover up. And these were the same people successive British governments were bringing over to 'integrate'. It did not matter which party one voted for, all were committed to moving populations and forcing peoples together who did not get along, just as they had during the days of the British Empire, when Indians were moved to Africa and Africans moved to the West Indies. People forget or are completely unaware that the British Empire was always a liberal mercantile concern, with companies like the British East India Company having its own private army, the right to wage war and mint money. It was also furnished with liberal politicians and philosophers to shape and influence politics and morality, like John Stuart Mill. 

 

Mill was merely a paid shill for the company, and how he is regarded as a serious philosopher, I will never know. The same man who talked about the rights of oppressed peoples far away was the same man who happily worked for the company that took control of India by force with its army after the Battle of Plassey, the Battle of Buxar and the Anglo-Mysore and Anglo-Maratha Wars and saw no contradiction. It is the same man who, as the Rightist philosopher Thomas Carlyle noted, was terribly concerned about feeding blacks in the colonies while the whites starved at home. Indeed, one of the features of the Empire was its concern for the man of colour - 'the White Man's Burden', as it later became known - to the detriment of the poor native White. While Britain aided the North during the American Civil War as part of its abolitionist crusade, the cotton mill workers of the North of England were left to starve. With no cotton coming from the Confederate States, they could not work to earn money and no provision was made for them. Mill was curiously silent on the episode.

 

Mill took the side of the black murderers after the Morant Bay rebellion, which Governor Richard Eyre put down with full force, saving many white lives. White lives matter. Mill did not think the white lives mattered and attempted to get Eyre tried for murder, a capital offence. Yet simultaneously, he argued that 'Despotism is a legitimate mode of government when dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement.' This was his justification for imperialism. By 'improvement', Mill means the acceptance of liberalism. Yet the double standard is clear: Mill argued against slavery and yet that the black man could not govern himself until he became a liberal. If this double standard seems all too familiar in the present, it is because his perverse and contradictory philosophy won out. It justifies the liberal neo-imperialism whereby Iraq and Syria can be bombed into subservience to the New World Order of 'love' and 'tolerance'. It also assumes that once a nation submits under duress to liberalism, it will forget its culture and history and who its enemies were and are.

 

At the same time, non-Whites whose peoples were being brought to heel in their own countries by the Empire were allowed to sit as members of parliament representing British constituencies in the House of Commons without any consideration of the grudges these people might hold. For reference, these were Dadabhai Naoroji (Finsbury Central, Liberal, 1892-1895), Mancherjee Bhownagree (Bethnal Green North East, Conservative, 1895-1906), Shapurji Saklatvala, Battersea North, Communist, 1922-1923 & 1924-1929). Vested interests were also apparent when Zionist MPs and 'lords' like Herbert Samuel (1st Viscount Samuel) and his descendents, Rufus Isaacs (1st Marquess of Reading) and descendents, Alfred Mond (1st Baron Melchett) and descendents and Walter Rothschild (2nd Baron Rothschild) and family conspired to use the Empire's might for Jews to take over the British Mandate of Palestine. 

 

Equally, the Second Boer War was lobbied for by both Jewish and Gentile gold and diamond merchants and their banker backers, such as Alfred Beit, Nathan Rothschild (1st Baron Rothschild), Barney Barnato, James Hamilton (2nd Duke of Abercorn), Charles Rudd and Cecil Rhodes. During the call to enlist in Great Britain, a huge number of impoverished working class youths enlisted to escape social deprivation. A staggering 40% had to be rejected as unfit due to diseases associated with malnutrition and poverty. Of those who fought in the Second Boer War, 65% died of disease, while only 35% died from combat, showing that many soldiers were already susceptible and in a weakened state. Again, Whites were obliged to fight other Whites for an Empire in which non-Whites and unscrupulous Whites allied to non-Whites were profiteering. Indian princes went to Eton while White children went down the coal mines.

 

 

 

It was therefore inevitable that the Windrush generation and their descendents would come to be treated far better than many working class Whites in those Whites' own ancestral country. Both the liberal capitalists of the Conservative Party and the international socialists of the Labour Party were in cahoots in the whole operation of bringing alien peoples to Britain and playing divide and conquer and were, in any case, following policy given by the Convention of the International Labour Organisation on Social Policy in Non-Metropolitan Territories of 1947. As the pacifist Marxist-feminist Labour MP and co-founder of the League of Nations Philip Noel-Baker boasted:

 

"We have accepted—indeed we took a part in framing—the Convention of the International Labour Organisation on Social Policy in Non-Metropolitan Territories adopted in 1947, which lays it down that it shall be an aim of policy to abolish all discrimination among workers on grounds of race, colour or tribal association. It goes on with many details. These principles are not only words; they are being practically applied." -- Philip Noel-Baker, 6th May 1949

 

One can only have "discrimination among workers on grounds of race, colour or tribal association" if one has a multi-ethnic workforce. It is clear from this inference and a reading of the Articles of the Convention that a conspiracy to make Britain multiracial under the pretext of economic necessity and, as Article 2 states, "social progress", was at hand. There is a direct link through Noel-Baker whereby the Convention precedes the encouragement of non-White immigration and the criminalisation of dissent against such policies. The Labour MP James Harrison foresaw the problems coloured immigration implied, but he was obliged to be indirect and euphemistic in his language. Even though, we can see quite plainly what he was driving at:

 

"The steamship "Windrush" brought to this country, I think, about 470 immigrants from the British Colonies in the Carribean. I think that Jamaica was the source of these people. It seemed to me that these immigrants were indiscriminately chosen. I think there were about 470 males altogether, all of them indiscriminately chosen, and requiring, when they arrived in this country, housing and suitable work.... I could quote examples of present temporary under-employment in the large cities—particularly Liverpool—and I am sure that housing is one of the chief factors in that set of circumstances. I am also quite sure that if immigration of such a character is permitted in future, it will definitely be a source of pain to the immigrants and a source of embarrassment to the people of this country. There is not only the question of housing and the finding of jobs for indiscriminately chosen folk; there is also the divergence in social standards. This particular difficulty has already been showing its face, or its head, in some of our local newspaper reports. This divergence in social standards does really create difficulties. I have been reading the Nottingham Press today, and there are two reports of the difficulties which have been created already by these indiscriminately chosen immigrants." -- James Harrison, 13th July 1948

 

Harrison was the MP for Nottingham East, a constituency that saw extreme ethnic tensions and violence from the outset and culminated in the first full-blown post-Windrush race riots in the St Ann's district in 1958. The White British population of St Ann's has now been all but ethnically cleansed and the Nottingham East constituency is presided over by an Indian woman, Nadia Whittome. Despite this clear instance of ethnic cleansing, we are still told by the political elites in charge of education and media that those Whites who fought against their dispossession were 'the bad guys'. Here is a list of the major race riots in Britain:

 

1911 Cardiff Riots (Chinese laundries attacked)

1919 Cardiff Race Riots 

1919 British Race Riots

1943 Battle of Bamber Bridge

1944 Park Street Riot 

1947 Anti-Jewish Riots (in retaliation for the murder of British servicemen)

1958 Nottingham Race Riots

1958 Notting Hill Race Riots

1961 Cannon Street Riots (Middlesbrough)

1975 Chapeltown Riots (Leeds) 

1976 Notting Hill Carnival Riot

1980 St Paul's Riot (Bristol)

1981 Brixton Riot

1981 Chapeltown Riots (Leeds)

1981 Toxteth Riots

1981 Moss Side Riot 

1981 Handsworth Race Riots

1985 Brixton Riot 

1985 Broadwater Farm Riot

1985 Peckham Riots

1987 St Paul's Riot (Bristol)

1987 Chapeltown Riots (Leeds)

1989 Dewsbury Riot

1995 Brixton Riot

2001 Harehills Riot (Leeds)

2001 Oldham Riots

2001 Bradford Riots

2005 Birmingham Riots

2011 England Riots

2017 Forest Gate Riot (London)

 

The political elite who manipulated immigration have always known that forcing peoples together has resulted in conflict. The act of doing so was deliberate. Conflict at ground level gives the excuse for control from above. These controls have been implemented and tightened as the chaos and violence from multiracialism has deepened. The people who have suffered most are the White British, who still today are the victims of institutional racism and racial violence. Even the euphemistic language of the political elite demonstrates institutional discrimination against Whites: 'grooming gangs' instead of 'child-rape gangs', 'honour crimes' for Coloured-on-White violence yet 'hate crimes' for White-on-Coloured violence. The political corruption of the multi-ethnic Roman Empire was repeated in that of the British and has continued with globalism. The same rhetoric is used: the elites now talk of 'progress and aid in developing countries' even as they exploit third-world resources for personal profit and of 'social justice' as they turn the third world's angry young men loose on impoverished Whites in the West. If the real history of Windrush shows anything, it is the wickedness of the white liberal.