To mark today’s worldwide St Patrick’s Day celebrations, H&D published two articles on St Patrick which have recently appeared in the magazine.
This first article – “Saint Patrick the Patron Saint of the USA” – was written seven years ago, but the same issues are still being discussed in Loyalist circles today – now mainly on internet forums. So it was fitting that we republished it (in hard copy in issue #77 of H&D) on the run-up to this year’s St Patrick’s Day.
It was America that spawned the St Patrick’s Day parade, not Ireland, and its origins are both Protestant and British…
As March 17th approaches, the annual debate has reignited on whether Unionism should embrace St Patrick and the day set aside for his commemoration. Over the last five years there has been a slow emergence of Protestant participation on the date, though that has been via the creation of new events rather than involvement in existing ones. This article examines the origin of St Patrick’s Day parades, this new emerging trend, its motivation and where it may possibly lead.
The question ‘where is the biggest St Patrick’s Day parade in Northern Ireland?’ at first glance would appear easily answered. Belfast most would say, with a few probably suggesting the Cathedral City of Armagh or even where he was allegedly laid to rest, Downpatrick. What will surprise many is that the largest parade for the last few years by sheer number of participants has been in the small County Armagh village of Killylea. It is here since 2005 the Cormeen Rising Sons of William Flute Band have held their annual band procession and competition. Last year the Cormeen parade saw 42 bands take part (in comparison to the seven that paraded at the Dublin event), amounting to approximately 1800 band members. Thousands of spectators stood along the route, despite it being a bitterly cold evening.
Cormeen Rising Sons of William chairman Mark Gibson explains that the bands original motivation for the parade came more out of necessity than anything else. “The band season is very busy, and when trying to find a date for our parade it was difficult to define one that didn’t clash with other bands locally.” Some members suggested March 17 as a solution to the problem, but the band was nervous. “We were concerned about how a St Patrick’s Day parade would go down in our community, the parade in Armagh never was very welcoming, but we made a decision to try it and it has been a success.”
From that initial year where thirteen bands took part, the parade is now among the largest in the Province. It’s not only the number of bands participating that has increased, but also the crowds attending to watch, and the event is increasingly becoming a fixture in the calendar for many Unionists. Another band, the Ulster Protestant Boys Flute Coleraine, have started a similar event on the date that too is growing. The ever increasing scale of both processions indicates clearly that there is certainly a willingness within the PUL (Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist) community to be involved in St Patrick’s Day. Where the schisms emerge are with the issues of why and how.
It is generally acknowledged that in the distant past Patrick was not a controversial figure for Protestants in Ireland or beyond. His ‘sainthood’ was never conferred by the Pope and pre-dates the reformation, so he was never seen as being the possession of ‘Rome’. St Patrick was seen as an evangelical Christian who had made personal sacrifice to spread the gospel in Ireland. The anniversary of his death was observed and commemorated by all Protestant denominations to different degrees, with the Church of Ireland in particular very active.
The shift from an anniversary of religious significance towards an ‘Irish’ event however first took place in the United States in 1737. In Boston that year the Irish Charitable Society, made up of Protestant immigrants (some of whom were British Soldiers), held their first meeting and dinner. The purpose was to both honour Patrick in the context of their Protestant faith and to reach out the hand of friendship to other Irish immigrants. The exercise obviously struck a chord and the practise spread, with the first recorded parade in New York in 1766, with again British Soldiers of Irish blood heavily involved. It was America that spawned the St Patrick’s Day parade, not Ireland, and its origins are both Protestant and British.
During that period in history the vast majority of Irish immigrants were Presbyterian, however from 1830 it was Catholic arrivals who were in the ascendancy. With that change began an emphasis towards anti-British sentiment in the demonstrations. In the aftermath of the American Revolutionary War anything portrayed as anti-colonial was well received, with even the many original Protestant immigrant descendants non-antagonistic of this motivation. Many British ‘Loyalists’ had left for Canada, and effectively the descendants of the original Protestant Irish settlers remaining saw themselves as primarily American in identity, with all that was left for their original ‘homeland’ of Ireland simply folk memory and sentimentality.
Mike Cronin, author of A History of St Patrick’s Day, states that whilst this tradition was developing, back in Ireland the first parades didn’t take place until the 1840s and even then they were organised by Temperance societies. Mike emphasises the lack of public celebration “The only other major events in nineteenth century Ireland was a trooping of the colour ceremony and grand ball held at Dublin Castle.” So even as late as 1911 the largest St Patrick’s Day occasion in Ireland was still rooted in a joint Irish and British expression of identity. Protestant churches and some Orange Lodges throughout the island appear to have held minor functions on the date, but these were very subdued affairs, and essentially even post-partition very little changed. Catholic observance of the day continued to different degrees in different areas, as did the Protestant nod to Patrick.
Right up until the 1960s the primary theme of St Patrick’s Day in both Northern Ireland and the Republic still remained religious observance, with even from 1923 to then public houses and bars in the Republic of Ireland closed by law. A poll conducted in 1968 suggested that 20% of Northern Irish Protestants at this stage still considered themselves Irish. The onset of civil unrest in Northern Ireland coincided however with the importation of the American style to St Patrick’s events in Dublin and elsewhere. Now whilst a violent conflict was being waged in the name of all things Irish, St Patrick’s Day parades were starting to display the features that had developed in the United States. On these parades Irish identity was perceived by Northern Protestants as being defined as aggressively anti-British and anti-Protestant, with the disjointed and casual nature of the parades and the now integral alcohol element alien to PUL parading traditions and customs.
As the IRA campaign escalated, many Protestants simply could not divorce the fact that these celebrations displayed an exclusive form of Irish sentiment whilst a campaign was being waged against them in the name of Ireland. As the years progressed, in Northern Ireland in particular it became apparent that the day was being deliberately used in many instances as an extension of the Irish Republican war against Unionism.
Grand Orange Lodge Director of Services Dr David Hume reiterates the view that in the recent past it has been the nature of the parades and commemorative events that turned Protestants away. “The perception among Unionism is without doubt that Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism has used St Patrick’s Day parades as a weapon, effectively using the ‘shield’ of Patrick to express obvious militant anti-British and therefore anti-Unionist sentiment.” David believes that the manner and focus of these events is totally at odds with the purported motivation. “St Patrick’s Day should be used as a day of reflection on the religious significance of Patrick, something far removed from the aggressive and confrontational use of symbolism; and the huge emphasis on alcohol consumption that currently seems to be the case.” David bluntly states that the date isn’t an important one on the ‘Orange’ calendar, but recognises that it does have a place in society.
There remains one annual Orange Order parade related to St Patrick’s Day, which is held each year in Ballymena. One of the participating Lodges is The Cross of St Patrick LOL 688 which was founded in 1967. A lodge spokesperson describes the motivation behind its formation as being “to reclaim the heritage of Saint Patrick” explaining that “Brethren were concerned that Patrick’s heritage was being hijacked by Roman Catholicism and Republicanism.” The lodge’s concerns would appear to have been reflecting the growing sense of alienation the PUL community was feeling regarding St Patricks events.
There is no doubt that this alienation effectively forced many Protestants into an automatically negative position regarding St Patrick’s Day. With the advent of the IRA cessations of violence and the ongoing political process however, it has become apparent that many within Unionism have been able to reflect much more on the meaning of St Patrick’s Day for them. The ending of a violent ‘Irish’ physical campaign has given space to examine the date, with many now realising that it once was a date of relevance that they were forced into denying, and there is a willingness to make it relevant again. Nevertheless this reflection and willingness has not as yet manifested itself into significant participation in civic St Patrick’s Day parades.
With a few exceptions, such as the participation of an unashamedly Loyalist Blood and Thunder band in the 2003 Limerick St Patrick’s Band competition, Unionism still does not feel comfortable taking part in the modern version of a St Patrick’s parade. Concerns still exist regarding the involvement of militant Republicanism in such events along with the aggressive use of flags and symbols, but the problem seems to go much deeper.
Iain Carlisle of the Ulster Scots Community Network has a very straightforward and unambiguous answer regarding Unionist involvement in St Patrick’s Day events. Iain states very clearly “I don’t think there has to be ANY justification given for Protestants or Unionists marking Patrick’s day”, but goes on to say that “there is however a fundamental difference of approach to both Patrick as a person and the means of celebration within the Unionist community”. Iain’s comments would appear to reflect not just a general uncomfortable position with the overtly ‘United Ireland’ underlying St Patrick’s Day theme, but the actual motivation and method of celebration.
All historical examinations of Protestant Irish and their approach and relationship with Patrick indicates that for them he has never truly deviated from having a purely theological relevance. On St Patrick’s Day however the majority of Catholics, Irish Nationalists, Republicans, those of Irish descent and indeed anyone who wants a day out, St Patrick’s significance as a religious icon is purely tokenistic. St Patrick is merely a figurehead for overt Irish nationalism and a holiday. In turn the Unionist tradition of parading has developed from a military perspective and the American style parades are an alien concept, being perceived as being undisciplined and overtly casual.
Whilst new events have arisen, it is obvious that Unionism has no desire to abandon its central belief of Patrick’s religious relevance, and in addition is reluctant to embrace what it sees as an alien approach to parades. Even with the emergence of band parades on the date, they in themselves are a much more disciplined and subdued practise than their counterparts on the day. Whatever the future holds, it is clear that the PUL community is going through an ongoing examination of Patrick and his relevance to them. As journalist Chris Ryder recently pointed out “there will be no going back to the view that St Patrick was a Catholic, and a saint only for Catholics.”
Just over 24 years ago a unity demonstration backed by the British National Party and an alliance of other patriots and opponents of terrorism almost led to the assassination of IRA sympathiser Ken Livingstone, who was then a Labour MP and later became Mayor of London.
The story is revealed in a new book Left-Right-Loyalist by Frank Portinari, former London commander for the Ulster Defence Association.
Today the Daily Star on Sunday broke the news under an “exclusive” headline: Second Northern Irish assassination plot on Ken Livingstone uncovered. Later the same story was picked up by the Mail on Sunday.
Many H&D readers will remember the anti-IRA demonstration on 30th January 1993. Hundreds of patriots blocked the path of IRA supporters from the Troops Out Movement, who intended to march from Hyde Park to Kilburn (London’s Irish republican heartland).
Frank Portinari reveals in his new book that the intention was for the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) to use ensuing chaos to assassinate Livingstone:
“Livingstone’s provocative support for Irish republican terrorists and their apologists made him public enemy number one. A UFF unit decided to assassinate Livingstone on the day of the march. A volunteer on a motorbike would be parked nearby to transport the gunman to a safe house.”
However huge numbers of police intervened to protect the IRA marchers and their friend Livingstone. At least 296 BNP and Loyalist demonstrators were arrested – in fact the true figure was over 400, since many were released once transported some distance from Hyde Park, and hundreds more were ordered to disperse under threat of arrest.
One leading BNP activist well known to H&D rallied a group to break through the police lines: they almost succeeded, but police just about kept control and were then reinforced. Livingstone survived and was elected Mayor of London from 2000 to 2008.
Several of our demonstrators were advised by sympathetic police officers to dispose of weapons before arriving at police stations.
Due to train delays our assistant editor was late arriving at Hyde Park. In those days before mobile phones he was surprised to see none of our comrades around, so followed the route of the IRA march into Kilburn, expecting to catch up with the counter-demonstration – not realising that all our people had been arrested or dispersed. Unfortunately he then found himself right in the heart of the IRA supporters at their rally outside the Sacred Heart church in Quex Road, Kilburn – but was then able to file a report for the BNP newspaper British Nationalist exposing the true nature of the speakers at this event, who gloated over the IRA’s murder of two British corporals.
Thursday’s Northern Ireland Assembly election proved a sad day for all Loyal Ulstermen and their friends across our increasingly Disunited Kingdom.
The costly shambles over the Renewable Heat Incentive (otherwise known as ‘Cash for Ash’) was cynically exploited by two parties – Sinn Fein and (shamefully) the Official Unionist Party – but predictably only Sinn Fein benefited.
Terrorist sympathiser Michelle O’Neill thus took a step closer to becoming First Minister of Northern Ireland, while the IRA godfathers behind her celebrated yet another own goal by the Unionist establishment.
With the Assembly reduced to 90 seats, the target for the Democratic Unionist Party was 30 seats – enough to ensure an effective veto known as a “petition of concern”, but they have fallen two seats short. Critically this means that even with the support of Jim Allister, leader of Traditional Unionist Voice, who retained his seat in North Antrim, the DUP will not have the 30 votes required for an effective block on (for example) gay marriage.
As for broader issues of who now runs Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein are likely to use their strengthened position to claim the scalp of Arlene Foster, DUP leader and outgoing First Minister. Edwin Poots, re-elected for the DUP in Lagan Valley, supported his leader today but hinted that she might be considering her position.
While it is unlikely that the DUP and Sinn Fein will be able to agree a new coalition within the official three week deadline, something will doubtless be patched up in due course to avoid a return to direct rule from London, which would be a disaster for Prime Minister Theresa May.
The big loser on Thursday – deservedly – was Official Unionist leader Mike Nesbitt who resigned after the failure of his opportunistic effort to destabilise the DUP. Nesbitt had called on his supporters to give their second preference votes to the nationalist SDLP rather than to the DUP, a shocking betrayal of the unionist interest.
Meanwhile UKIP confirmed their utter irrelevance in Northern Ireland. They contested just one Assembly constituency – East Antrim – but this tactic of concentrating their resources failed miserably. UKIP candidate and Carrickfergus councillor Noel Jordan was eliminated with just 4.2% of first preferences. (The Assembly is elected by the Single Transferable Vote system, with each constituency now electing five MLAs.)
Mr Jordan told the Belfast Newsletter:
“We just don’t know what happened. I can’t explain why our vote has dropped.”
Dr Peter Doran lectures in “sustainable development and governance” at Queen’s University Belfast and has worked for the United Nations on environmental issues. Some years ago he was a candidate for the Green Party, for example at the Upper Bann by-election in 1990.
Dr Doran has now turned a different shade of green, and is Sinn Fein candidate in the Lagan Valley constituency at today’s Northern Ireland Assembly elections. He also writes for a pro-Republican blog.
Quite disgracefully, as pointed out in a letter to the Belfast Newsletter by Robbie Butler (Ulster Unionist candidate for Lagan Valley), Dr Doran has failed to condemn the IRA’s murder of his fellow Queen’s University law lecturer Edgar Graham, who was shot dead on the Queen’s campus in December 1983. Unsurprising as Dr Doran is a candidate for the political wing of the IRA, the direct descendants of Edgar Graham’s killers.
Fortunately Dr Doran stands no chance of being elected in Lagan Valley today. He should perhaps remember that Loyal Ulstermen have had their own way of dealing with terrorists and their apologists – Sheena Campbell (who was Sinn Fein candidate in the same Upper Bann by-election when Dr Doran stood for the Greens, and was the fiancée of IRA bomber and sniper Brendan Curran) was executed by the UVF in October 1992.
Kevin Vickers, Canada’s Ambassador to Ireland, was first to react when a terrorist front group tried to disrupt last Thursday’s centenary commemoration for British forces killed in the treacherous 1916 Easter Rising.
The ceremony at Grangegorman Military Cemetery was interrupted by Brian Murphy of the Irish Republican Prisoners Welfare Association (IRPWA) – a front for the terrorist faction known as the Real IRA or (since 2012) New IRA, which also uses titles such as 32 County Sovereignty Committee. An arms cache belonging to this terror gang – including anti-personnel mines and an armour-piercing rocket – was found on May 16th in Capanagh Forest, near Larne, Co Antrim.
Ambassador Vickers did not wait for police to deal with the Fenian insult last Thursday: a wise decision as one never knows with police in the Irish Republic whether to expect law enforcement or sympathy with terrorism.
As shown in the video, Ambassador Vickers took the direct action approach! The Fenian scum on the receiving end can count themselves lucky to have got off so lightly: when another terrorist strayed onto Vickers’s patch in his previous role as Sergeant-at-Arms of the Canadian Parliament in 2014, Vickers shot him dead.
While several “New IRA” crimes have been directed at rival Fenian terror gangs, including several shootings earlier this month, there have been suggestions that a new wave of Republican terrorism might be expected soon against both Ulster and British targets. Loyal Ulstermen and Britons alike will bear in mind Ambassador Vickers’s example, and as during previous Fenian campaigns, will not wait for the courts to protect them.
This afternoon nominations closed for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections. Voters in the province go to the polls on the same day as the London, English local, Scottish Parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections on May 5th. At the previous NI Assembly election in 2011 the BNP had three candidates, but neither the BNP nor NF will have candidates in Northern Ireland this year, nor will any of the smaller racial nationalist parties.
The main concern of most H&D readers in Ulster will be to see that those political forces prepared to resist Sinn Fein (political arm of the terrorist IRA) maximise their vote. Due to the terms under which the Assembly and Northern Ireland Executive were constituted, following the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, power sharing among the various parties is guaranteed, with executive positions being allocated to any party with a significant number of Assembly seats.
Nevertheless there will be considerable interest in how the balance within unionism works out between the once dominant Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) whose leader Arlene Foster is the outgoing First Minister, the dissident Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV) and various independents, such as former DUP activist Billy Dickson, who is standing in South Belfast.
UKIP has made some modest inroads in Northern Ireland, mostly winning votes within the unionist community, but won no Assembly seats at the last election in 2011 and will probably fail again, despite the proportional electoral system which gives some chance to smaller parties. The big story here is in South Down, where Henry Reilly (then UKIP’s chairman in Northen Ireland) achieved his party’s best result by far in 2011, polling 5.6%. Mr Reilly was expelled from UKIP in November 2015 following an internal dispute and now sits as a TUV councillor – he will be TUV candidate for the Assembly this year, and UKIP will have no candidate in South Down. Mr Reilly has denounced his former party for changing its policy and becoming too much in favour of the Good Friday Agreement: “In my view the GFA is not working and needs radical root and branch reform. That is what Ukip previously stood for. Now they are just another small-pro-agreement party.”
Mr Reilly has a strong chance of winning an Assembly seat this year, particularly with his strong personal vote in the fishing port of Kilkeel.
In North Antrim, Donna Anderson, a former TUV councillor who defected to UKIP, will be standing for the Assembly against TUV’s leader Jim Allister, who is almost certain to be re-elected. UKIP will be contesting 13 of the 18 constituencies: aside from South Down, they are missing only the Republican/Catholic strongholds of West Belfast, West Tyrone, Fermanagh & South Tyrone and Foyle.
In the March 2016 issue of Heritage and Destiny we feature an article on Ulster by Enoch Powell – an article which was first commissioned, then suppressed by Mrs Thatcher’s government, which was already involved in pursuing a treacherous deal with the IRA.
Enoch Powell served as Ulster Unionist MP for South Down from 1974 to 1987, having previously been a senior Conservative politician until he was forced out of the Tory party for his 1968 speech on immigration.
This speech – delivered to Birmingham’s Conservative Association on April 20th 1968 – became known as the “rivers of blood” speech (though that phrase never appears), because Powell had quoted lines from the Roman poet Virgil, who wrote of the Sibyl of Cumae (a prophetic priestess) warning the Trojan hero Aeneas that she sees a vision of the River Tiber (on which Aeneas is about to found Rome) “foaming with much blood”. (Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno). The line appears in Book VI, Line 87 of Virgil’s Aeneid.
There follows the complete text of Powell’s 1968 speech:
The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”
Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.
At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.
A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.
After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”
I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?
The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.
I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.
In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.
There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.
As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase.
Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.
The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions be reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.
The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.
Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country – and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.
I stress the words “for settlement.” This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.
I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.
Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.
Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.
Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.
The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens.”
This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.
There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.
The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.
This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.
Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.
Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.
But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.
They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted.
They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.
I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:
“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her ‘phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week.
“She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, “Racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country.” So she went home.
“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house – at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”
The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.
Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.
But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.
We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.
Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:
‘The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.’
All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.
For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”
That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.
Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
97 years ago today, on 11th November 1918, the great European holocaust ended after four years of slaughter.
Our country, our continent and our race remains scarred forever by that terrible European civil war – a scar that was to be reopened by another disastrous conflict just twenty-one years later.
Britain’s armed services have had to face further sacrifices still, though none has yet matched the scale of the cataclysm that we mark today.
Almost worse than the death and destruction has been the repeated betrayal – the latest example being the sickening decision yesterday to arrest a 66-year-old former Lance-Corporal from the Parachute Regiment.
Though we must never despair, we must always remember: the sacrifice, the lies, the betrayal. Soon true justice will be meted out: the British, European and White peoples of the world will reclaim their birthright.
We remember the words of Cicero – the greatest orator of another mighty empire two millennia ago – who wrote that “to be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life, unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history?”
And we remember the words that have been spoken at war memorials across our nation for almost a century:
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
During the first two weeks of July 2014 British nationalists demonstrated solidarity with our Ulster Loyalist comrades, who have been so disgracefully betrayed by a Westminster establishment happy to hand power to Sinn Fein / IRA terrorists.
On July 5th Heritage and Destiny editor Mark Cotterill travelled north to attend Orange celebrations in Blantyre, South Lanarkshire. This town on the outskirts of Glasgow is best known as the birthplace of 19th century explorer David Livingstone. (Anarchist terrorist Stuart Christie was also born there!)
This year Blantyre hosted the march organised by the Grand County Lodge of Central Scotland, featuring bands from across the country as well as guests from Portadown, County Armagh.
A great day was unspoiled by any troublemakers or police harassment (in contrast to experience of petty officialdom in Glasgow and Coatbridge in recent years).
Sadly some idiots or provocateurs threw a bottle at the Glasgow march, causing a nasty injury to a 12 year old girl and giving the local Labour MP Jim Murphy (a notorious friend of South Africa’s ANC Marxist terrorists) a chance to smear the entire Orange Order.
Another trouble free event was at Southport on July 12th, when Mr Cotterill and H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton joined a host of Loyalist comrades including members of the National Front, British Movement and Blood & Honour. This year was a particularly special occasion, commemorating the sacrifice of Loyal Ulstermen in the tragic European civil war which began 100 years ago in August 1914. The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) formed the 36th (Ulster) Division of the British Army and suffered appalling casualties, especially at the Battle of the Somme in 1916.
In his official account of this battle Capt. Wilfred Spender of the Division’s HQ staff, though not himself an Ulsterman, commented:
“The Ulster Division has lost more than half the men who attacked and, in doing so, has sacrificed itself for the Empire which has treated them none too well. Their devotion, which no doubt has helped the advance elsewhere, deserved the gratitude of the British Empire. It is due to the memory of these brave fellows that their beloved Province shall be fairly treated.”
Of course instead of being “fairly treated” the province of Ulster was betrayed by successive British governments. Three Ulster counties – Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan – were detached from the Province and handed over to the new “Irish Free State”, today’s Irish Republic. The remaining six counties were subjected to decades of IRA terrorism which have now resulted in the terrorists being celebrated and one of their leaders – Martin McGuinness – being appointed Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. Meanwhile the UVF’s wartime sacrifice is mocked by the removal of our national flag from Belfast City Hall.
A group of British nationalists from London and Lancashire travelled to Belfast for the July 12th parades to support the Orangemen’s traditional marching rights, yet again under threat from a craven establishment and its puppets in the new Police Service of Northern Ireland, the new politically correct body which has replaced the Royal Ulster Constabulary and tarnishes the RUC’s fine reputation of combatting Fenian terror.
Earlier today London newspapers caught up with the news first revealed shortly after midnight last night on this website: naming the chief suspects in the sensational London “slavery” case as Marxist cult leader Aravindan Balakrishnan (known on the 1970s far left scene as “Comrade Bala”) and his wife (known as “Comrade Chanda”).
Police spokesmen had earlier stated only that Scotland Yard detectives’ rescue of three women – allegedly kept as slaves for thirty years – was linked to a political organisation. Late on Sunday evening the Telegraph website gave certain details (though without naming the group concerned). This enabled H&D to identify the case as relating to a Maoist commune in Brixton known as the Workers’ Institute, which broke away from the Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist) in 1974. We were therefore able to break the story in the early hours of this morning.
Once the news had broken on our website, Scotland Yard’s press department confirmed to London journalists that the suspects were indeed Comrades Bala and Chanda, who had been living with their remaining Marxist cult members in “social housing” provided by Lambeth Council for more than three decades. The London Evening Standard labelled its story about the couple as an ‘Exclusive’, though in fact we had been the first to publish it here at H&D the previous night. The Daily Mail then published an online version, much of it blatantly lifted from our article.
Police and social services are now facing many questions about their knowledge of Balakrishnan and his gang since the 1970s.
In particular, Heritage and Destiny is interested in a violent attack on Prof. Hans Eysenck, while he was giving a lecture on “Current Theories of Intelligence” at the London School of Economics, on 8th May 1973. This attack was carried out by about two dozen members of the CPE (M-L), including Balakrishnan who was then a leading activist in this Maoist group. (He split from them a year later.)
Prof. Eysenck, then 57, was widely demonised by the left and “anti-fascist” groups because of his views on the genetic role in intelligence. Similar demonisation has been practiced against organisations such as American Renaissance and writers such as Jared Taylor and Dr Roger Pearson.
“Comrade Bala” and his fellow hoodlums pulled Prof. Eysenck to the floor, where he was punched, kicked and spat upon. He was left with broken spectacles and cuts to his face, and was later treated at the Maudsley Hospital, Denmark Hill.
The Maoist gang, who included several bussed in from Birmingham, went on to attack some of their fellow leftists. One of the leaders of the Birmingham gang was Paul Rowe.
The CPE (M-L) – both during Balakrishnan’s involvement and after the 1974 split – did not confine its violent proclivities to punching middle-aged academics. In July 1975 they were exposed by the Ulster loyalist journal Combat as the “most violent Communist organisation in the UK”. In March of that year members of the Ulster Volunteer Force had discovered letters from Paul Rowe and other members of the group to Michael Adamson, a terrorist from the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA), whom they had just shot dead at his home in Clifton Road, North Belfast.
Ironically Adamson had been identified following a tip-off from his former comrades in the so-called “Official IRA” after a split in the Marxist wing of Irish republicanism the previous year. The INLA and its political wing (the Irish Republican Socialist Party) went on to develop very close ties to violent “anti-fascists” in England and Scotland, which have been documented in several Heritage and Destiny articles.
All of this goes to show that Balakrishnan and his ilk should have been very well known to the British authorities. So if the latest police charges concerning “slavery” prove accurate, why was he allowed to get away with it for so long? Did it suit the British state to indulge violent “anti-fascists” with Irish republican links?
And why on earth was Balakrishnan effectively subsidised for so long by the hard-pressed ratepayers of Lambeth?
UPDATE: One of the CPE (M-L) recruits at the London School of Economics, where the attack on Prof. Eysenck took place, was a young Welsh law student called Sian Davies, whose daughter is the youngest of the alleged “slaves” in the current criminal investigation. After the 1974 split Sian Davies followed Balakrishnan and his faction into the Brixton commune, where she remained until her mysterious death after falling from an upstairs window on Christmas Eve, 1996. The Daily Telegraph, ITN News and the Daily Mail have just posted reports about Sian Davies and these will doubtless appear in the print editions of Tuesday’s papers, though like other mainstream media sources they are (so far) too shy to mention the British Maoist cult’s involvement with violent anti-fascism and Irish republican terrorism.
By the way, the latest Telegraph report, in suggesting that Balakrishnan had joined “the Communist Party” in the 1960s before forming his cult, reveals a pretty basic ignorance of the British political fringe, and the Daily Mail is equally wrong to suggest that he was part of “an English branch of the Communist Party”.
What he joined was not the long-established pro-Moscow Communist Party (CPGB) or anything to do with it, but a pro-Chinese (and hence anti-Moscow) group founded by an Indian Maoist called Hardial Bains. The London wing of the international movement founded by Bains was called the Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist), and as we have explained Balakrishnan was one of the leaders of the CPE (M-L) until breaking away in 1974 to form his Brixton-based Workers’ Institute commune.
The fundamental enmity between the CPGB and the CPE (M-L) was reflected in their relationship to Irish republican terrorism. While the Maoists (as explained above) were for a time close to the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA), the pro-Moscow Communist Party would have backed the group from which INLA broke away – the ‘Official IRA’ (commonly known as the “Stickies” because of the stick-on Easter Lilies they sold to commemorate the 1916 Easter Rising).