Can the Halting of Immigration Alone Stop the Ethnic Cleansing of our Nation?

The news that 25 percent of all primary school pupils and 22 percent of all high school pupils in Britain today are from ethnic “minorities” means that indigenous white British people will be replaced as the majority population within two generations from now.

Can the simple halting of immigration alone stop this process?

Official figures released by the Department for Education show the ethnic “minority” school population has increased from 21.9 percent in 2007 to 25 percent in 2010: a three percent increase in just three years.

At this rate of exponential growth, white indigenous children are set to become the minority in schools within the next 15 years. After that, the adult population will reflect the school-age population after one generation.

Contrary to leftist propaganda, mass Third World immigration has not brought “prosperity” and a revived economy. The Department of Education figures show that, in parallel to the increasing ethnic population, the number of pupils are eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) – a measure of poverty – is increasing as well.

According to the official figures, 15.9 percent of pupils in state secondary schools (nearly half a million individuals) are are eligible and claiming the dinners. This figure has risen for the third year in a row, meaning an extra 37,000 pupils are now on free meals than in 2008.

The numbers of FSM pupils in primary schools has also risen, with almost one in five (19.2 per cent), or 743,255 youngsters, now taking up the dinners. This is 106,000 more than three years ago.

In other words, mass Third World immigration is actually harming the economy. Those familiar with the effects of race and demographic displacement on First World society will immediately recognise the issues at stake here: namely that the replacement of the First World white British people with an imported Third World population is only going to turn Britain into a Third World nation—and nothing else.

The British Democratic Party stands as the only party to recognise the inherent threat to our nation’s future existence which this immigration invasion poses.

The party’s current immigration policy is to deport all those illegally present, accept those who are here legally and encourage voluntary repatriation of the latter community. This is, of course, a fair policy.

But is it enough to prevent the British people from being overrun and exterminated through a steady process of ethnic cleansing by out-breeding? The answer is, whether the party likes it or not, no.

The numbers of already present ethnic “minorities” in Britain make it a matter of demographic certainty that, left undisturbed, they will outnumber the British people well before the year 2060.

In this light, some hard decisions face any future nationalist government. They can only be guided by the standards set for all other Second and Third World nations on earth, and act accordingly.

This means that a nationalist government will have to adopt the policies of numerous Second and Third World governments, all of whom have taken active steps to preserve the indigenous nature of their populations. It has simply been a matter of survival, and there is no reason why the indigenous people of Britain do not have the right to claim those self same rights to survival as any other people on earth.

The alternative is extinction. And this is not what the British Democratic Party is all about.

Bookmark the permalink.

6 Comments

  1. Needed saying.
    The British people have a straightforward choice.
    Survival or extinction.

  2. A sadly accurate analysis of the situation with which few nationalists will disagree. I do however question the wisdom of the conclusions reached.

    The writer states that a policy of encouraging volutary repatriation will not be sufficient. However, that depends upon how successful and effective that policy is. If the rate at which minorities volutarily choose to leave exceeds theirnatural population increase then the policy will be effective. It seems to me that it is a matter of pitching repatriation incentives at the right level.

    I also wonder if nationalists are sometimes too rigid in their thinking. When I look at China and the success of their one child per family policy I wonder if a similar policy cannot be implemented among immigrant families here. Those who wished to have larger families would of course be free to do so – but in their own countries.

    I also wonder if a policy of separation is practical. At the moment we have a kind of natural and voluntary segregation whereby minority communities naturally choose to live with their own type, e.g. Pakistani’s in Bradford, Indians in Southall and Jamacans in South London. Is it not reasonable that certain areas of our country can be set aside for various minorities whilst other areas are reserved for indiginous British?

    The British people are a very fair minded race. They will want a solution which is clearly fair to the immigrants and ethnic minorities living here. The old ideas put forward for the last 40 years have been rejected by the electorate and do not seem to have much public support.

  3. Britain is a small island. Does KH seriously believe that the indigenous British should be expected to literally give away whole swathes of their ancestral homelands to hundreds of alien ethnicities so that each can set up colonies across the length and breadth of Britain, not forgetting that the procreational habits of the non-White Third World occupiers would very soon engulf the whole of Britain including the parts reserved by the indigenous British for themselves.

    The proof of this is already happening as matters stand right at this moment, in other words, the ethnic-cleansing of native White inhabitants from out of their own neighbourhoods and thus lands on a gargantuous scale not witnessed in the history of their island homelands before.

    These alien non-White ethnicities were not forced to immigrate to White homelands and were entirely uninvited (by the indigenous British themselves, that is), and the indigenous British are under absolutely no obligation to relinquish all or any of theirs’ and their present and future progeny’s birthright, ie, their ancestral homelands and heritages.

    Did not the non-Whites in question, mainly Indians Arabs, Africans and Orientals banish White colonizers from their ancestral homelands during the course of the 19th and 20th centuries?

    Well!

    Have any of these non-White ethnicities ever relinquished or ceded all or parts of their ancestral homelands to White occupiers right up to the present day?

    Well!

  4. The issue here Ann is whether we consider our people to be those who live in this land or whether we consider the British to be those of us who share a common Anglo-Saxon/Celtic heritage. Personally I am not bothered about what happens to the land area which we designate as The UK, but I am very concerned about the slow death of the white race and the British in particular. If the survival of our people means we have to give up some land that is a price worth paying in my opinion.

    But my point is that nationalists must look at the various options available for the survival of our people. To return to a policy of compulsory repatriation or expulsion is electoral suicide.

  5. KH
    The issue, as you put it, as to whether we should consider everyone who lives in Britain or only Celtic/Anglo Saxon people doesn’t exist – period.

    A person of British White ancestry born in China, would not Chinese. A person of British White ancestry born in India, would not be Indian. A person of British White ancestry born in Saudi Arabia, would not be Arab. It should, therefore, be blatently obvious to you that we cannot cede whole swathes of our territories to millions of Third Worlders comprised of separate races and cultures. To do so, would mean the ceding of at least 50% of our ancestral territories (England, N Ireland, Scotland and Wales), in order to accommodate the myriad races and their individual demographic sizes within newly-created separate states. In other words, we would have signed away at least half of our homelands merely to begin with, to the many races and cultures that comprise these myriad alien hordes. As their numbers relentlessly increase, there would be inevitable demographic overspill into those legislated exclusive White areas resulting in further White flight and ongoing further colonisation until White indigenous inhabitants were totally ethnically cleansed from the whole of Britain and eventually, the British Isles itself.

    I am beginning to wonder if this precisely what you really intend.

    You should futher bear in mind that the indigenous British have been politically, judicially theocratically and media brainwashed and terrorised into accepting their own territorial dispossession and racial/cultural extermination, and as a consequence, we are witnessing a majority too scared to vote en masse for the survival of themselves and their future generations.

    • Too right, Anne…..But….
      are the indigenous British prepared
      to do anything about it, except moan.
      Voting BNP would be a good start…
      but the moaning never translates into BNP votes.
      They continue to vote for the three onanist
      parties,& then whinge about how bad things are.
      Isn’t madness defined by doing the same thing
      over & over,& expecting a different outcome?
      Step forward the British electorate!

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *