Ethnic Cleansing | East London

20 03 2010

For centuries, we have fought off invaders.  Harold Godwinson told Harald Hardrada “Six feet of ground or as much more as he needs, as he is taller than most men“.    Since 1945 though, our Government imports them.  Now it is not only the offer of six feet but entire streets, boroughs and even towns.  And to protect the newcomer, a whole range of amendments, white papers and even entirely new laws have been introduced.  All to the detriment of working-class Britons.

Riding the wave of progressive politics is fine for some, even preferable to a few, but where was the consideration for the Britons who got swept beneath it?

Every murmur against the invasion was met with accusations of bigotry.  For so long this has happened that every party bar one walks on egg shells, hoping not the offend the minority vote.  Us indigenous Britons though can be shat on from afar due to the fact that we haven’t got umpteen thousands of organisations or community leaders fighting our corner.  In fact, the EHRC deems it illegal for us Britons to pick our own objectives.

From the Salisbury Review.

Ethnic Cleansing in East London

Written by Patricia Morgan

When one of my old Labour Party acquaintances expressed anxiety over Islamic terrorism, I asked him why he had always been so keen on getting as many immigrants here as possible.  A case of foreigner good: Brit bad, immigrants had all the desirable qualities and every one of them would be a great asset to this country.  He told me that he had been ‘trying to make the revolution’.  So, while it had not been possible to storm Buckingham Palace and set up Soviets in Westminster, you could still change the population and supplant the hated ‘other’.  Ironically, it happened that the flesh and blood other was not made up of filthy capitalists or parasitic aristocrats, but the ordinary working class people we had grown up among, and for and with whom, socialism would create a new world.

These people had become invisible and it is as if migrants were being invited into an empty land.  Throughout the decades of mass immigration the claim has ever been that migrants just take the jobs we do not want or cannot fill.  In the ’60s and ’70s it was also the houses; I recall teenagers in a civics class shouting at a teacher who was trying to counter their toe-curling racism by saying that the Caribbeans moving into their streets were simply occupying houses nobody wanted.  ‘We want them’, ‘we live in them’, ‘what’s wrong with them?’ the boys yelled.

What may have been wrong was that the indigenous population was not being divested of them fast enough in reparation for the sins of Empire.  Labour MP Frank Dobson spoke to a mainly Bangladeshi audience in Tower Hamlets a few years ago and urged them to help themselves to benefits, education, services, housing and much, much more.  All we had was rightfully theirs and we could never compensate enough for our past oppression. Dobson is one heir of that political alliance of the new left with minorities which became active in local politics from the mid 1970s.  This alliance enabled white radicals to portray themselves as part of the international movement combating imperialism, with the world’s black and brown people, the downtrodden proletariat.  The New East End by Kate Gavron, Geoff Dench and Michael Young (Profile Books, £15.99) shows how life has changed over the last half century in the area of Family and Kinship in East London, since 1957.  It is a dreadful story of dispossession.

It is particularly poignant that the Empire be invited home to East London, where national suffering was at its hardest in the Second World War and the place people thought of when contemplating the effort and the sacrifices being made by civilians.  In the 1957 study the authors noted the confident linking of home territory, community loyalty and war service.  Many streets had little memorials on the walls, listing the inhabitants killed in the war.  Some of these memorials still exist; no longer proud remembrance but points of resistance to the invasion of the area and symbols of loss and betrayal.  Ordinary people saw the welfare state as a reward for the efforts ordinary citizens made during the war, forging an extension of working class social insurance measures.  But East Enders soon discovered that while they ‘lived in a promised land, they might not be the chosen people’.  The debt the left thought was owed to third world immigrants eclipsed any due to the indigenous working class.

Housing was the key to opening up the East End to outsiders.  Traditionally, tenancy allocation had depended upon local interests and networks, where established tenants secured new tenancies for family members from landlords.  Local government also took over a ladder principle where the more desirable properties went to the most deserving who had waited the longest.  By the 1970s, legislation had created a statutory obligation to house the homeless.  You could no longer work your way to the head of the queue by patience and good behaviour; a set of central and invariable rules would override your claim.  Immigrants found that their ‘need’ shot them to the top of the list.

Cooperation between the local authorities and ethnic leaders led to blocks of flats being set aside for Bangladeshi occupation, along with a substantial proportion of new and renovated housing.  Provision has come to depend upon housing associations and co-operatives, through which the local authorities collaborate with central government and local residents.  Attuned to cultural sensitivities, these provide six-bedroomed houses for men with multiple wives and many children; despite angry rants to the media about housing requirements being ignored.  Strong family connections, including ties to others in Bangladesh, are useful to demonstrate a need for housing that does not apply to existing citizens. These are hard-pressed to make any case for housing at all, and are said to ‘choose’ to move out.  Unless, that is, they resort to ‘strategic single parenting’.  Having a child unwed may be the only route for whites to the grail of council housing.  Many engage in undisclosed cohabitation which they do not want to discuss in case they lose benefits; married couples live apart to maximise entitlements and families must make their offspring ‘homeless’ if they are to stand any chance of accommodation.  Not only has there been decisive support for indigent outsiders, but antipathy to married, two-parent families.

The loss of local housing-control produced sink estates along with a crescendo of applications to enter the county.  In one of the most rapid settlements ever to take place in Britain, wards of Tower Hamlets where Bangladeshi occupation was virtually nil in 1991 had 40 per cent or more in 2001, as population replacement spread to neighbouring boroughs like Newham and (now) Ilford and Barking.  Bangladeshi children made up one third of primary school pupils in 1981 and two thirds by 2004, as extra resources were pumped into schools with names like Bangabandhu to help minority children.

Bangladeshi respondents in The New East End recount how nobody in London has to worry where the next meal is coming from, how if you do not have a job ‘they give you money’, how you ‘can have somewhere to live, without any rent’, how your ‘children can go to school’ and, even then, they still ‘give you money’.  Omitted from the text is a further observation that you are paid to have as many children as you like.

When means-tested welfare benefits increase with the number of children, they produce a very high worklessness rate.  Nationally, the proportion of working age people living in workless households is highest for Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups, at 27.4 per cent in 2004, compared with 10.9 per cent for whites (where lone motherhood is concentrated).  Muslims have the highest male unemployment rate at 13 per cent; three times the rate for Christian men at 4 per cent.  Add to this an ‘inactivity’ rate of 31 per cent.  These men are purportedly ill or disabled, as are a high proportion of Bangladeshi women, who also draw disability benefits for various mental problems.  Such disparities in benefit receipt by ethnic groups raise many questions about collusion and validation, and just how much assessment is possible through the burka and in the face of ethnic awareness and anti-discrimination strictures.

Poverty activists often harp on the dire poverty of Bangladeshis.  Yet, ‘being poor’ in Britain allows them to live in considerable comfort and still send money back home where remittances fuel land and house price inflation.  Dench’s respondents described Bangladesh as a brutal place where landlords pull down houses when rent goes unpaid.  There ‘one part is starving and another part is having a feast,’ and if you want to get on ‘you have to be cruel to the poor…don’t give them anything’.  No wonder ‘All young people have an aspiration to come to Britain,’ where the ‘advantages of a big community is that we can still live like in Bangladesh; it’s like we don’t lose anything’.  The scale of support makes them believe that Britain must be incredibly rich and white people must all be well off.

With their habitat gone, there are many fewer whites in family households; the average number of children in a Bangladeshi household is more than seven times that in a white household.  This helped increase the population of Tower Hamlets by 45 per cent in twenty years (national growth rate, 6 per cent).  The decline in white children is steeper in Tower Hamlets than anywhere else in the country.  White families are in direct competition with immigrants for scarce resources and services, especially housing and education.  Those who remain often last only to the point of school transfer at eleven. Fewer children mean fewer relatives generally.  Family ties no longer give white people access to those who control local resources, or links to jobs and housing.  Men are no longer organised into socially useful lives as husbands and fathers, so the proportion of unwed births and lone parents among whites is also among the highest in the country, when these were lowest in the first half of the twentieth century.

A double victory for leftists and a double whammy for the white working class, who have seen their family structure smashed and their locality colonised.  Highly educated ‘yuppies’ can move around freely, occupationally and geographically, and can take a high-minded view, since they are not in competition with anybody for local resources, not least because they are usually childless.  Instead they can enjoy the sense of belonging to a ‘vibrant’ cosmopolitan community without any demands being made on them.  It is like being on ‘one big foreign holiday’ as you eulogise — like Richard Morrison in The Times — about the cheap labour and wonderful restaurants.

The whites who oppose the rhetoric of need and rights and resent the loss of their locality are mocked as pathological inadequates who are incapable of living alongside people different from themselves.  Use of the racist card both suggests that there is something wrong with the people who feel hostile and avoids the real issues.  Promoting cohesion is only ever understood one way: combating white racism.  No adjustment is ever demanded of newcomers who live inward-looking lives organised around a religious culture which grants little respect or merit to anyone else’s.  Unlike now, immigrants had to work hard to get full admission to the nation where incorporation meant forging ties with the members of the national majority.

Middle class leftists do not learn from history and have instead been drawn by their sympathies into consolidating the rights of minorities against indigenous whites.  By 1998, more whites were reporting themselves as victims of racial incidents than were reported as perpetrators.  Harassment on estates has been defined by council officials in ways which effectively condones any behaviour by Bangladeshis as ‘defensive’, while white tenants are threatened with the loss of their home or delays in dealing with their claims.  The fear of municipal victiminisation prevented some respondents speaking fully to the New East End researchers.  In education, the bulk of conflict management is directed at white parents. As schools have become more Bangladeshi, most entrants and their parents do not speak English.

The New East End at last recognises how hostility to people perceived as strangers must be better understood before being dismissed as wicked or stupid.  The measure of family ties was the strongest predictor of opposition to immigrants, and made this more a manifestation of social commitment than personal disposition.  Family responsibility meant a more intimate level of concern for others and stronger group loyalty or stake in the area, while those people without local kin were, irrespective of age and place of birth, more able to ignore the population changes taking place.  Older people are bewildered at how the welfare state has lost its original sense of reciprocity blaming ‘those big-hearted ones’as much or more than migrants for both their plight and their prejudice.  References to the war signified attachment to a mutualist model of society, and represented the broken pledges made to ordinary people, who now felt forgotten and forsaken as strangers in their own land.

These people have been disinherited and disenfranchised and go unrepresented in a way that contravenes the basic rules of our democracy.  While an elected representative is supposed to represent all those in his area, many in Tower Hamlets make it clear that they are only there for the Bangladeshis who vote them in.  Funds from the European Union to build a community centre are used to build a mosque instead.  There are provisions for ‘mother tongue’ teaching to make immigrants feel at home.  But when one non-Bangladeshi councillor entered a classroom to an abusive reception, he found the lesson devoted — not to Bengali — but to the development of Muslim identity around Arabic.  The Muslim boys’ secondary schools are bottom for the borough; not surprising because at east a third of lesson-time is devoted to memorising the Koran.  The segregation and disadvantage imposed on pupils can be blamed on them being denied chances by white racism.

Unbelievably, Tower Hamlets borough council was awarded ‘beacon’ status by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2004 for its work on ‘community cohesion’.  The Government actually believes that valuable lessons can be learnt from the race relations model of a council where ward meetings have to be segregated because of the hostility on both sides. One of the commissioners on Ruth Kelly’s Commission on Integration and Cohesion launched recently is even to be Prof Michael Keith who was ousted from the council in May when George Galloway’s Respect Party took 12 seats.

Galloway’s Islamofascism represents the growing identity of immigrants as members of the ummah or the worldwide community of Muslims.  The old Bengali Islam, softened by local Hinduism and the Sufi tradition, is giving way to jihadist Iranian and Arab models.  Its integration, not into mainstream British society, but into militant Islam, is increasingly accompanied by calls for autonomous Muslim areas governed by Sharia law.  The mechanisms for government funding have already encouraged local councils to take in more immigrants than their boroughs could cope with and there is not the space for Banglatowns to expand at the same pace — whether in London or elsewhere.  Yet, the influx continues, not least as spouses are brought in from the homeland — which sets integration back another generation. Many on the left still embrace untrammelled immigration and insist that the houses, education and benefits can always be found for the millions who would substantially improve their chances by coming here.

The implications for security, not just national cohesion, are terrifying.  There is a growing drift into a welfare dependency shared with the lower reaches of the white population whose own lives are shrivelled by the rights culture.  What opens up is the kind of prospect we see in the Middle East, where unoccupied, testosterone-fuelled young men, succoured on welfare, spend their time banging guns and making babies.  Those antagonistic to their own people and society are eagerly fostering the emergence of a state within a state.

Yes, Mr Dobson, they came, they saw and they are taking it.

Patricia Morgan ’s latest book is Family Policy, Family Changes, Sweden, Italy and Britain Compared (Civitas)

One street becomes foreign, then another, then the entire estate, then the borough…  Get the picture?  We have had an Internationalist Government more concerned with power and profit than the Britons who actually built this country.

Solution:  Vote British NATIONAL Party.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: