Horus on his Substack: The problem with the invaders is they are different people
Jewish immigrants like the Rothschilds bribed their way into Parliament and pressured politicians to supplant British foreign policy with Jewish foreign policy (e.g. supporting the Ottoman Empire). In the 1880s a massive wave of Jewish immigrants moved to Britain and the USA. The existing Jewish communities used the ‘pogroms’ narrative to justify treating the immigrants as ‘refugees’ and condone their takeover of the East End of London, parts of Manchester and Leeds and other areas, driving out and replacing British people.
The post-1880 Jewish immigrants included violent criminals, disturbing neighbours, rapacious landlords and businessmen, and socialist/communist/anarchist subversives (the essays I’m working on will cover this). They then brought Zionism too. British politicians began to be recruited to the Zionist cause, betraying their own nation.
The descendants of the 1880s generation include many of the most aggressive subversives in British history, including Anthony Lester, Richard Stone and Barbara Roche. They include the terrorists who assaulted British police at Cable Street, and those who formed the 43 Group and 62 Group. They set the pattern for the violent suppression of native resistance to immigration.
Several of the leading communist revolutionaries from the Russian Empire were free to live in Britain for several years before they overthrew the monarchy back home: Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Litvinov and many others.
Some Maltese had moved to Britain by the 1910s and were largely involved in crime or illicit business. Romani gypsies had been allowed to move in over previous centuries and conducted themselves similarly, as did Irish travellers. Various Irish immigrants in Britain were supporters of anti-British militancy. Contingents of Somalis and other Africans were allowed to stay in Cardiff, Liverpool and other ports after the First World War, and their criminality quickly led to violence. Chinese workers were employed where possible to drive down wages and standards.
Throughout the interwar period, Marxists like CLR James and Kwame Nkrumah were free to use Britain as their base of operations, just as Lenin and co had done.
After the 1948 Nationalities Act, Afro-Caribbeans began to flood in, encouraged and facilitated by Jews of both pre- and post-1880 descent, and later Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. By 1988, Muslims were confident enough to demand the banning of books and threaten death to their enemies. Irish journalists in Britain like Sean O’Grady have since endorsed their demands.
What reason is there to think that these people were as loyal to the country as our parents and grandparents were? Were the Jamaicans who pimped out or raped white women loyal? All available evidence suggests that most immigrants simply see life in Britain as easier, more lucrative and, for many of them, wide open to predation. The Muslim rape gangs date to the 1970s at the very latest, but probably began as soon as the first Muslims moved in and got the measure of British tolerance combined with state-imposed ‘anti-racism’.
All immigration, i.e. state importation of strangers, has been forced on us against our interests. It did not become bad in the 1990s. And they were not “coming home”.
First, for Britain at least, the initial wave of immigration came from the Commonwealth and that generation was as loyal to their Queen as anyone born and bred in Bradford or Birmingham or London. They were coming home, only to very bad weather. The immigration we have seen in the last twenty to thirty years however was very different. It turns out that importing people from war torn countries, countries that have experienced brutal genocides, say such as Rwanda, was not such a good idea.
Laura Perrins
The Windrush West Indians were a mixed bunch, some Christian ex-serviceman loyal to the “mother-country” and others more criminal in tendency, all expecting streets paved with gold. Some were bullied, others spread drugs; almost all had a different way of life, irrespective of their pigmentation. It was the start of the multi-community “unarmed invasion” (Lord Elton) which has exploded to immense proportions, and still continues, as cheap labour for the capitalists, political warriors for the communists, welfare recipients for the liberals, and pulpit fillers for the churches. We now face the prospect of the eventual reduction of our English people to a minority in our own ancestral homeland.