Mass Immigration Was the Left’s Revenge for Thatcher

Mark Krikorian, National Review, April 8, 2013

Margaret Thatcher couldn’t be elected today. It’s not just that she was a great woman and such people don’t come along every day. Rather, the British Left made sure of it by altering the electorate through mass immigration.

This isn’t conspiracy mongering. Andrew Neather, a former Labour-party speechwriter, admitted in 2009 that the immigration boom engineered after 2000 was specifically intended to import a new people:

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”.

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Peter Hitchens, Christopher’s smarter brother, wrote a devastating piece recently on the reason for the Left’s promotion of immigration:

When I was a Revolutionary Marxist, we were all in favour of as much immigration as possible.

It wasn’t because we liked immigrants, but because we didn’t like Britain. We saw immigrants—from anywhere—as allies against the staid, settled, conservative society that our country still was at the end of the Sixties.

Also, we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people—usually in the poorest parts of Britain—who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’.

If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots.

None of this is unique to the U.K. Throughout the developed world, the Left uses mass immigration and lies about racism to bend the sovereign, patriotic nation-state to its will. And it does so with plenty of help from its accomplices on the corporate and libertarian right.


Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • So CAL Snowman

    They openly admit this because they do NOT fear recrimination from us middle class Whites. I do not usually endorse vigilante justice, unless in works. In this case it will. Get them, get them all.

    • ms_anthro

      Yes. Hold them accountable. We know their names and what they look like. What are we waiting for, exactly? Boycott their businesses, broadcast their evil activities, take out full page ads exposing these malicious, traitorous cockroaches for what they are. It will only take one spark to start the fires of cultural revolt.

    • White Mom in WDC

      White Mom concurs with you Snowman. It’s funny because I was just thinking that what needs to happen is organized vigilante justice. It is right because we have been wronged. With an inevitable crash coming, vigilante justice will organically occur.

  • Barrack Osama

    I hope I can see such people tried for treason some day.

    • The__Bobster

      I’d pay to watch their punishment.

      • bigone4u

        I’d pay to administer that punishment. I can pull a lever.

        • freddy_hills

          If they sold lottery tickets for the privilege they could probably pay off the national debt.

    • bigone4u

      Can Bill Gates be the first one put on trial? You’ll notice that since he began supporting every looney left initiative that the government has dropped its anti-trust prosecutions of Microsoft. Gates struck a deal with the devil as did Cesar Chavez-loving Google.

      • Xerxes22

        The same with Mark Zuckerberg.

  • I must admire them for being so successful. Well, white British? What are YOU going to do about it? Flee your own country and hope my country takes you in?

    • IstvanIN

      Please, there is no such thing as “white” British. The British are, of course, white by definition. By using the term white British you are falling into the the traitors trap that their can be British “people of color’. There can not. There may be citizens of the UK who are black and brown, but they are not British. The British are English, Scottish and Welsh. Had to get my pet peeve off my chest.

      • Zimriel

        Some of us would argue that the British are just Welsh and Cornish :^)

        • saxonsun

          The Celts were and are the British.

      • Saisyet

        Saying White British is kind of like saying Asian Chinese, right?

      • David Ashton

        “White British” is a government census term. It has one advantage: it distinguishes us from the “immigrant minorities” and can be used to legitimize a “racial” position, but of course you are right about “our island race” of English, Welsh and Scots.

        • IstvanIN

          My apologies, no harm was intended. It seems the left chips away at our identities bit by bit.

          • David Ashton

            No offence taken; no need to apologize. I appreciate your contributions.

      • rightrightright

        Increasingly people refer to themselves as English, Welsh, Scots rather than British. You don’t see the union flag much these days. Instead, the flag of England, of St George, is everywhere in England.

        The politicians and their media creatures then made a huge fuss that St George was Turkish or even a muslim! A multicultural, non-Christian person, perfect for their propaganda. In truth, St George was a Roman citizen of Anatolia, likely to have been Greek, a Christian. The Asian Turkomen had not yet arrived.

        But why spoil a good opportunity with truth?

        • David Ashton

          And in the village plays of England’s past St George was often shown in direct combat with a Turk or Saracen.

        • watling

          St George’s origins are less important than the national unity he symbolises.

    • David Ashton

      Run away to an unfriendly reception in the USA? No, we intend to stay and continue to fight politically.
      What do YOU intend to do in your country, D. B. Cooper? You have NOWHERE to flee.

  • David Ashton

    Margaret Thatcher spoke against the multicultural “swamping” but did not do enough to prevent it. She is dead. We still have to ensure that England doesn’t die.

    • While she was on record stating that Mexicans will be the death of America:

      She herself lauded Muslim immigration into England, because Muslims had a good “work ethic” and “family values”

      I guess she didn’t realize that some people here say the same thing about Mexicans and Hispanics.

      • So CAL Snowman

        She was just another useful statist tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

        • Luis

          Yes! Her good buddy Ronald Reagan couldn’t get elected dog catcher in California today.

      • Athling

        She was indeed conservative on some issues, various fiscal policies and what have you, but she was naive on matters of racial realities. Btitain’s current issues with those of the Muslim persuasion, i.e. Arabs, Pakistanis, Somalians, Algerians et al, bears witness to that fact. As we all know, you simply cannot allow massive numbers of racial aliens into your geographic boundaries and expect anything other than racial strife and, ultimately, Balkanization or civil war. This is as true for Japan as it is for Israel or any other nation on earth.

      • Athling

        While she was conservative on some issues, fiscal policies and the like, she was naive on matters of racial realities. Britain’s current issues with those of the Muslim persuasion, i.e. Pakastanis, Somalians, Arabs, Algerians, and other assorted non-whites, bears witness to the fact. As we all know, you simply cannot allow massive numbers of racial aliens into your geographic boundaries and expect anything other than racial strife and, ultimately, Balkanization and/or civil war. This is as true for Japan as it is for Israel or any other nation on earth.

      • MBlanc46

        British employers like cheap labor, too. And someone has to run all the newsagents.

    • fakeemail

      She was an admirable White woman who believed in Britain, opposed communism, and fought for the Falklands. But ultimately she couldn’t or wouldn’t muster the courage to defend what counts about Britain: IT’S PEOPLE. She just defended “free markets”. Enoch was a great man and should’ve been PM.

      • David Ashton

        I have similar mixed feelings about her actual achievements too. The collapse of our industrial communities must be counted against her. On balance, she did more good than harm, and better than any alternative politicians then available. Powell too tried to combine free markets with national patriotism, but gave the latter priority by eventually advocating assisted repatriation instead of further alien immigration.

        • fakeemail

          Nationalism and capitalism can go together. It’s called protectionism or Buchananism. It allows the strong worth ethic and innovation made possible by capitalism while outlawing its dark side of foreign cheap labor (and the welfare state) and imposing tariffs for on foreign goods.

        • Katherine McChesney

          She shut down the coal business, didn’t she? Many people lost their jobs because of that. In fact, whole towns nearly disappeared because people moved to cities in order to find employment.

          • HamletsGhost

            She didn’t shut it down. She de-nationalized it to keep it competitive with coal mining in the rest of the world.

            The greatest irony from the ’84 coal strike by communist leader Arthur Scargill was that the Government met its coal needs by importing coal from communist Poland. So much for socialist solidarity.

  • sbuffalonative

    If true, the Right should run with this and call out the Left.
    Does anyone believe the Left has the right to change the very demographics of a country to stay in power?
    There should be outrage and action.

    • The__Bobster

      And mass deportations.

      • Claire Jason

        If you think Francisco`s story is something..., four weeks ago my aunt‘s boyfriend also got a cheque for $6737 sitting there a sixteen hour week an their house and their roomate‘s aunt`s neighbour has done this for three months and earnt more than $6737 in their spare time at there pc. the information from this site,

        • Katherine McChesney

          British scam.

      • Wayne

        And summary executions…if this is not high treason, nothing is.

    • Athling

      Oh it’s true. Very true. Throughout the West we have an unholy alliance between the insane Left and the Corporatists who see a nation as merely geographic boundaries in which to conduct business with maximum profit. Their fevered brains have brought us to the brink.

    • bigone4u

      Proposing to change the immigration laws to halt immigration will get a politician targeted by the left for removal next election. It would take courage no Democrat or Republican seems to have and so thus provides a good reason for a new political party that is opposed to immigration. New parties usually fail, but sometimes influence policy. Thus, there is hope for us.

    • KenelmDigby

      There isn’t a shadow of a doubt that this is exactly what the Labour Party tried to do during the 1997 – 2010 Blair/Brown administration.
      As the article above states, Andrew Neather (a very senior party apparatchik with the ear of the PM and senior cabinet ministers) was privy to cabinet meetings in which exactly what you state was discussed. It’s all there written in black and white.
      The change in British demographics is so massive and rapid that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Britain will be a majority non-White nation by 2040. Anyone who doubts this ie either ignorant of the facts or a liar.
      A consequence of this will be permanent Labour Party rule since the vast majority of non-Whites are loyal Labour voters. What is likely to happen is that the Conservatives will wither away and disappear and be rpelaced on the right by UKIP, an unashamedly civic nationalist political party that strongly wishes to prohibit immigration.

    • Felix_M

      “If true, the Right should run with this and call out the Left.”

      If true there should be a coup d’état and the leftist leaders wiped out.
      The leaders of the left aren’t motivated by compassion. A resentment, usually stemming from when they were very young and which even they don’t fully understand, is what motivates them.

      These are truly vile people, starting with Tony Blair, that vapid man with the ridiculous grin.

      • Stentorian_Commentator

        I think we have to realize that the left’s most effective tools are not any type of intellectual or moral prowess, but a thorough mendacious ruthlessness that justifies disastrous policies so as to gain and hold on to power.

  • jambi19

    This is a fundamental deficit of democracy. In this age politicians can choose an electorate instead of an electorate choosing a politician.

    • Athling

      Our founders anticipated and had knowledge of tyrants such as these. Hence our right to bear arms.

      • Aurelius

        You are not suggesting that the founders created the Second Amendment for the purposes of over throwing the government are you? That goes a little beyond self defense.

        • Athling

          While I cannot give a complete treatise on the Second Amendment in the space of a comment, here are a few starting points:

          The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense to fight the government. (Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of A Constitutional Right (1984), p. 67)

          The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. (Ibid., p. 67)

          The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. (Ibid., p. 67)

          • Winston Merryweather

            If we ever did establish our own white ethnostate, I’d bet within a decade the likes of the white protesters at the Amren conference and all other white ethno-masochists would be screaming for us to let them in.

          • If we did establish a White ethnostate I’d would worry about our children’s minds being subverted into rebelling, or perhaps their children rebelling.
            We can’t force them to be like us, but we must lead them, sharing with them the differences between the light over the dark, leaving them to choose.
            I know that as a race realist that I can influence my children to fly right, but I have to trust, that I can install in them the values that will transcend multiple generations after my death.
            My children are five and seven now and based on my observations of how the peer group influence takes over, I figure I only have about five to seven years left of being their ‘god’ (I’m actually letting them know that I am very fallible, so they don’t experience the same disappointment I experienced when I came of age……plus trust me TV is not their ‘god’ either).
            I figure I have somewhere between 20-40 years (hopefully) to set up a freehold house with land, (I own over 50% of my entry level middle class house now).
            I was day dreaming the other day about leaving this property in a trust, where the right to live in this house is dependent on me having a flat screen with numerous prerecorded messages from great grand daddy GenX, giving warnings from that time when the dangerous progressive politics were at their height, so future generations of my descendants will never forget about these dangerous ideas (perhaps with another stipulation or two).
            It’s more of a legacy than what my naive and idealistic left wing parents ever set up for me.

            Racism is love, love of self, love of your tribe, love of your woman and of your children, ergo anti racism is (self) hate.

          • hastings88

            Nonwhites will not agree to peaceful succession. They can’t make themselves say it, but they desperately want to be with or near us. They are parasites. No, it’s going to get very unpleasant.

        • bluffcreek1967

          The Second Amendment was not crafted so that Americans could hunt or target shoot. It was for the purpose of preventing governmental tyranny. It was intended as a last resort for the American people in the event that its own government would become tyrannical.

          In essence, Americans possess the right to take arms and fight their own government if that government or administration becomes tyrannical, seeks to enslave its own people, or seeks to remove their basic right to bear arms.

          We have now reached that point.

          • antiallanbloom

            So in effect the Southern states had a right to secede and a right to bear arms against the tyranny of the North 1860. Didn’t work

          • bluffcreek1967

            Oh please. Time and space doesn’t permit getting into that whole thing. I’ll leave that for others. The specific point I was trying to make was how the Founders understood the Second Amendment and its original intention. Whether or not one’s appeal to the Second Amendment to justify bearing arms against the government will vary depending on the context and circumstances.

          • Wayne

            Yes, they did, same as the Fiunders did to Britain successfully. In the end, might does make right, and nature will not be mocked.

        • ms_anthro

          Yes, that is exactly why they created the Second Amendment. And since when is defending oneself from an insane and tyrannical government not self-defense?

        • HamletsGhost

          People overthrow their governments in the name of self-defense.

          Ref.: Independence, Declaration of by T. Jefferson.

        • Wayne

          That’s exactly what the founders intended–that their posterity would be armed for defense from tyranny. Why is it so damned hard for the left to understand this??

      • Xanthippe2

        I am certainly not saying that people shouldn’t have guns. But you would have to be a fool, or something, to think they can be defeated with home weapons. The modern high-tech stuff (not nukes) is needed. This could easily happen with a change in White ideology, but not with a “direct action now”philosophy.

  • Bud

    They’ve already done it here, with Republican connivance. Strange that this is appearing at National Review though. The author better hope no Liberal sees it and orders his bosses there to kick him out.

    • alas

      I regularly read Krikorian’s posts, he is the only source I see arguing against the current amnesty proposals. Other ‘conservative’ sites like Breitbart do not. I also hope they do not fire him.

      • Zimriel

        Breitbart *has* been on the case. I ran a google search on that site for the keyword “amnesty” and I dug up an article called “Illegal Border Crossings More Than Double Since Amnesty Talks Started”. From last week.

      • Charles Lufkin

        NR has a pretty good position on immigration.The editors came out against amnesty.Heather MacDonald has written numerous excellent article against amnesty in NR.

  • Xanthippe2

    Could a Brit give us a refresher course here? I thouhgt she enabled or at least didn’t strongly oppose mass (non-White) immigration.

    • If she had stopped immigration, wouldn’t that have been an insult to someone or other’s grandfather?

    • The__Bobster

      Thatcher was disgracefully silent during the British elite’s hysteria over Enoch Powell’s prophetic immigration speeches. But after all, as Powell himself once said to me philosophically, she was a politician. It has more recently emerged that she was privately an admirer.

  • ricpic

    Hitchens admits that he “didn’t like” immigrants. Which is to say he is as uncomfortable in the presence of West Indian blacks and Pakistanis as any other sane white. He has the normal sense of wellbeing when with his own kind and discomfort in the presence of the other. And yet he actively imported permanent and never ending discomfort, friction, for the rest of his days and his children’s days and their children’s days until time runs out in order to stick it to the hated bourgeoisie or prole or both. It is not only the immensity of the crime but the immensity of the willful stupidity that floors me.

    • IstvanIN

      As much as I despise Barry Obama, George Bush and Bill Clinton I would not destroy my nation and my children’s future to “get back” at them.

      • HamletsGhost

        “To cut off one’s nose to spite one’s face” is a common enough expression to describe an all-too-common human ailment.

    • HamletsGhost

      Hitchens’ candid admission gives us a peek into the vile minds of the left. They are motivated by hatred of others that do honest work for a living and know that since so many of them are trust-fund babies themselves, they seek out some other means of flaunting their supposed moral superiority to cover up their true moral inferiority.

      Just as a coward will bluster a front of false bravado to cover his cowardice, so too do leftists desperately cover their flaws with phoney virtue.

    • Wayne

      Not stupidity, sir, raw, unadulterated hatred for your own family.

  • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

    Like Reagan, a mixed bag, but that sure looks good after the parade of losers since the ’80s.

  • brengunn

    The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a
    politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the
    country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew
    Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

    I really don’t want to believe that. I mean, there has to be more to it than, what, spite. The whole country and it’s future changed for spite? I find it hard to believe because it happened in every European country to one degree or another. I’m much more inclined to believe the economic justifications for mass immigration, even though I don’t agree with them, they at least have more logic than spite.

    • Xanthippe2

      Like the most “diverse” parts of the U.S. are doing the best economically. Yeah, the truth IS hard to take at first.

    • saxonsun

      I didn’t want to believe it either when I read it but there’s no other explanation for it. The thing that’s so hard to swallow is that white men, Englishmen, would deliberately sabotage their posterity.

  • JohnEngelman

    As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

    – Mark Krikorian, National Review, April 8, 2013

    What need? What benefits? Actually, better questions would be: Whose need? Who benefits?

    The benefits of immigration go solely to the employer investor classes. Anyone on the left ought to be able to understand that. In addition to depressing wages, a heterogeneous population is more difficult to organize into labor unions.

  • antiallanbloom

    How do you feel about Polish Romanian Russian and other Eastern European immigration into Brittan?

    • alas

      I come from Britain although I am only half British, my mum comes from another European country. As such I am probably more accepting of other Europeans similarly coming in, and I dislike it when the Right Wing constantly go on about immigrants when in reality the biggest threat comes from non-white immigrants who are just as bad and no better than British-born minorities.

      Having said that, I would still want Britain to remain British just like France should be French, and there are too many Europeans coming in in my opinion, although they are infinitely more welcomed than non-whites.

      • watling

        Unfortunately it is harmful to one’s career and social standing to express a preference for white European immigrants. That’s why politicians who want to greatly reduce immigration always add the caveat: “it’s about numbers, not about where they come from.” Cameron said exactly that in a radio interview a few months before he became prime minister.

        • Xanthippe2

          Depends on what one’s career is. Plenty of companies do not care what you do in your free time as long as it doesn’t interfere with your work and you are not in the headlines (and getting in the headlines is probably not so easy as you think — especially if you take precations. And I do NOT mean internet only). A lot of people are WAY too paranoid. Of course if you head an ethnic studies dept……..

    • Pat

      We don’t have enough houses, jobs, schools, hospitals, money for welfare benefits or SPACE for any more. Not that this will make any difference – the doors are not just open they have been removed. The Border Agency (a total mess) cannot stop them and we cannot remove any because of ‘Human Rights’. My local paper prints pics of new ethnic ‘enrichers’ every day and even in the past has advertised jobs in Polish! How do I feel? – increasingly hemmed in to put it politely. The British government has admitted that the population of the early 1950s of 40 million was about right for our size – we are now heading towards 70 million (if not there already) and still they come.

    • David Ashton

      England is overcrowded anyway. White immigrants are preferable to Caribbean, African or South Asian immigrants with different ways of life, &c. But there is too much immigration from outside altogether. There is also a substantial immigration of criminals from eastern and south-eastern Europe. A few small law-abiding bi-lingual European enclaves can add something to society, but not when these become so large and self-contained that they demand community preferences and disintegrate our own national identity. We can share music with Germans, Italians and French, &c.
      Personally I was well cared for in hospital two years ago by a very friendly Romanian nurse, but I was also robbed some months previously by gypsy pickpockets from the same part of the world. Rather than blame the immigrants, I blame the EU directorate, the “British” political class, unscrupulous big-businessman and gang-masters, and the Cultural Marxists that still infest our education system and other institutions.

      • PesachPatriot

        Its hard for me to really understand britain’s immigration problems…america is directly adjacent to mexico with thousands of miles of difficult to secure land border, but the UK is an island…it should be relatively easy to keep illegal immigrants out because of geography….I thought the reason behind allowing in jamaicans, indians, pakistanis, jordanians, iraqis, nigerians etc is because these places used to be part of the british empire….why does britain feel a need to to allow in people from continental europe who were never ruled by british monarchs? Also, does the UK allow english speaking south africans to immigrate there since south africa was also part of the british empire?

        • The need for immigration in Great Britain is felt by those who have an insatiable lust for cheap labor, just as it is in other countries. The ideology of multiculturalism is just a cover for their treason.

          • PesachPatriot

            Tell them to look at pictures of detroit, new orleans, atlanta, chicago and cleveland if they need to see the long term cost of “cheap” labor. The way everything is outsourced now anyway you’d think cheap labor populations could be easily exploited wherever they live. The british empire was probably one of history’s more humane empires and helped found great countries like the US, Canada and Australia. England is the only reason there is any infrastructure in africa, india and parts of the middle east. Its not fair for young brits born in the last 20-30 years to pay for the mistakes of victorian era royalty. I guess you have all the same problems as the US but crammed in to a much smaller place because people can’t spread out as much from each other and you’re economically tied to the mess on continental europe.

          • HamletsGhost

            I’d say you have the positions reversed. Large numbers of the immigrants do no work, have no work ethic (but do have a strong “crime ethic”), and no marketable job skills. Yet the government still pays for their entry into the country, puts them up in council estates (public housing) and then gives them a regular dole check. They are, in blunt economic terms, worthless.

            But never mind to any of that. Britain’s demented Bolshevik class demands that ever more be hauled into that ever sadder island to sponge off the ever poorer British taxpayer.

            “Cheap labor” is a convenient dodge to dump the blame on “rich white businessmen” who, just like the rest of the white population, sheepishly apologize for everything, even things they had no part of.

    • watling

      Somehow the Polish immigrants in particular have acquired a reputation for being hard-working and willing to work for lower wages. However, the Polish who come here are likely to be young, fit, single and – since they have shown themselves able to make the effort to get off their arses in an attempt to better themselves – are indeed likely to be harder worker than the average native British person. As such, bosses are bound to prefer them.

      In truth Poland’s general population is on average no more capable or harder working than Britain’s. The Polish we get here are not necessarily representative of the nation as a whole and they’ve certainly been bad news for young native British people trying to get a foot on the career ladder.

      • Pat

        My husband knows an elderly Polish man who came over during the second world war. He says that the first wave of immigrants we had from Poland were as you describe and they were willing to work for less money because the differences in currency rates meant that a poor wage to us was wealth to them, but now, he says, we are getting the ‘rest’…the criminals, the benefit scroungers, etc. Agree with your last sentence, we do not put our own people first anymore.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    There it is.

    Thanks, Peter, for the honesty. Pro-immigrationists = self loathing. Here no different than there.

  • Well, at least Britain has its past.

  • Diesel Mechanic

    From wikipedia:
    “British Conservative Party politician who was Prime
    Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and the Leader of the
    Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990. ”

    Also, this:
    stance on immigration was perceived by some as part of a rising racist
    public discourse, which Professor Martin Barker has called “new racism””

    like all the rightwingers, she claimed to be against mass
    immigration…..just like the rightwing politicians here in america.

    But what were the actual RESULTS of her putative anti-immigration policies?

    Lookee lookee what your girl has found:

    at that graph, rightwingers! The rate of foreign born neoslaves
    imported into Britain during Thatcher’s reign did not decrease at all
    when she took over in 1975/79. And in fact during her reign, the rate of
    imported foreign neoslaves brought into the UK continued to increase.

    When are you going to admit that ‘conservatives’ are just as much traitors as the supposed-leftists?

    Admit I am right. Admit that Thatcher sold out the working class brits just as Labor did. Quit idolizing the elite.

  • dj2

    The worship of Reagan and Thatcher is part of the reason for the decline of the right in Britain and America, and it’s seeming inability to permanently take on the even more incompetent left.

    Reagan and Thatcher represented corporate/financial interests who were interested in growth in markets above all. They were never genuinely nationalist in orientation. In fact, they did as much as the left to harm the nationalist position.

    But some of you, in your hero worship, can’t admit that, can you? Because that would mean rethinking modern history and despite everything that’s happened, you quite can’t bring yourself to do that.

    • Yeah, but what was the choice then:

      Jimmy Carter and Jessie Jackson, Coleman Young?

  • steve7789

    When Thatcher came in to power in 1979, 87 percent of British children lived in homes with two married and natural parents. By the time she left in 1990 this had fallen to 66 percent. Some “Conservative”.

  • steve7789

    Not to mention her government abolished the cane in schools, allowed the Irish government to interfere in our domestic affairs, reversed the decisions of courts that forbid under age girls from being given contraception without their parent’s permission, increased the power of social workers and above all did absolutely nothing about immigration. Though to her credit, she did ban schools from promoting homosexuality to children, something which has since been reversed by our sodomy crazy establishment

  • This is a communist idea from the get-go. Just ask East German Commie Poet/Propagandist Bertolt Brecht:

    “Some party hack decreed that the people

    had lost the government’s confidence

    and could only regain it with redoubled effort.

    If that is the case, would it not be be simpler,

    If the government simply dissolved the people

    And elected another?”

    “The Solution” [“Die Lösung”] (c. 1953), as translated in Brecht on Brecht : An Improvisation (1967) by George Tabori, p. 17

    Variant translation:

    “The Secretary of the Writers Union

    Had flyers distributed in Stalin Way that said

    That the People had frivolously

    Thrown away the Government’s Confidence

    And that they could only regain it

    Through Redoubled Work. But wouldn’t it be

    Simpler if the Government

    Simply dissolved the People?”

    And elected another?

    • Yeah, but Socialist East Germany never elected a new people – they’re still German. Not so the supposedly Conservative, anti Communist states of Reagan and Thatcher.

  • Felix_M

    Forward Krikorian’s piece and the one by Peter Hitchens to everyone you know. Forward it to all your senators and congress critters. This isn’t just about immigration. This is another attempt by the left to destroy traditional society.

    • I recommend getting to know young, still idealist congressional staff members. Get TP know them by name. Be posite supportive, contact them maybe once every quarter, write personal e-mails with links maybe once every two weeks.

  • rightrightright

    Immigration that is destroying Western civilisation everywhere is enabled by the predominantly white Left. No hard Left, no immigration. This report is sickening. I hope it focuses some sheeple minds on what is happening.

  • Felix_M

    And this is precisely why the left wants mass immigration here.

  • LHathaway

    “They openly admit this because they do NOT fear recrimination from us middle class Whites”

    On this score I think we will do better than the UK. Scotland and Wales will be left as a final reservation for whites, so it would seem. It might not be a great a punishment to be kicked out of Wales.

    Here in the remnants of USA it will be no doubt satisfying kicking those we don’t like out of our new country. Time to quietly take down the names of the Tim Wise’s, the most egregious offenders in our midst, for later trial. If I would somehow have anything to do with it, we will brand them then drop them off outside the border. They can be with the diversity they love. Is this violence? I don’t support violence of any kind but I do support this. Perhaps it would be a bit more humane than I describe it but not if I have anything to do with it

    I don’t say this to intimidate them into submission – to frighten them into voting with us, and make no mistake we need their votes. We will get them. We act well after the vote. This isn’t rhetoric designed to intimidate them into supporting us. I’m not some kind of leftist. I say this only for the faithful on sites like AmRen. It’s something we can be ready for. I say this because I think there will come a reckoning. Perhaps ‘justice’ demands it, who knows, but I think it’s coming.

  • Bobby

    It’s very possible mass immigration was the lefts “revenge” for Thacther. What AMericans and possibly Brits, simply cannot comprehend, is that revenge is a phenomenon of the left, gross, vile, and as damaging a revenge they can dream up. The left consists of people that simply are not sane. On one who is sane, pushes with the greatest energies, policies that will destroy their family and their friends throughout the Western World.

    • Bobby

      I meant “no one” who is sane pushes policies …..etc.

  • America and Britain have been destroyed inside by just one generation. Will we be looking foreward to the new, modern dark ages?

  • Margaret Thatcher’s only grandson is a pharmacist in a big money suburb of Dallas:

    Notice he did “Hispanic outreach.” Ironic, considering this: