The War On Hindus - Part 2 - #FakeWings

Sometime in 2013 there was an outrage over Narendra Modi stating he was “born Hindu” and a “nationalist” and therefore a “Hindu nationalist”. A Muslim writer went on to analyse this ordinary statement like a space scientist. The problem wasn’t so much that he claimed to be a nationalist but with being a “Hindu” nationalist. In general the term “nationalist” is associated with the Right Wing or the Far Right Wing by Western and Indian (English) pundits. However, there are times like the recent Pak-boat incident which show up who are nationalists and who are anti-nationals. The anti-nationals peddled imaginary theories that ridiculed our govt, Coast Guard and threw a defensive-rope to the Pakis. Apart from the media crooks who indulged in their fabricated stories, the Congress party proved once again why they are anti-nationals by strengthening the Paki hand. During 26/11 actual attacks happened, people died and some Congis still blamed the RSS for the death of Hemant Karkare and other cops.   

If you have watched old Raj Kapoor movies; those B&W ones of the 50s and early 60s, the hero usually played a poor guy or a tramp. The rich lived in mansions. They ate, drank and smoked in posh hotels while watching cabaret dances. They were evil. The hero usually struggled his way to the heroine’s heart defying all social and financial hurdles. The Commies like that kind of story. No wonder Raj Kapoor’s movies were quite popular in Russia too. These movies of the 50s stemmed from the philosophies of Gandhi and Nehru who were essentially Commies. Nehru was inspired by Stalin and saw the Russian revolution and Communism as the new world order and the future to a happy society. Gandhi-Nehru sowed the seeds of Communism so deep that it is nearly impossible for India to get out of it. The Left Wing (LW) and Right Wing (RW) are concepts from the French or the West which had come to soak the soil of India. Because we wanted to be a mixed bag, we adopted the concocted “Socialist” term. Thus, IndiraG embedded that word into our Constitution during the Emergency. A British group fairly plots the ideologies of some world icons:

Nehru was a great admirer of Stalin. Sonia Gandhi would be between Stalin and Hitler. There is no RW in India. Modi too is a great follower of Gandhi and his principles. So where would you place him? Surely not with Thatcher! This is a fallacy that is perpetrated by our pundits and media. It is nearly impossible for a political party to be RW in India. That would take courage. And politicians are usually not courageous. Therefore, in India we only have Chrislamists and Hindus and not fake wings. Gandhi and Nehru were Chrislamists although Gandhi admired and followed Hindu philosophy at a personal level, not at a political level. And though Gandhi admired Hindu philosophy he really didn’t read much about it. He is also reported to have written “Even if Muslims decide to wipe out the Hindu race, there is no point in Hindus getting angry on Muslims. Even if they slit our throats, we should be patient and accept death”.

To understand the war on Hindus let us first get past the neurological disease of LW and RW that is often talked about in politics and our media. There is extreme Communism in the form of CPI and its eggs in Indian politics but there is no RW. There are RW thinkers among the public but not in politics. The BJP is wrongly and conveniently identified as a RW party but it is not; just as it is wrongly identified as a “communal” party when the real communals are the Chrislamists. The Commie ideology was to wage an armed struggle, political murders to overthrow elected govts to establish Commie rule. That was true in India too. But since Nehru was a great friend of Russia, the CPI in India broke into a wing now known as CPM which embraced mainstream politics while the other branches of CPI still continue to wage war. Others are commonly referred to as Maoists and Naxals. All the Commies are Maoists, some more violent than the others. Since CPM came into mainstream politics they dropped their policy of violence and war against the State. Mind you, they dropped it as a policy, not as a practice.

The seeds were sown by Gandhi-Nehru and the final nail hammered in the form of “Socialism” into our Constitution by IndiraG. Once the seed grows into a tree, it is very difficult to uproot it. Politicians are not brave people; most are cowards of the first order. As Sir Humphrey would put it, a controversial decision or policy would cost them votes but a courageous decision would cost the election. Which politician of any variety is willing to lose an election with courageous decisions? Does it surprise you then that even BJP leaders keep chanting “terror has no religion” after the latest Paris shooting? Therefore, whether it is BJP or any other party, their policies and decisions are rarely influenced by what is right.

It took America nearly 100 years, since independence in 1776, to abolish slavery in 1865. That would take a courageous decision. It took even longer, almost 200 years, for Civil rights and voting rights to Blacks in the US around 1965-68. Courage to do the right thing takes hundreds of years. Appeasement takes only a whim. That’s what Nehru did with Reservations. That’s what MMS does when he says “Muslims have the first right on resources”. This is true for the Chrislamists and this is true for the BJP. So why is it that the BJP is called a RW party by foreigners, Indian pundits and our media? It is not! Let us ask a few questions of the BJP if it is indeed a RW party:

#Would the BJP be willing to put a deadline for Reservations to end? Say, something like “by 2025”?

#Would the BJP be willing to take temple interference by govts away? Would they constitute some kind of national body to oversee temples without the Chrislamists?

#Would they be willing to amend the free speech bill and remove the nonsensical “ifs and buts” incorporated by Nehru?

#Would they be willing to repeal the draconian 66A in the IT Act?

#Uniform civil code? (And that doesn’t even have anything to do with any wing)

Those are merely some sample questions. The RW in the public mocks Akhilesh Yadav or JJaya for free laptops or Amma Idlis. They mock Mr. Zero for “free Akash tablets”. Well, even Shivraj Chouhan has given free laptops and devices in MP, hasn’t he? And I won’t even get into Article 370 because that needs some legislative numbers. But even if the BJP had the numbers where they want them, do you really think they will amend Article 370? You are welcome to fly a kite. We know China to be Commies, we know MMS and Congress to be LW but are they really so in practice? Take a look at this (from the same site I linked earlier):

Hu Jintao falls under Right? MMS falls under Right? Barack Obama falls under Right? The Pope is a Commie? Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela are closer to Gandhi as Centre-left. Does any of this surprise anyone? While Jintao, MMS and Obama are generally classified as LW most of their actions and practices place them under RW. So what are we left with?

Mahatma Gandhi was a good man with noble intentions but he definitely lacked vision. He wanted to turn the other cheek like Jesus but supported wars and the Khilafat movement. Shockingly, Nehru even thought we didn’t need an army and that the police was enough for our security. I doubt Gandhi would have objected to the ISIS and may have encouraged the Yazidis to surrender to their rape and death. A partition on religious lines, like that of India, should have been complete. The two desert religions – Christianity and Islam, now form a political axis in India, while they have been historically at war at every other place on earth. The Muslims were a true minority after Independence but they are not anymore. They are a “country within a country”. As for the Christians, they lagged behind so they are catching up through the Christian conversion mafia. They prospered more under the SoniaG regime. The only thing that separates the BJP and other Sickular parties is that BJP is not “Anti-Hindu” as the Sickulars are. Thus, in India, it is Chrislamists Vs Hindus (with the extreme Commies like CPM, CPI on the side of the Sickulars).

East and West Germany could unite only because they were divided by “political ideology” and not really by religion. The Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots remain divided owing to religion. Ireland and Northern Ireland remain divided owing to religion. North and South Korea aren’t divided by religion but by political ideology. In 2011 Sudan was divided by Christians and Muslims on religious lines. Who are our politicians and media fooling with the nonsense of LW-RW conflict? India is a country of religions and it has and will remain a conflict between Chrislamists Vs Hindus unlike other parts of the world. It is natural that the Chrislamists object to and ridicule anything that is remotely Hindu. Let’s look at some samples:

There are many people (including Hindus) who ask: Why are Hindus bothered? Is their Faith so weak as to be threatened by minorities like Chrislamists? If it were a war waged only in India it would have been a very different thing but it’s not. Indian Muslims violently protest for anything and everything from Ulhasnagar to UK, Islamabad to Iran or Iraq or Andheri to America. Any small thing is enough to ignite their anger and violence. This is a Universal Brotherhood and not merely Muslims in India. Same goes for the Christians. John Dayal petitions the US to extend the ban on Modi. Earlier, the gang known as #65Traitors petitioned the US president to ban Modi from the US. 

Who are these people fighting in alliance with? Foreign media of the Christian mafia call Hindus “militants” and the pimps at NDTV promptly invite an anti-Hindu called Gardiner Harris to discuss the “idea of India”.How far it works is a matter of estimates but the Chrislamists believe their brethren in other parts are with them in their war on Hindus. Just read the tweet of the former Tehelka bimbo to understand who her warriors against Hindus are.  You could blindly say the Faleiro types are the Chrislamists who infest our media – St Stephens, some work or qualification from England or US and so on. Now, if we can get past this neurological disease of fake left and right wing nonsense in India we can proceed further with how the war on Hindus works. It is purely Chrislamists Vs Hindus, as it has been for ages. More to come!

   

Right-Wing Fantasy Journalists

Tavleen Singh is a prominent journalist and sometimes also appears on TV discussion panels. Here are excerpts (in blue) from an article “The enemies within” in the Afternoon Despatch & Courier (July 28, 2011). The excerpts are produced in a rearranged order and not in the same way as they appear in her article: 

A TELEVISION show may seem like an odd place to make a profound political discovery but this is what happened to me last week. I agreed to appear on Nidhi Razdan’s show, left, right and centre……. So on Monday of last week she decided that the two most compelling subjects were the corruption charges that currently surround the chief minister of Karnataka and, more puzzlingly, the lessons India can learn from the massacre in Norway.  Her guests in the NDTV studio in Delhi included Nirmala Sitaraman, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s spokeswoman, Shoma Chaudhury, editor of Tehelka and a British journalist of bleeding hearted liberal disposition. I was in a studio in Mumbai listening to the discussion on an earphone and participating when Nidhi gave me the chance to intervene

It was when we got to the second topic of the day that I found myself horrified by the discussion that went on in the NDTV studio in Delhi. Nidhi led it by saying that Anders Behring Breivik represented right wing terrorism and that this was something we needed to deal with in India as well. By this she meant Hindutva terrorism and within minutes she had everyone, including the spokesperson of the BJP, agreeing that all terrorism was bad and that it should not be linked to any religion.

One has come to expect NDTV to be a mouthpiece for the Congress and the Left. Nidhi Razdan does not attempt to camouflage anything. That Shoma Chaudhury or the foreign journalists that NDTV usually invites follow NDTV’s line of discourse is also not surprising. The surprise is always the unusual eloquence with which journalists who claim to be right-thinking also try to camouflage the truth. Tavleen Singh here has attempted a clarification in writing which she could not get the chance to do on TV. But try and recall all the BJP spokespersons, the Swapan Dasguptas, the Kanchan Guptas and their likes and you will find them doing the same thing. On one hand they will claim to be critical of the left and the media delusions but when they do appear on TV, they become the very spokespersons they criticise. Seriously, terror has no religion? Whether it’s a BJP spokesperson, or Swapan Dasgupta or Kanchan Gupta or any other so called right-thinking journalist, you will find them all agreeing. What exactly is the reason for such doublespeak? Let’s read a bit more from Tavleen Singh:

In the cause of the jihad against India these groups have killed hundreds of innocent Indians in temples, bazaars, hotels and even hospitals. Does this compare with the two or three terrorist incidents we have seen that involved Hindu terrorists? Yet, not only do our leftist intellectuals make this comparison but so do important politicians. The Home Minister said last week that he thought the BJP was targeting him in the 2G spectrum scam only because he was investigating acts of terrorism that involved leading members of the RSS. As for Rahul Gandhi’s mentor, Digvijay Singh, he has hinted on more than one occasion that he believes that it was the RSS who organized the attack on Mumbai.

Shoma of Tehelka then went into a passionate dirge about ‘innocent’ Muslim boys rotting in Indian jails and about how only when it came to jihadi acts of violence was an act of terror linked to religion. The consensus among Nidhi’s panelists was that Hindutva terrorism was  more of a threat to India than Islamist terrorism with the British journalist pointed out that someone as clever and informed as Rahul Gandhi had informed the American ambassador, as reported by Wikileaks, that he was more worried about majority communalism in India than about any threats from across the border.

In vain did I try pointing out that the reason why jihadi terrorism was linked to Islam was because it was the terrorists who called themselves holy warriors for Islam. In vain did I try reminding my fellow panelists that the jihadi groups committing acts of violence in India were created by the ISI and that this meant that they had the might of the Pakistani army behind them. Nidhi’s panelists, led by the very verbose Shoma, were convinced that ‘saffron’ terror as it has come to be known was the biggest threat to India. While listening to them I realized, more than ever before, that India’s biggest enemies are Indian opinion makers and our leftist intellectuals.

I have already stated many times over that the biggest threat to Indian democracy is from the media crooks. But Tavleen Singh has got it only half right. The opinion makers are not just leftist intellectuals but also the right wing or centre-right intellectuals and journalists. Except for routinely condemning statements made by Rahul Gandhi or Digvijay Singh I have yet to come across a single journalist who has clearly stood up and asked the government to acknowledge Islamic or Jihadi terror. The reason? Most of these journalists are now freelancers who have to depend on the likes of NDTV and CNN-IBN for survival. You cannot be foolish enough to bite the hand that feeds you. The US government does not talk about China’s human rights anymore and you can guess why. One will recall that it was a college student that had the courage to ask Barack Obama about Jihadi terror. And he managed to give a vague, twisted reply.

After I appeared on Nidhi’s show I received a small floodgate of tweets from twitterers who had seen the show asking if I knew where Tehelka got its funding from. I do not and nor do I care to speculate but what I will say is that most of Tehelka’s investigative journalism seems designed to prove that India is as failed a state as Pakistan and that Indian democracy is mostly a sham. It is a viewpoint that is beginning to get on my last nerve.

It is now being revealed that NDTV, CNN-IBN and HT got lucrative media contracts from the CWG organisers. So it’s natural that they were initially low key on the scams related to CWG when reporting it. Who was the one making the loudest noise about CWG? TimesNow, of course! And why? If the Times group had got the media contracts they had bid for it appears unlikely they would have gone after the CWG scams with the same vigour as they did in July-August last year and continued ever since. They would have been too busy then promoting a rosy picture about the games and the CWG organising committee. Are the right-thinking journalists any different?

There are a few stray journalists who care to state things as they are or as they see it. When it comes to confronting the central government with the truth about terrorism I doubt there are too many journalists, left right or centre, who want to take the risk. The main job of these journalists still is to be largely politically correct. In the recent case of TimesNow’s Arnab Goswami kicking and screaming over cops being targeted by Narendra Modi, not one journalist has managed to find the courage to stand up and write or talk about the deluge of nonsense that Arnab is attempting to spread. The only clarification to come was from Jaynarayan Vyas of the Gujarat government itself.

In principle all terrorism is bad. It does not take an Einstein to discover that. The question here is to acknowledge and respond to the biggest terror threat that confronts us. The government and the media would have you believe it is Hindu communalism. Unfortunately, there are only a few, like Subramanian Swamy, to confront it.

It is also in this context that a one-man party like Subramanian Swamy is leading an extraordinary fight against corruption and against Islamic terror. And he is not really a journalist. Those journalists who pretend to stand up for fairness and straight talk are the most misleading ones. You know the government stooges, the leftists when you see them in print or on TV but the really misleading ones are the right wing fantasy journalists. They are the ones giving credence to the chorus of ‘terrorism has no religion’. This ends up with polls like the ones CNN-IBN is currently doing to merely reiterate that falsehood.

Rivers Of Blood

There is a lot being said about Anders Breivik, the one who committed mass-murder of innocent people in Norway. There are those who are trying to link this act of murder to various roots like Anti-Jihad movements, multiculturalism and even Hindutva because of some manifesto this deranged man has written. I will be writing a full post and response to what has been written and said in the media so far. But before that let's go back over 40 years to this famous speech by British parliamentarian Enoch Powell. He had, in many ways, warned of something like this due to excessive marginalisation of the original and majority population of Britain. His speech was essentially for Britain but this might well apply to many countries in Europe. The left-liberal mafia had already sown the seeds for this long back. He was branded racist. There were those who even said this was hate speech and there was a prima facie case for his prosecution. I will just let you read on....

This is the full text of Enoch Powell's so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech, which was delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on April 20 1968.

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.