In the last issue of Vanguard Steve Brady took up one of the favourite accusations levelled at the National Front by its critics ― that our Party's crucial Race policy is based simply upon 'colour prejudice'. Dealing with Britain's Negro immigrants, mostly from the West Indies, Steve showed that our views are in fact based upon a wealth of well-documented scientific and historical evidence proving that the difference between Black and White is far more than just 'skin deep'. It is the multi-racialists, Steve argued, who make up their minds without listening to the facts and so it is they who should be branded the 'bigots' on the Race issue. In this issue Steve moves on to consider the question of Britain's other major Coloured immigrant group, the Asians.
AS WE HAVE seen, the weight of the factual evidence demonstrating the depth and extent of their inherent intellectual and behavioural divergence from the native White British people overwhelmingly demonstrates that Negroes will never become a harmonious part of our national community and, in their interest as much as our own, would be better off quitting these shores. But what of Asians?
Racially, East Asians ― Chinese, Japanese and Vietnamese 'boat people' ― are Mongolids, members, like Negroes, of a different human subspecies to our own, and like Negroes, differing from us not merely in skin colour (actually the most superficial racial difference) but in bone structure, blood type distribution, other anatomical features and body biochemistry.
South Asians ― Indians, Pakistanis and Bengalis ― are, however, basically Caucasoid like us, though unlike us with an admixture, to a variable extent, of genes from the aboriginal Veddoids of the Indian subcontinent, primitives on the evolutionary level of the Australian aborigine. This alien inheritance probably accounts for much of the dark skin colour and un-European cast of features especially evident in Bengalis.
There is, however, little evidence that South Asians, and none that East Asians, are innately less intelligent than Whites, and so we do not say that. What we do say is that they are not British, generally do not wish to be British, and could not become British without in the process making 'Britishness' meaningless and, indeed, weakening gravely the structure of our society.
We also object to colonisation ― if the British were right to get out of India, should not the Indians likewise get out of Britain?
Finally, as on the whole immigration issue, there is the fundamental issue of democratic principle ― we, the British people, who supposedly ultimately rule Britain, did not consent to the admission of millions of ethnically alien foreigners' to our shores. Indeed we were never asked.
Can they really be British?
Asians, who will always be obviously alien however many generations of them are 'born here', are simply not British, any more than an apple is an orange, even if it grew in an orange grove.
To us, as to the great majority of ordinary British people, 'Britishness' is something far more fundamental than a word on a passport or a place of birth. It is belonging to a kindred, a great family, whose members are bonded by blood and centuries of toil, tradition and culture. Only over generations, centuries, of dwelling in and blending with the British people can other White Europeans enter into the community of Britons, even though to outside appearance they may be indistinguishable from us.
Asians, forever branded to the most superficial glance as foreign, can never, ever, be Britons, and will never, ever, be accepted as such by the British as long as Britishness is a living concept and reality.
If we change the meaning of being British so that everybody could be 'British' then we'd destroy the meaning of being British so that nobody would be British.
Nor, it seems clear, do they wish to be British on any level deeper than the possession of a convenient passport and a chance to opt out of the problems of their homeland and enjoy the higher standard of living our people have built up for themselves. The Chinese, of course, heirs of a venerable and very great civilisation, quite rightly preserve their own cultural and linguistic identity after, in many cases, several generations of living here. And it seems clear the Southern Asians are set fair to do likewise.
For example, according to the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, 74% of 15 year-old Bangladeshis in London, mostly born here, cannot speak adequate English, preferring to speak their native Bengali. From the length and breadth of the country come reports of Muslim Pakistanis demanding that Pakistani, not British, customs be followed in educating their children.
Even the most determined effort to induce Asians to take part in British political life, the Anglo-Asian Conservative Association, has collapsed in chaos because the 'Anglo-Asian Conservatives' were more interested in establishing a separate Khalistan state for Sikhs in India, and in where the border should lie between Haryana and the Punjab, than in backing Maggie for another term at No. 10.
Even if the Asians miraculously abandoned their own distinctive cultures and way of life ― and why should they? ― and tried to 'integrate' and if we let them do so, the results would demonstrably be disastrous. For them and us. From Ancient Greece and Rome to modern America, history proves again and again that when a nation loses its ethnic identity, when it ceases to be made up of a basically homogenous group of people clearly more like one another, in terms not just of culture but of ethnic appearance, than they are like outsiders, that nation disintegrates and society with it.
In every ethnic 'melting pot', what has always melted in the end is the pot! If Asians were ever accepted as British it could only be because 'Britishness', like 'American-ness', had lost all its meaning and chaos would soon follow.
If the Asians do not integrate, and thus destroy us as a nation, then history shows that the British will ultimately destroy them. Throughout history, the presence of a visible, especially visible prosperous, alien minority in a country has led to a steadily rising native resentment, culminating in either explosion or pogrom. That's what happened to the Asians themselves in East Africa when the Blacks turned on them, as they are doing now in Madagascar.
Provided such native resentment has a legal, democratic channel open to it, in the form of the National Front, then in Britain such resentment will express itself politically, not violently. And we have no desire to hurt or harm of oppress Asian people. Only to return them to their native continent, which has repeatedly asked them to come back. Indian doctors, for example, are far more urgently needed in India than in England ― and we produce enough doctors for our own needs ourselves.
Again, on Asians as on West Indians, the NF case is rational, based on the facts, and, indeed, in the best interests of the immigrants as well as our own people. It it not we who are prejudiced ― our case is based on the facts and the evidence.