The forces promoting the Third World invasion of the West can appear overwhelming. It can seem that White nations have no allies in the mainstream media, the universities, or big business. In fact there are a great many level-headed intellectuals and journalists and, I’m sure, businessmen, who sense that something is wrong. Some of them propose remedies that make sense as far as they go. The fact that they do not go far enough should not blind us to the half full glass.

Here I shall explore possible reasons for this limited vision in the case of one such British commentator, Minette Marrin, who writes for the Sunday Times as well as being a broadcaster and fiction writer. Marrin belongs to the right wing of Britain’s establishment. She sits on the board of the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), a free market conservative think tank that seeks to defend British values of democracy and individual liberty. True, there’s nothing about defending the interests of indigenous Britons. Nothing that deals with the existential crisis facing Britain and the West. Nevertheless it is better than the effluent that gushes from our universities.

Marrin’s comment displays an openness to concerns about immigration. She is also undecided and somewhat confused on critical issues. Why the confusion? Let’s begin with the positive.

Last year Marrin wrote an article for the Sunday Times (21 Nov. 2010) in which she talked tough about how to limit non-EU immigration. Her article included the following:

“The true legacy of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and new Labour is different from what they imagined or intended. They bequeathed a population explosion due to uncontrolled immigration during their time in office that will almost overwhelm this country unless the coalition government is bold enough to try to control it now.”

“[T]his population growth will also, if unchecked, turn white Britons in this country into a minority in our children’s lifetimes, in little more than 50 years.” And numbers “do matter”.

“I think there are many people who feel [whites becoming a minority] does matter, even if they can’t quite explain why, and are furious that such great change has been imposed on them without consultation, and perhaps without forethought. Others point to the divisions of multiculturalism and evidence about higher levels of happiness in homogeneous societies.”

“[T]here has not been an immigration debate in the chamber of the House of Commons within living memory.” An exception to the cowardly norm among politicians is [Labour member of parliament for Birkenhead since 1979] Frank Field, yet few of his colleagues listen. (See articles on or by Field from 2006, 2009 , and 2010 and 2011 .)

, and and .) Marrin then proposed some policy measures to stem the flood: Stop giving virtually automatic citizenship to visiting workers; Strictly control the student’ route to citizenship which is “notoriously abused”; Strictly limit the marriage route to citizenship to discourage “arranged marriages from the Indian subcontinent”; “Government ought to be very bold – which it won’t”. Limit the family reunion route to citizenship. “I suspect that not many people realise that one successful immigrant – one new bride or groom – can bring with him or her such a large number of dependants, including the elderly, who will immediately have the right to use the overladen NHS [National Health Service] and to certain other expensive benefits. Marrin remarks that it is difficult to conceive of how anyone could have created such an “unrealistic” immigration scheme.



These proposals are all sensible. They are realistic ways to drastically reduce Britain’s immigration intake. Unfortunately they are accompanied by some ideas that are likely to confuse readers. Here are some:

It does not matter whether Whites become a minority in their own country, though many people disagree;

Race does not matter, only culture, though again, many people disagree;

Growth in the number of mixed-race citizens will make the categories of White Scottish and White English meaningless by the end of the century, though this is an “inflammatory” idea.

At least she acknowledges that there are people who disagree with these ideas without dismissing them as stupid or deranged.

Why this ambiguity from someone who probably wants England to remain English? Why not openly say that it is catastrophic for a people to become a minority within their own nation, within their own ancient homeland; that they lose control of their corporate identity, culture and destiny; that it is a blow to their biological survival because it reduces their genetic and phenotypic representation in the population, what Frank Salter calls their “ethnic genetic interest”?

Why this beating around the bush? One reason is ignorance. Someone like Minette Marrin is well educated and well read. But it is unlikely that any of her university courses or subsequent reading introduced her to race realism. More likely she was exposed to multicultural lies and censorship than to Richard Lynn’s or J. Philippe Rushton’s science. Even if she was open to reason on the subject – and she may well have been – the leftist and minority censorship of the media made it unlikely that she ever came across relevant publications (they would have to be publications because there are no popular television radio documentaries on the subject).

Another reason is institutional constraints. Marrin would not long remain a writer for a Murdoch-owned newspaper or a board member of CPS if she declared beliefs that logically implied “racism” or a policy stance similar to that of the BNP. Just one serious breach of such a taboo could see her shunned by all respectable publications. The decline in her public standing and income would be precipitous.

How precipitous? Marrin also writes for Standpoint magazine, a UK monthly published by the Social Affairs Unit, another conservative think tank. The SAU has some good people on its advisory council, such as John O’Sullivan and Frank Field. It also has Nathan Glazer, a Jewish sociologist with neoconservative leanings who during his long career has moved in Jewish circles and enjoyed access to Jewish-controlled magazines such as The Public Interest and Commentary. Glazer is a member of the second generation of New York Intellectuals, the Jewish-led movement that dominated American letters from about 1945. It is reasonable to conclude that one necessary condition for Standpoint to retain its respectability is taking care to remain compatible with Jewish sensibilities.

No wonder that Standpoint and Minette Marrin do not rock the Jewish boat in any fundamental way. For example if she began questioning the Jewish role in Winston Churchill’s war policy in 1940, she would find herself in a delicate position.

To demonstrate how Jewish interests are privileged, consider one article published by Standpoint in 2009, a three-way discussion of Sir Oswald Moseley and the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s. The discussion took place soon after the British National Party won two seats in the European Parliament. The link made with the BNP gave the conversation relevance as well as a touch of black propaganda. The participants were intelligent and well informed: Daniel Johnson, the Standpoint journalist; Raymond Carr, 90, a leading historian of modern Spain, and Moseley’s son Nicholas, 86, a prizewinning novelist and respected biographer of his father.

The conversation is fascinating. It goes far beyond the usual boilerplate phrases about Moseley, the Mitford sisters and Hitler to describe their personalities. But the daring stops short of breaking new ground, e.g. being candid about Jewish power. All three make a show of puzzlement and revulsion at Moseley’s “anti-Semitism”. How could Moseley have countenanced such an obscene viewpoint? How bizarre! There is not a hint that perhaps there was a Jewish lobby in Britain and the US that had an (understandable) interest in bringing down Nazi Germany. No mention of the revealing book written by Churchill’s official biographer, Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews (2007), which describes Churchill’s attachment to the Jewish people from an early age (“the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world”), his personal relationships with the Rothschilds and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann or his belief that secular Jews were the force behind the Bolshevik Revolution and that Jews were “very powerful” in Britain as well (p. 31). There is no mention of Churchill becoming a leading executor of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, nor of his ardent Zionism. It is not considered relevant that in 1921, as the cabinet minister with authority in British-occupied Palestine, Churchill suspended the development of democratic institutions in that territory because, given a voice, the Arabs would have voted against further Jewish immigration (p. 68).

One does not need to be an academic to know these things. Popularizations such as Sir John Keegan’s Churchill (2003) offer some strong hints at deep Jewish influence and the book was published well before the Standpoint article. On p. 59 we learn that in 1905 Churchill opposed the government’s Aliens Bill intended to slow the wave of Jewish refugees from Russian pogroms. This endeared him to his many Jewish constituents in Manchester. “He already had many Jewish friends and was soon to become a Zionist.” Sir John is another case in point. He is a historian of repute who has high regard for David Irving’s analysis of Hitler’s generalship, though not his Holocaust scholarship. On this basis he testified, under subpoena, for Irving in his 1996 defamation trial against Deborah Lipstadt, as did Kevin MacDonald, though voluntarily. After criticizing Irving’s view that Hitler did not know of the Holocaust until 1943, Sir John wrote:

He has, in short, many of the qualities of the most creative historians. He is certainly never dull. Prof Lipstadt, by contrast, seems as dull as only the self-righteously politically correct can be. Few other historians had ever heard of her before this case. Most will not want to hear from her again. Mr Irving, if he will only learn from this case, still has much that is interesting to tell us (The Daily Telegraph, 12 April 2000).

Despite this even-handedness, Sir John nevertheless wrote an uncritical hagiography of Churchill that overlooked the realistic possibility that Churchill was swayed by Jewish interests. Perhaps the cause is Keegan’s unfamiliarity with the influence of well-organized ethnic groups as a dimension of politics, being a military historian. But that seems implausible.

More generally, are we to believe that senior historians and intellectuals such as Nicholas Moseley and Raymond Carr are ignorant of Winston Churchill’s relationship with the Jews? More to the point, if such historians, both near the end of their lives, are afraid to advance obvious facts about Jewish lobbying, how can we expect the delicate Minette Marrin to do differently?

What can we hope for when thinkers of talent and good sense such as Minette Marrin are prevented from fully representing their (and our) interests by invidious social controls? At this point all we can do is promote the work of rare champions such as Kevin MacDonald and J. Philippe Rushton and websites such as TOO. And that is the most valuable thing that can be done at present because the fight for Western survival is part of a purely cultural war. Opening the eyes of the White non-Jewish elite to their people’s danger can yet bring victory.