The Standard Conversation: Defend Europa Editor, Laura T.


Ash Sharp

Laura is a British millennial living in the North of England. Beyond that, it is unwise to give too much information about her. The United Kingdom is not as tolerant a society as it once was. While it is unarguable the United Kingdom is also lagging behind the United States in terms of Red-Pilled youth -with a majority of young voters supporting the Marxist Jeremy Corbyn- there is a ground-swell of an identitarian movement. Laura is at the vanguard, in her role as co-editor of Defend Europa. We managed to grab a moment of her time for a chat about Making Europe Great Again, state censorship and migration.

RS: Hi Laura, welcome to Republic Standard. Great to meet you. let’s get right into it- isn’t it risky doing what you do in a country that arrests people for tweeting about Islam?

In a word, yes. It probably is a risk. We're living in an era where the UK police and courts have some very bizarre priorities when it comes to combating crime. This week, we have a guy potentially going to prison because he taught his dog to Sieg Heil and the MSM pushing out ridiculous articles about Islamophobic "pork attacks". A year ago, we even had a man sent to prison (and then mysteriously die there) for leaving a bacon sandwich outside a mosque. The police are currently arresting nine people a day for social media hate speech. Hate speech arrests are up almost 900% in some areas. And while all this is going on, in our capital city, knife crime is up 31%, gun crime is up 16%, theft is up 34%, burglary is up 19%, rape is up 18% and homicide is up 27%.

RS: Sounds like cultural enrichment to us.

Many people I know have been suspended from Twitter, and not because they've incited hatred or violence, but for simply saying something or displaying something which goes against the Anti-Defamation League's ever-growing list of what is considered offensive.

There was a YouGov poll done recently which revealed that a third of Brits are scared to speak out about immigration and religion. But this is exactly what they want. This is why they're making examples out of people like Count Dankula and Kevin Crehen (the aforementioned distributor of bacon butties). They know that our demographic concerns are correct and that goes against the narrative which they're trying to force. The way I see it is; we have two choices. We can either be silenced and choose to live in a real life 1984, or we can continue to speak out, and in doing this, some of us will have to take the fall. But they can't arrest all of us. And I do feel like support for our cause is growing on a daily basis.

RS: Where do you see the direction of Europe heading right now? We see Poland, Hungary and other former Soviet bloc countries' rebellion against the EU migration policy. Brexit is going ahead but the UK government is weak. Do you see light at the end of the tunnel, or will the EU get their way and open more borders?

I'm probably like the majority of people in the fact that I have good days and bad days. When I see "populist" parties making ground across Europe, and people like Viktor Orbán and Beata Szydło refusing to take any crap from the EU, I feel like we're heading in the right direction. One thing that we can't dispute is that European nationalistic parties are beginning to get more and more votes. Le Pen did well in France. Wilders made progress in the Netherlands as he led the PVV to become the second-largest party in the House of Representatives. I'm a big fan of Le Pen. Wilders annoys me on a couple of issues, but the fact that his support is growing shows that there's a real concern about Islam in his country. The AfD did well in Germany, too. And Austria had a very positive election result.

In the UK, there isn't a party I can get behind. I think there are a lot of people who feel this way. Voting turnout in my constituency in the last election was only 53%. We have UKIP, but they don't seem to have any direction since Nigel Farage left. They did well with Brexit and nobody can dispute the role that they played and the influence that they had in helping us get those 17.4 million votes. But you're right in what you say about the UK government is being weak. The Conservative Party over here is conservative by name only. I'd love a leader like Viktor Orbán who isn't afraid to talk about race or stand up to the EU and challenge people like George Soros. Brexit is definitely a step in the right direction, but it isn't going to save us. It grants us self-determination and additional powers to make our own decisions, but we still need the right leader in place to begin implementing those decisions.

RS: From my time in the UK it seemed to be that as one ages you become less left-wing -I certainly did- and that is part of the idiosyncratic nature of British culture. Once you become a skilled and desirable worker in whatever field you may be, the desire to overturn everything recedes. With the decline in manufacturing and growth in the service sector (call center) jobs I wonder what you think the effect of this has been. Is it to shore up the lunacy of the socialists, or do you see signs of waking up among millennials in England?

If we look at voting trends in the UK, younger people are more likely to vote Labour and older people are more likely to vote Conservative. In our last election, 60% of 18-24-year-olds voted for Labour, while 61% of over-64s votes for the Conservatives. Education definitely plays a huge factor in this. I went to university in my early 20s. Our tutors weren't supposed to tell us which party they supported, but we all knew they all supported Labour. I can't speak for every university in the country, but on my course, I can definitely confirm that they promote progressive values. I remember one of my first days at university when my tutor explained the difference between progressivism and traditionalism. She said that progressivism was all about improvement and finding new, exciting ways to do things, and traditionalism was all about being rigid and stuck in the past. Of course, from that day on, everybody on my course identified as having progressive values!

I do think that as you grow older and you get out into the real world and start paying taxes, you become more realistic and less idealistic. If you go into a working-class community and ask their opinion on immigration, you'd probably find that most people agree with us. These are the people who know exactly what it’s like to live next door to somebody who doesn’t speak your language and refuses to adopt your culture; and they also experience first-hand the effects of importing cheap labor into the country. But then, you also have middle-class families who live in predominantly White communities whose only experience of quote-unquote diversity is seeing The King and I at the London Palladium and the odd ethnic street food market, and most of these people will never experience the devastating effects that immigration from the Third World has on our communities. These people will stay in their globalist bubbles forever.

It's definitely easier to go to university nowadays than it was when my parents were growing up. This has resulted in, to some extent, people studying useless subjects and then upon graduation, being unable to find a job. On the other hand, you have somebody who studies an apprenticeship and learns a trade, and then he or she has a job waiting for them at the end of their course. Of course, many people go to university and study a worthwhile subject too and land a worthwhile career. And these people, along with our tradesmen, are (to go back to your question) the "skilled and desirable" workers, who, as you suggest, have less desire to overturn the system. We'll always need people fulfilling roles like these.

Regarding your comment about the growth of the service sector, I don't imagine many people always dreamt of working in a call center, and I also know that the majority of people in sales roles tend to move from company to company every couple of years or so. But I also don't want to undermine the people who do work hard in this sector, and are successful, and don't support globalist/socialist ideologies. I think in a way, with there being a lack of skilled jobs available, this could result in resentment towards those who sponge off the system, and those who are granted an easier life through free housing and benefits.

Our political views change with maturity and wisdom, and also as you distance yourself from any indoctrination that you may have received from the formal education system. I believe that the experience you gain in the real world, which is completely different to the utopian world that you believe exists as a youngster, steers you to the rational, sane world of the right. Although I must admit, I struggle with the terms "left" and "right", as I believe many our followers at Defend Europa do too. I can pull good parts from the left and good parts from the right and it has resulted in me not knowing exactly where I am on the left to right spectrum. I'm far right on some issues and center-left on others.

**RS: Do you think the Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan is operational? I mean, we can draw parallels to replacement migration quite easily, but do you think that at the highest levels of government or in the EU that guys like Verhofstadt and Merkel are consciously on board with this idea? **

It's more than operational- It's already in full swing! When Merkel decided to open up Germany's borders in September 2015 to 10,000 refugees that were stranded in Hungary, I struggle to comprehend that she did this of her own accord without consulting EU officials first. We can disagree with their policies all we want. But these aren't stupid people. Merkel in particular is a very powerful woman and I believe that her, along with Verhofstadt, Juncker, Soros, etc, understand exactly the effects that opening up our borders to the Third World will have.

The Standard Conversation:  Defend Europa Editor, Laura T.

Do I think that there's some crazy conspiracy going on where they all wear black robes, chant Kalergi's name and pray to Praktischer Idealismus? No, I don't. But I do believe that they understand that importing millions of non-Whites into the continent will result in the breakdown of national identities and will, in time, result in The Great Replacement of native Europeans.

We don't have any concrete evidence on why they are doing this, although we do have a lot of theories. I'd be interested to hear what your readers think. Kalergi himself believed that a mixed raced, multinational flock of Europeans could be controlled by the ruling elite. And the ruling elite, according to Kalergi, would be the Jews. He wrote:

“Instead of destroying European Judaism, Europe, against her will, refined and educated this people, driving them to their future status as a leading nation through this artificial evolutionary process. It’s not surprising that the people that escaped from the Ghetto-Prison became the spiritual nobility of Europe.”

Many people believe this theory because of the over-representation of Jewish people in senior political positions, as well as in the mainstream media, TV, Hollywood, and academia; all places that like to promote the idea of multiculturalism and diversity. Whereas other people will pass any notion of this off as anti-Semitism and refuse to discuss it. I must admit, I find it rather strange how some people will quote statistics about Muslims but they refuse to talk about Jews.

What I will say though is that the Kalergi Plan promotes consumerism, which some officials may consider being economically beneficial to a nation. If an individual or family feel as though they have no identity and don't feel part of the community as a whole, then they're more likely to stay indoors, watch TV, eat rubbish food and buy things that they don't need.

I wrote about Kalergi and the anti-European concepts he advocated for on the Defend Evropa website.

RS: That's a great article actually. Everyone should read it. So, tell us what inspired you to start Defend Europa.

Defend Europa was formed in February 2017 by a handful of people, and then I joined two months later in April. I'd made friends with William, who is another editor and writer at DE. He knew I had a degree in politics and he'd seen me ranting away about immigration and Islam on Twitter so he asked if I wanted to channel that into writing articles instead.

We created the website and Twitter account because we felt as though the mainstream media weren't offering honest and unbiased reporting about political and demographic issues across Europe. They'd only tell one side of the story, or they'd omit certain information, so we decided to start writing our own news articles and opinion pieces to get both sides of the story out there. That way people can make up their own minds.

One thing that we always promised to do was be 100% factual and honest, even if this results in backlash. Sometimes we talk about topics which people may find sensitive, but if it's true, we'll put it out there. For example, I wrote an article about an issue that we have in the UK which is inbreeding in our Pakistani communities. Some people weren't ready to hear that, but it is happening- and we had the statistics to back it up, so while it's costing the NHS billions of pounds, we're going to put it out there and we're going to talk about it.

The reason for my personal involvement with DE is the fact that I can see The Great Replacement happening right in front of my eyes. We're in the last few decades or so before we become a minority in our own country, and this will result in the end of British culture as we once knew it. The traditions that we have built up over thousands of years on this island will be gone. Any European who cares about their country, and cares about values such as nationhood, family, merit, virtue, justice, and fortitude should be concerned with what lies ahead.

RS: what are your plans for the future of the site? Is it possible to see a parallel movement to #MAGA in the US that you would be part of?

We've got lots of things in the pipeline, although I'm not supposed to mention them just yet! We'd love to get involved with real life activism one day. The only issue is, Defend Europe is self-funded and we all have full-time jobs too, not to mention we're all spread out across Europe, so at this stage, it would have to be something that worked for us financially. Who knows what the future holds though. We have a poll running on our Twitter at the moment asking our followers what they'd like to see from us. There are some cool ideas on there and we'll definitely be looking at having team discussions about a few of them.

RS: Thanks, Laura, great talking to you.

Follow Defend Evropa on Twitter to keep up with what they are doing. The content is great, and Laura and her team are a fine example of young people taking positive action to change the world for the better. Republic Standard stands with them.

It's always refreshing to talk to people who are breaking out of this tired old liberal/conservative paradigm.

At Republic Standard we will be tracking down more up-and-coming voices in future parts of this series. If you know of one (or are one yourself) get in touch to set up an interview by emailing Ash at

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at


It’s important for people like Laura T to keep up the momentum and keep getting the word out. It’s sickening that she would be hunted in her own country for speaking out about the consequences of incompatible immigration. It’s not a topic that should be off-limits.


Globalists have declared all out war on movements like Defend Europa. What is really so wrong about wanting to defend ones own country and culture? Unrestrained immigration is destructive and has real long term consequences. People with ostrich like tendencies are not adding to the conversation and they can’t ignore the real consequences of immigration forever. Discussion is needed.

I also didn’t know that Defend Europa was so “progressive” having a woman in a leadership position. Feminazis are constantly bitching about the need for women to be in leadership positions in politics, media, academia and business. That must only apply to left wing approved organizations.


That’s some effective brain washing right there. Professors that get caught doing this even once should lose tenure status immediately. If they do it again then - termination.


I don’t know, that’s what native Americans were asking.


It’s absurd that a real problem with real costs to the taxpayers is too taboo for public discussion. I don’t live in the UK but if the NHS is 100% taxpayer funded then no topic that costs the taxpayers money should be off the table.


I’m happy to see more and more Britbongs waking up.



This is all thanks to the tireless efforts by nation-wrecking globalists and treasonous shitlibs blinded by lies, faux history, guilt and diversity propaganda.

Enoch Powell was right…

This is the full text of Enoch Powell’s ‘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. (Lord almighty, how many millions of times has this happened in the USA these past 50+ years?!–JSteele)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. (Lol. Typical nigger ploy to get into the home to rob and/or rape the homeowner.–Jsteele) 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."

If Mr. Powell could only see the situation today.

Tragically, I don’t foresee our racial and globalist problems being worked out in a peaceful way, anywhere. Talk has gotten us nowhere with an enemy hell-bent on our displacement and ultimate destruction.


Sorry, but PNAC is anything but a group of liberals and they were/are the biggest proponents of US nation wrecking for the new American century. I suggest that if you want to see something different that you do something different.


Can you call out the specific PNAC reference in @whatsinthebox’s post? I didn’t see it.


He didn’t mention PNAC, he allowed that the nation wrecking globalists in America are liberals. I was merely pointing out that the biggest proponents of nation wrecking are right wingers, shrug.


You seem to think that “right wingers” are people like Bill Kristol and George W Bush. That’s a joke. Those are neoconservative globalists. You also seem to think that all “right wingers” are Republicans. That’s also a joke, but it does show your lack of understand of what is happening on the right. If you took the time to read this article you probably could have learned something. There are right wing movements gaining strength all across the West. We aren’t Republicans or neoconservatives. We are nationalists. Some of us even want a return to ethnostates. We all want the globalists to live to see the day of the rope.


Laura is right. It’s in full swing.

As we are seeing, the concept of immigration in and of itself is a problem. Europeans fought for their territories, why are foreigners just allowed to come in and squat on someone elses hard earned victory?


Oh I’m quite aware of the difference between the trumpian base and the traditional conservative republican. But my point was to whatsinthebox and his suggestion that all nation wrecking globalists are liberals, which wouldn’t be accurate at all.


You might want to take a closer look at what I wrote (hint there is an ‘and’ between globalists and shitlibs). Try staying on topic. Your response to me was incorrect and also had nothing to do with my response to the article.


Of course, at the end of the day, they lost to what some might call an invasion but then again, are Mexicans really Mexicans and were all the people of the Apache nation their because they wanted to be?


No?.. do tell… I think that if their is a nation to be built and a border to be destroyed… liberals have their hands up… just because the got compatriots in the republican party that are like minded and actually help push the intervention does not absolve the Trotsky ComIntern progressive leftist of a desire to consolidate power in a central government… and those progressives do love their United Nations…


This thread isn’t about Native Americans. It’s about European immigration and a difference of opinion with the prevailing EU and UK policy. But to use your argument, native Brits are being displaced and their culture is being destroyed. They are fighting to preserve it.


Well, if you’re saying that globalists are liberals and conservatives, then we agree.


No peoples on earth were ever as successful as the British at colonizing imperialism and exploiting the people’s of the world. Maybe they are experiencing karma, shrug.