Reversing the Drift Towards Bloodbath Politics

The murder of Sir David Amess last Friday has sent shock waves through our political establishment and has rightly prompted a spontaneous outpouring of messages of sympathy and condolence for the Amess family, and of outrage that such a brutal attack should have taken place in our country.

It is shocking that in Britain with our long tradition of freedom of speech and of freedom of expression, Members of Parliament (MPs) should no longer feel safe at their regular meetings with their constituents. There was a time when MPs were predominantly ‘local people’ as far as their constituents were concerned, born and raised in their constituencies, living among and serving their local community – a community composed of people like them – with similar hopes and aspirations for their community and for the country as a whole. By and large there was in those days no need for special security measures for politicians and physical attacks upon MPs were virtually unheard of.

There was consensus among the public and between the public and Parliament. The views of MPs coincided with the bulk of their constituents – democracy worked and there was rarely any cause for hatred. Crimes motivated by hatred were rare and indeed, crimes of all types were much rarer than now. We British were an overwhelmingly polite and law-abiding people; racially homogenous; and with a common cultural heritage going back hundreds of years.

It is true that in the 1950s there was still some vestigial enmity from historic rivalries and conflicts between Catholics and Protestants, but we British had within living memory forged an empire and fought two World Wars, and in those endeavours Protestants and Catholics had fought side-by-side and we were in the early post-war period more united than possibly at any other time in our history

Today however, things are so very different. Decades of uncontrolled and indiscriminate immigration into Britain has changed the face of British politics.

Social cohesion and political stability are largely dependent upon the maintenance of the racial, social and cultural homogeneity within the population of any nation state. The more a nation state deviates from such homogeneity, the more internal rivalries will develop and the more fractured and divided and conflict prone its population will be . This is one of the great principles of statecraft which our political leaders once understood, but no longer, sadly.

Sir David Amess was a Conservative MP and while he and his Conservative colleagues may have striven to conserve many things, the most important thing they might have chosen to conserve, they neglected miserably. They sat on their hands and made at best, only the most feeble and half-hearted attempts at protest while indiscriminate mass immigration took place and the once peace-loving, harmonious and homogenous native populations of many of our major towns and cities, were displaced and replaced by disparate and rival immigrant groups. Many Conservative politicians, together with their Labour and Liberal-Democrat counterparts enthusiastically encouraged such mass immigration and worse still, prioritised the granting of asylum to migrants coming to Britain from the most lawless and war-torn parts of the world.

Their mistaken assumption has been that all human beings are essentially the same. That we are driven by the same needs, wants and aspirations, and that we are intellectually, emotionally, and temperamentally, and in terms of work ethic, identical. Their assumption has been that when you take someone from a violent, lawless and war-torn part of the world, that given equal opportunities and the right to live in our country, such an immigrant will exhibit characteristics and behaviours that are indistinguishable from the indigenous population, and if anything, will out of gratitude for our kindness be better behaved and more considerate of the indigenous British.  This is often not the case however

While it may be true that many and perhaps even the majority of migrants coming to Britain from the trouble spots of the world will genuinely aspire to a live in peace and harmony, events have shown that a substantial minority at least of such people have come to Britain, not because they eschew violence, but rather because in their home country they were on the loosing side of a conflict that originally they had enthusiastically participated in. Under the pernicious influence of racial equality campaigners who are only too quick to accuse the indigenous British of institutional racism, it does not take such immigrants long find a new target for their enmity.

We must recognise the hard truth that the violent, lawless and war-torn parts of the world in which blood-bath politics predominates are not the way they are because of the character of the trees in such places. Nor are they the result of the weather, or of the topography of the land. They are the way they are because of the prevailing character of the people living in those countries. While many of the people living in those countries may wish to live in peace and in a civilised manner, many others are of a more aggressive, impatient and intolerant disposition and are easily excited to violence and bloodshed in order to settle their differences.

It has long been understood that the social dynamics of a multicultural society are such that social groups will inevitably compete with each other for finite resources and for political influence, and that such competition inevitably leads to rivalries and sometimes enmities between the disparate population groups concerned. Furthermore, when one or more such groups find their aspirations frustrated this frequently causes jealousies and resentments to arise, leading to outright hatred towards their rivals.

If we couple this dysgenic effect caused by multiculturalism with the heightened propensity to resort to violence that exists within certain migrant groups, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand why violent incidents such as the murders of MPs Jo Cox and David Amess occur and why other violent and murderous terrorist attacks – knife crime and gun crime etc. are on the increase in the multicultural parts of Britain, Europe and the wider world. Furthermore, it should not be overlooked that it is not just elected politicians who are the victims of this intensifying climate of violence, it is the public at large and the most vulnerable among us that suffer the most.

There is only one answer to the violence that is becoming an increasingly common feature of life in our large towns and cities, and that is the reversal of both multiculturalism and the indiscriminate mass immigration that has taken place in recent decades. Unless we wish to see Britain and other Western states become increasingly violent and lawless countries in which blood-bath politics holds sway, we must reverse the recent demographic changes that have been taking place.

Mass immigration and uncontrolled migration must end. We must learn to appreciate the value of discrimination again in terms of who we allow to take up residency in our country. Where we have labour shortages, we should allow inward migration of selected individuals only, drawn from countries in which the character of the people concerned is as closely compatible as possible with our own. Furthermore, they must be people of good character, free from physical and mental defects and of at least average academic ability.

It should be a prerequisite for anyone holding political office, that they must be committed above everything else, to the conservation our nation’s most valuable asset, the character of our people.

By Max Musson  © 2021


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *