The Demographic Transformation of Britain – The Elite Multicultural Project Explained – 19th Century to 1990’s

This essay will trace the creation of Britain’s race relations regime, starting with the cultural changes emanating from Britain’s elites that justified an ever growing political and legal super-structure that has in turn replaced traditional British society for a multicultural one. We will look at how the British Empire was molded into the Commonwealth and how multiculturalism was implemented from on high without consulting the native population in order to keep the colonies as part of Britain’s sphere of influence.

The Labour Party and secretive Fabian Society feature prominently but what may come as a greater surprise is the fact that race relations first entered the public consciousness through the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House, who created a Race Relations Unit in 1952. American influence is also prevalent, with the managerial state erected post-WWII morphing into a post-scientific therapeutic regime which sees it’s duty as social engineering a Utopian multicultural society.¹ This new kind of secular religious regime is now in place in every state that is culturally dominated by Anglo-American influence, most recently in Ireland, but such a regime began to appear in Britain much earlier.

Liberal Secular Christianity

In order to understand the motivations of the political class in refusing to listen to the majority opinion on immigration it is necessary to explain some of the trends feeding into the modern culture. Although Britain is associated with liberalism and laissez faire capitalism which themselves encourage individualism, cosmopolitanism and provide a justification for free movement of capital and labour, there are other important elements to be considered.

Indicative of the role of Protestantism in fostering universalistic and cosmopolitan idealism, pre-socialist philosophies evolved in Britain in the 19^th century and culminated in the gradualist and secretive Fabian society being formed in 1884 based on a further developed Marxist ideology with a distinctive upper-middle class flavour.²

Having previously had a massive part in founding and subsequently dominating the Labour party since 1919, the Fabians had a major role in splitting the Liberal party, paving the way for Labour to emerge strongly after WWI.³ However, the permeation of social democratic ideologies was very pronounced inside the British establishment in places like Oxford and Cambridge long before this point with utopian and scientific thinkers like Plato, Auguste Comte, John Ruskin, J.S. Mill, Charles Darwin and Henry George amongst others being highly influential to Britain’s upper classes.⁴

Paleo-conservative author Paul Gottfried has pointed out the masochistic tendency of modern liberals in the west to imbue a religious zealotry in applying multiculturalism and the associated politically correct speech codes, substituting empirical reality for a kind of secular Christianity in which whites are demanded to carry an eternal metaphysical guilt toward all manner of minority groups based on a historiography that places whites as the cause of grievance for racial minorities, women and homosexuals etc. Jacques Ellul and René Girard also acknowledged the “religious appeal of the new progressivism” in their time as employing recycled Christian symbols.⁵

“The notion of the ‘suffering just’ has been ‘brought up to date’ and now signifies Third World, gender, and lifestyle victims.”⁵

This phenomenon is made possible through the extension of the state into the role of socializing citizens, particularly since the 1960s when theorists set out to pathologize white western civilisation as inherently patriarchal, prejudiced and racist. Works by Gunnar Myrdal and Theodor Adorno set in train an elite attitude that American society needed to be reformed and rebuilt in a multi-cultural, multi-racial manner from the ground up. Gay liberation and the destruction of the traditional family are also key parts of this. As outlined in an earlier essay, this agenda has spread through American cultural dominance to the entire western world today.⁶ This has parallels to the 19th century liberal elites of Britain taking onboard socialist ideology and a moral crusade to bring about global integration, originally through the British Empire and later through the Commonwealth.

Elite Attitudes to Migration

Labour entered government in 1945 and immediately began introducing socialist reforms from the Beveridge Plan such as the National Insurance scheme. These had been long term plans of the Fabian society and paralleled social democratic developments in the United States and Continental politics, where socialists were in the ascendancy. These radical changes, which would prove to be very economically costly, also created a new variant of citizenship, social citizenship.

The sociologist and Labour candidate in 1922, T. H. Marshall argued that “as capitalism and the modern state emerged, a new egalitarian and legally defined form of community membership began to take shape.” Essentially, the next step in this process was when the welfare state was created. The concept of “social citizenship” took hold and “encompassed the rights to material resources and social services.” Marshall’s last post was as Director of the Social Sciences Division of UNESCO from 1956-1960, indicating the permeation of these ideas internationally.⁷

Marshall’s definition of citizenship influenced the Institute of Race Relations report dealt with later on in this essay and the broader idea of citizenship conferring social benefits rights regardless of ethnic or racial origin prevalent in British culture. It should also be seen as a step towards communitarianism which is natural considering the closeness of communitarian thinking and socialist philosophies generally, particularly Fabianism.

The desire to create larger international communities has led to problems of integration, with claims “that there is no absolute good but only different goods for different communities, cultures, or societies” indicating the kind of cultural relativism typical of communitarianism.⁸ A response to liberalism, communitarianism has had an immense impact on society, particularly since the development of larger political structures such as the EU and UN. Communities started out small and local but with modern travel and communications, we see how an elite would come to see it’s role as dealing with race relations and ensuring that further economic and social integration is carried out using social engineering.

Particularly in the Roy Jenkins era in the 1960s, American civil rights ideology came to the fore with Jenkins himself an admirer of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations affirmative action policies.⁹ Although these ideas are associated with Labour we also see an impotent refusal by the Conservative party to push back on this notion outside of notable exceptions such as Enoch Powell, who’s political career was effectively destroyed for his voicing concerns of the effects of immigration on Britain. The political establishment has demonised Powell and continue their attacks on his character posthumously as a warning to others who dare challenge them.

Elite Labour opinion up until the 1970s and the rise of a more radical race politics in Britain could be summed up thusly from a Labour Executive report from 1918, attributed to Fabian influence;

“We of the Labour party…must insure that what is to be built up is a new social order -based not on the competitive struggle for a means of bare life, but on a deliberately planned cooperation in production and distribution for the benefit of all who participate by hand and brain…not on an enforced domination over subject nations, subject races, subject colonies, subject classes or a subject sex…”¹⁰

The liberal British elites, much like their American counterparts, came to see society as an organism that could be manipulated at will. They believed that they could use the friction of a dialectical process to create a Utopian society devoid of race or class. The ground breaking study by the Institute of Race Relations for five years culminating in the report colour and citizenship in 1969 demonstrates elite opinion acutely.

“The structure of our society derives much of its character from a dialectical process: a constant series of challenges produces responses, and their resolution determines where the boundary lines are drawn and who is included…Each group of claimants has been in turn effectively incorporated and the system modified to legitimate the process”¹¹

This philosophy has underpinned elite attitudes about immigration and their determination to foist it on the most under-privileged strata of British society, the white working class. They attempted to manage the ensuing chaos by altering British society and preventing nationalist resistance through the use of the pubic sector and a “therapeutic” state to impose new values and construct a secular religion based around vague concepts such as “equality”, “tolerance” and “diversity”. Postwar social engineering projects of this kind were also ongoing throughout Western civilisation, particularly since the 1960s Civil Rights movement, with Americans being trained to see America as a “Nation of Immigrants” and not the inheritance of heritage Americans.¹²

Additionally, the processes of miscegenation and multi-racialism were foreseen by Britain’s elites in the Race Relations Commission in 1969. Speaking of how the “Black British” would “redeem” Britain’s historical sins, through the birth of a new urban culture built on mixing the natives with the coloured immigrants.

“In one version, they will become the simulacrum of Englishmen – their skin colour a constant reminder of our virtue in their equality, in another, the less patronizing, there will be a new mixed youth culture, with multi-racial and multi-cultural characteristics.”¹³

Post WWII Immigration

Unlike most other countries, Britain did not have a national citizenship but instead her people shared common citizenship with every other member within the now rapidly shrinking British Empire. This was never a major issue, but after WWII modern communications and ease of travel meant that a lot of the hundreds of millions of subjects within the Commonwealth sought a better life for themselves in Britain, herself in dire economic straits.

Britain had received a substantial number if migrants from Europe and in particular from Ireland during the early 20th century. A demographically ageing population and a fall in the numbers of European immigrants presented a problem in the eyes of her elites. During the period between 1946-1951, “over 900,000 British nationals emigrated from Britain”, with 80% going to other Commonwealth countries.¹⁴ The 1949 Royal Commission on Population estimated that

“it would require an annual net inward balance of migration of 140,000 young adults during the next 10 years to prevent a decline of the numbers in the young age groups.”¹⁵

The consolidation of the Commonwealth was clearly on the minds of Britain’s elites. The Royal Commission report recommended a dual strategy of “combining encouragement of emigration” from Great Britain to the Commonwealth with “the policy of selective immigration to make good any shortage that might arise in Great Britain”.¹⁶ However it must be noted that the Royal Commission explicitly stated that immigration was only suitable if “the migrants were of good human stock and were not prevented by their religion or race from intermarrying with the host population and becoming merged in it.¹⁷

In the late 1940s, whether by coincidence or determined action, a stream of migrants began to arrive from the West Indies, followed by parts of Asia and Africa. The Labour government of Clement Atlee wanted to be seen to deal with the issue but was careful not to offend the colonies with whom they wished to retain as part of the Commonwealth. Responding to Labour backbenchers raising the issue, Atlee responded in the fashion becoming of the elite at the time.

“It is traditional that British subjects…of whatever race and colour…should be freely accessible to the UK. The tradition…is not to be lightly discarded”¹⁸

Canada’s first black Chief Justice Julius Isaac writing in a 1955 UNESCO symposium on the value of immigration to Britain outlined how Britain should see this new source of immigration as a way of fostering good relations with the colonies. He stated that once “prejudices against Negroes and Indians have been overcome, it is more difficult to defend discrimination against European immigrants arising from similar prejudices”.¹⁹

Britain had been using migrant labour from the West Indies during WWII and some of the machinery set up during that period was used immediately after the war regarding post-war colonial migration. As the colonies sought independence, the focus of Britain’s elites was “increasingly placed on the equal status of Colonial and Commonwealth citizens and the undesirability of any measures that singled them out for special attention”. ²⁰

In 1948, the British Nationality Act attempted to redefine the Empire in the post war era while avoiding the creation of citizenship or of attempting to make distinctions between all subjects within the Empire. This would create major problems for the future as it did nothing to differentiate the natives from the newcomers.²¹

According to the British National Archives website, “Secretary of State for the Home Office, Gwilym Lloyd George, raised the idea of legislation to prevent free movement of colonial immigrants” in 1954 in response to the increasing number of West Indian migrants entering the country. In 1955 a report was created on immigration restriction as well as a report on the problems associated with Commonwealth immigration.²²

“Responsibility for migration passed from the Colonial Office to the Home Office and the conclusion was reached by the British Government in 1955 that no control was necessary.”²⁰

Demonstrating the preoccupation of the elites with not appearing to be racist, “Colonial Secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, argued that draft proposals aimed at West Indian immigration were racially discriminatory, as the large majority of immigrants were Irish.” In 1956 legislation plans against Commonwealth immigration were shelved after advice from a “specially convened committee of ministers” decided so.²²

Lord Hailsham tried unsuccessfully to introduce a draft Bill but it again was rebuffed by the Cabinet.²² The race riots in Notting Hill and Nottingham during 1958 concentrated the minds of the liberal elite a little more on the issue. By 1961, over half a million had been admitted, 100,000 in 1961 alone.²¹ While race relations in America were at a low ebb at this time, Britain had effectively imported a race problem it never needed to have.

British Empire to Commonwealth

The elites of the Anglo-American establishment have long sought to promote “race relations”. What is less often acknowledged, is that the main purpose of this was to reform the old Empire for a new era. The liberal imperialists of the Round Table movement were the original drivers of reforming the British Empire under the aegis of the Commonwealth for decades since the late 19th century. Lord Lothian (Philip Kerr), one of the key members of this grouping evolved over the years to embrace a new vision of self governing nations within this construct. Displaying a rabid dislike of the self-determination of Irish, Boer and Indian nationalists Kerr, an anti-catholic, would write in 1916 of Sinn Féin’s “ideal government” being

“to separate mankind into watertight racial compartments instead of to unite humanity under equal laws giving equal rights and opportunities to every individual”²³

Lord Lothian was close to the Fabians, as many other leading Round Table members were, and would go on to have a massive role in the application of Federalism to the European integration movement and other Supranational institutions. As the liberal party waned after 1918, the more left-leaning Fabian cosmopolitans would steer the integration of the Commonwealth and create the multicultural project in Britain. In 1918 a “special committee of the Labour Party Executive issued a report entitled Labour and the New Social Order” which advocated for, amongst other things, the transformation of the British Empire into the British Commonwealth and a supranational world authority, foreshadowing the League of Nations.²⁴

While the Round Table liberals like Lord Lothian believed in steering the “politically backward peoples” and were skeptical of the idealism of the Americans led by Woodrow Wilson, the failure of their project became clear by 1919, when at the Paris Peace Conference, they decided to take a new approach to Federation.²⁵ Indeed Federation between the United States and Britain was a long running goal for the Fabians as well, with Fabian R.W.G. Mackay promoting it in Britain before the US entered WWII and Clarence K. Streit promoting it simultaneously in America.²⁶

The acknowledgement that the Empire was effectively dead in 1919 led to the foundation of the Institute of International Affairs in Britain, later renamed as the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the United States in 1919-1920, to help control foreign affairs, influence elite opinion and acknowledge the new American dominance and British decline.²⁷ American influence over Britain’s multicultural project was represented in three main areas.

“Firstly they were attracted by the American success ‘in the absorbtion and unification of a great mass of different people and traditions,’ being a model for a unified British Empire”²⁸

In addition to the belief, mainly on the British end, that both Britain and America shared a common Anglo-Saxon heritage, the roots of modern globalism dominated by Anglo-American liberal cosmopolitan values were also sowed at this time.

“they saw the United States as partners with whom to establish ‘an Anglo-American world hegemony’, and ‘dominate the world, widening and strengthening the Pax Britannica, the world order on which they set so much store.’ “²⁸

The increasing influence of Fabian socialists in British politics was evidenced by the 1929 election of 47 Fabian Labour Party seats. Colonial independence was a key goal of the Fabians as part of a unified global structure along the lines of the Socialist International.²⁹

“That year also saw the publication of Fabian Tract No. 230, entitled Imperial Trusteeship…it advocated release of the colonies to independent native governments under Socialist tutelage and looked forward to eventual Socialist world control of raw materials.”²⁹

Fabian Fanned African Nationalism

The Fabians were long determined to end the British Empire and it’s disposal was supposed to result in a new socialist order of equals within the Commonwealth. In 1940 the Fabian War Aims Research Committee spawned their own private colonial bureau called the Fabian Colonial Bureau, this was later renamed the Fabian Commonwealth Bureau. The bureau encouraged African nationalist movements in order to expadite the process of Empire disintegration.³⁰

“During the war and after, it maintained personal contacts with a network of chosen native politicians, many already versed in Socialist doctrines derived from Fabian professors at English Universities”³⁰

Among those groomed for future leadership were “Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Tom Mboyo, Secretary of Kenya’s KANU party and Jomo Kenyatta, leader of postwar Mau Mau atrocities in Kenya. When Labour entered government in 1945, Chairman of the colonial bureau Arthur Creech-Jones became assistant Secretary and subsequently Secretary for the Colonies where India, followed by Britain’s other colonies, were granted independence. The Fabian News of April 1958 proudly claimed ownership of this achievement, declaring that the independence of the colonies “owes more than can yet be properly assessed to painstaking Fabian work which permeated, in true Fabian tradition, the thinking, not only of the Labour Movement, but gradually of wider circles as well.”³¹

Jomo Kenyatta would pursue a policy of “Kenyanization”, whereby Asians and Europeans living in Kenya who had significant roles in the running of the country were kicked out of their jobs in favour of Kenyans. This resulted in significant numbers opting to move to Britain where they held citizenship.³² An independent enquiry carried out by Martin Ennals of the National Committee for Commonwealth Integration (NCCI) indicated that most of the Asians would have preferred to go back to their native lands in India and Pakistan rather than go to Britain.³³

Interesting to note is that MI6, along with the CIA were actively recruiting agents within Africa at this point as part of the Cold War against the Soviet Union and to ensure African nationalists stayed within the parameters acceptable to the Anglo-American elites, in particular that they would not align with the Soviet Union and communism.³⁴

“Many of these leaders had been close to the London-based Africa Bureau, which supplied the British government with background intelligence on the nationalist movements.”³⁴

Intelligence author Stephen Dorrill claims that Nelson Mandela himself was recruited by MI6 either before or after imprisonment. While Mandela’s life was saved twice from assassination, others were provided with covert funding.

“MI6 was particularly successful in placing it’s people as advisors to African leaders.”³⁵

Another notable fact that indicates elite determinations to pursue a policy of multi-racialism in Britain is the fact that the greatest employers of coloured immigrants were the nationalized industries such as London Transport and British Rail.³⁶

“Both have recruited labour directly outside the UK, in Barbados, and both have employed coloured workers from the very earliest period of coloured migration.”³⁶

Indeed, private industry was far less inclined to hire coloured labour at all, hence the proliferation of legislation and pressure groups to bring such a situation about.

The Institute for Race Relations & the Runnymeade Trust

The Institute of Race Relations (IRR) was established in an earlier incarnation as the Race Relations Unit at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) at Chatham House in 1952 by Harry Hodson of the Sunday Times. Hodson’s autobiography tells how the organisation, which was his idea, was created. He initially struggled to get the RIIA international relations specialists to see the value in what was considered a nonacademic discipline.³⁷

“At this juncture I was greatly helped by the wish of the Rhodesia Selection Trust group of companies, under the leadership of Sir Ronald Prain, to celebrate the centenary of Cecil Rhodes’s birth by founding a chair of race relations in Rhodes’s university of Oxford.”³⁷

Hodson convinced “the chairmen of the half-dozen biggest mining companies in Central and Southern Africa” of the importance of managing race relations. Hodson claims to have selected the Board with the hep of Kenneth Grubb, placing Lord Hailey as Chairman and old Balliol friend Philip Mason as Director. Mason would lead the organisation within Chatham House and later as the Institute of Race Relations for 17 years. The new Institute was led by Chairman Sir Alexander Carr-Saunders who had served as Director of the London School of Economics and who had written one of the first important books on demography and eugenics in 1922, The Population Problem.³⁸ Hodson describes the change within the Insitute in later years when “very unacademically-minded ‘activists,’ who had penetrated not only the Institute’s membership but also its staff” took over.³⁷

“To them, race relations meant the relations between white people and ‘blacks,’ primarily in Britain, and the Institute was failing if it did not get ‘involved’, which in effect meant promoting the causes of the UK blacks against the whites. Overboard went scientific detachment, and with it the whole concept of race relations as a global problem…”³⁷

What we see here is the shift from the older scientific managerial state to the new post-rational society which is preoccupied with protecting “minorities”. As a liberal conservative who was educated in older imperial times Hodson was disturbed by the unscientific and ideological agendas that came to dominate the Insititute and similar organisations which began to proliferate. Hodson was also part of the Round Table movement along with Lord Lothian, indicating the importance that the more conservative elites placed on managing race relations for the purpose of Commonwealth integration.³⁹

The IRR held joint conferences with the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). The ISS was itself founded in 1958 by Fabian and Bilderberger Denis Healey, Lord Blacket and retired chief of British naval intelligence Sir Anthony Buzzard with funding from the Ford Foundation amongst others to formulate NATO strategy.⁴⁰

As previously alluded to, the IRR produced the first study of race relations in Britain in response to the Nottinghill and Nottingham race riots in 1958 called Colour in Britain by James Wickendon. In 1962 the IRR was led by Jim Rose who undertook a five year survey of race in Britain published as Colour and Citizenship: a Report on British Race in 1969.⁴¹ The report focused solely on colour and set the new immigrants apart from previous immigrants from Ireland or elsewhere in Europe.

The aforementioned Philip Mason of the Nuffield Foundation was the originator of the idea for the study, with money coming from the Foundation. Rose’s main collaborator on the report was Nicholas Deakin who produced an abridged and updated version in 1970.⁴² Both Rose and Deakin would later collaborate in founding the Runnymeade Trust.

The report states that “the precedent for this Survey was set by Gunnar Myrdal’s comprehensive study of the Negro in America”.⁴³ This is highly significant, as Myrdal was a socialist who had prepared a massive report on racism in America at the behest of the Carnegie Foundation called An American Dilemma which itself was inspired by W.E.B. Dubois, an early promoter of Pan-Africanism who founded the NAACP. Myrdal’s report claimed that racism was innate in the American character and also attacked the US Constitution. The report influenced the later Civil Rights movement and subsequent affirmative action regime. Myrdal would then go on to work in Geneva as the Executive Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Europe.⁴⁴ The report left no doubt regarding it’s inherent biases and assumptions of white villainy as being the source of all race relations issues.

“For Myrdal had seen that in the United States the Negro problem was in reality the white man’s problem and that it was the white man’s behaviour towards the Negro which had created and perpetuated the problem…it seemed to us that Myrdal’s approach was in many ways also appropriate for us.”⁴⁵

The updated and abridged report from 1970 contains further evidence of the fact that Britain’s elites intended to create a multicultural society, allowing the elites to train the leadership class of the colonies and maintain their economic links while altering British society through adjusting social values to accept multiculturalism and multi-racialism in place of the traditional multi-ethnic foundation of Britain. For example, it contained recommendations for public education and media programs to ensure pubic opinion became compliant.

“Pubic education should also be directed towards informing people of all ages about cultural variety, the contribution that immigrant groups have made and the importance of diversity that they have produced in this country for the health of our society.”⁴⁶

The main justification cited for this new utopian project is often that British nationhood has “always comprised various ethnicities” such as English, Scottish and Welsh.⁴⁷ Britain’s multi-ethnic nature is not comparable to the multi-racialism and multiculturalism being promoted by the elites for many reasons, most obviously the fact that Britain was originally a union of the native ethnic groups of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish. The ideology of multiculturalism also undermines traditional British notions of free speech and it’s common law tradition which has been jettisoned in favour of a soft authoritarianism predominantly erected by international finance capital and their Foundations in collusion with the therapeutic State which sees it’s job as protecting the feelings of minorities against “white supremacy”.

In addition to using public education to socialise the young to accept the new multicultural society, the media was also to be brought inline with elite opinion. Along with suggesting that “the ethnic identification of defendants” and “headline treatment” given to stories “involving coloured immigrants” can “incite the prejudices which are latent in most of us”, the report recommends changing how television programmes talk about race issues.⁴⁸

“in the field of television, where both the BBC and the commercial television companies have carried large numbers of discussion programmes on this topic, there should be some attempt to consider whether the techniques currently employed may not risk having an adverse effect on race relations.”⁴⁹

By now it should be clear that immigration was at this time mainly an economic agenda driven by elite interests. We have outlined how Britain’s elites were determined to reform the empire into the Commonwealth and maintain their economic and political links. The abridged IRR report states this plainly using the words of Julius Isaac writing in a 1955 UNESCO symposium why immigrants were being welcomed to Britain.

“They have a powerful and less emotional argument to support them: the importance of this immigration for the cohesion and survival in its present form of the British Commonwealth.”⁵⁰

The leader of the IRR and conductor of the report published in 1969, Jim Rose, born into the “Anglo-Jewish elite of Edwardian England”had spent time at David Astor’s Observer and founded the International Press Institute in Zurich in 1951.⁵¹ It is also notable that the Astor’s had also been prominent in establishing the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Rose determined that more needed to be done on race relations which led to founding the Runnymeade Trust in 1968.

“The man who had the idea he was looking for was Anthony (now Lord) Lester, who had been musing to friends of the need for a British institute combining the best of the Anti-Defamation League and the Potomac Institute in the United States, and who brought with him a commitment of $5,000 a year for three years from a liberal East Coast foundation, provided it was matched by British foundations.⁵¹

It was Jim Rose who personally persuaded the Rowntree Trust to take up the challenge. They were the “onlie begetters” of the Runnymede Trust, set up in 1968.”⁵²

The five year study undertaken by Rose produced a number of recommendations and in the abridged 1970 edition postulates that British society may follow the model developed by American sociologist Milton Gordon, “towards a chess-board pattern in which class and ethnic differences divide society horizontally and vertically.”⁵³

As noted above, the IRR would take a more radical direction in the 70’s as it took direct inspiration from American race politics and black power movements.

” In 1972, the IRR’s membership backed the staff in a radical transformation of the organisation from a policy-oriented, establishment, academic institution into an anti-racist ‘thinktank’. The IRR began to concentrate on responding to the needs of Black people and making direct analyses of institutionalised racism in Britain and the rest of Europe.”⁵⁴

Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962

It was Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and new Colonial Secretary Iain Macleod who signaled a shift on the more traditional Conservative opposition to the multicultural project when in 1960 South Africa was granted the right to independence. Macleod essentially “pre-empted the Oppositions position and shifted the center of gravity of policy sharply to the left”.⁵⁵ This, along with Macmillans historic “wind of change” speech serve as indicators of

“the diminishing significance attached in official policy to the position of the white man in Africa, and in this realignment, a significant element was a countervailing belief in the importance of the black man in the new dispensation for the Commonwealth.”⁵⁵

Traditional Conservatives were angered by this change but it does indicate a prevailing elite view that Britain needed to embrace racial equality and the associated race relations management regime in order to preserve the Commonwealth. It would take until 1962 to pass The Commonwealth Immigrants Act. The problem was that it still did not take account of the true gravity of the situation. Conservative Home Secretary Butler spoke of having “great reluctance” in bringing in the Bill and saw it as a temporary measure.

“except from control [are] persons who in common parlance belong to the United Kingdom.”⁵⁶

Labour leader Hugh gaitskell railed against the Bill as being driven by “fear of racial disorder and friction”⁵⁷ and went further in his castigations of the views of the common folk by stating,

“I do not believe it to be our duty merely to follow what we are convinced are wrong and dangerous views”⁵⁷

Although it seems almost trite in the light of what has happened to Britain demographically since, it was the accepted view within the political establishment at the time that people would come and go as job vacancies were needed to be filled. The public outcry, particularly in working class areas which were at the forefront of immigrant flows forced the hand of the elites to face up to the issue.

The Commonwealth Immigrants Advisory Council (CIAC) was established in 1962 by the Conservative government of Harold Macmillan to advise the Home Secretary on Commonwealth immigrants.⁵⁸ Macmillan’s change of opinion was not only in relation to the Empire, in 1960 he had also begun to shift away from the “Churchillian doctrine of three interlocking circles” and set in train the steps to Britain joining the European Economic Community.⁵⁹ Macmillan is also alleged to have been associated with the Political and Economic Planning (PEP) think tank in the 1930s, which may indicate less than conservative motivations.⁶⁰ (The PEP is discussed later in this essay.)

Labours 1960’s Race Relations Regime

Harold Wilson’s Labour barely won the 1964 election by a tiny margin of 6 seats with fellow Fabian stalwarts like Fenner Brockway and Gordon Walker, both of whom had campaigned vigorously on colonial issues, losing their seats. Brockway had repeatedly introduced private member’s bill to prohibit racial discrimination and introduce a law on incitement to racial hatred prior to Harold Wilson. Underlining the anger in many traditional Labour strongholds at Commonwealth immigration, some Labour losses were a prominent feature.⁶¹

Labour activists David Pitt and Hamza Alavi formed the pro-immigrant organisation Campaign Against Racial Discrimination (CARD) in 1964 after a visit by Martin Luther King jr. Before subsequently breaking apart after a rift between black-power advocates and more liberal forces.⁶² CARD demonstrated a determination to use agent provacateur tactics early on when in the 1960’s it planned to use white volunteers to “apply for houses and jobs refused to coloured applicants”.⁹

Both IRR and CARD worked with Fabian R.M. Titmuss and others to create the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants (NCCI) which was set up under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury.⁶³

1965 Race Relations Act

Demographically, Britain had already been transformed by the time the Labour party put out it’s 1965 white paper, Immigration from the Commonwealth. This document stipulated that there was “no question of allowing…[the commonwealth immigrants] to be regarded as second-class citizens.” Tellingly, Britain was also referred to as “already a multi-racial society”.⁶⁴

Home Secretary and Fabian, Frank Soskice, who was the son of Russian revolutionary journalist David Soskice, took direct inspiration from events in the United States in introducing the 1965 Race-Relations Bill, highlighting the elite view that the masses could be prevented from creating too much of a fuss by ignoring public disquiet and outlawing explicit “acts of discrimination in public places, intensely wounding to the feelings of those against whom these acts are practiced”.⁶⁵ Soskice outlined the public order motivations of the Bill as an attempt to avoid the problems experienced in the United States.

“it is far better to put this Bill on the Statute Book now, before social stresses and ill-will have the chance of corrupting and distorting our relationships”.⁶⁵

It must be pointed out that public policy was still labelled as being “racial-inexplicitness” with no further steps taken toward affirmative action or black-power type ideology at this time. However, there appears to have been clear intention to introduce a similar US-style affirmative action race relations regime in Britain, despite the claims of colour-blindness. Although Conservatives were worried about the intrusive nature of race-relations laws,

“Liberals, who saw the 1965 Act as only the first step toward a more encompassing anti-discrimination law, feared that a criminal-law approach would establish overly high standards of proof and prohibit the extension of race-relations law to areas like housing and employment.”⁶⁶

The 1965 Act extended The Public Order Act of 1936 brought in to deal with Sir Oswald Mosley’s fascists to cover threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour which were likely to cause a breach of the peace.” This was less to do with racial discrimination than it was a reaction to anti-semitic speeches held at public meetings in the early sixties. “This change in the law was strongly urged by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.”⁶³

The Act also created the Race Relations Board (RRB) which didn’t have much powers at this time but which would soon begin, like all bureaucracies, to grow and obtain more competencies and powers of enforcement.

Leading the Board was Roy Jenkins old Oxford friend Mark Bonham-Carter of the famous British family, B.S. Langton and Sir Learie Constantine, a West Indian cricketer who became Britain’s first black peer. Dr. Joost Der Blank, former Archbishop of Capetown and anti-apartheid campaigner had stepped down from the board early on.⁹

The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968

New Home Secretary, future Trilateral Commission member and Fabian, Roy Jenkins, championed multiculturalism and stated plainly that he did not believe in “assimilation” or of “the loss, by immigrants of their own national characteristics and culture”.⁶⁷ A firm admirer of liberal reformer H.H. Asquith, Jenkins introduced abortion, made divorce easier to obtain and decriminalised homosexuality among consenting adults.⁶⁸

“His biographer argues that Jenkins was concerned for Britain’s image in the world and took a strongly positive view of the contribution that Commonwealth immigrants, like previous waves of immigrants from the Norman Conquest to the refugees of the thirties, could make in overcoming ‘our natural island lethargy.’”⁶⁸

The Labour government introduced two local government programs in an attempt to manage the mounting issues associated with Commonwealth immigration, the 1966 Local Government Act and the 1968 Urban Programme passed after Enoch Powell’s legendary ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech.⁶⁹

Roy Jenkins, who was an admirer of the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations affirmative action approach to race relations was very much in alignment with the RRB and NCCI who were lobbying to extend the anti-discrimination law into “other fields such as housing, employment, home loans and insurance”.⁷⁰

The pressure was added to by the 1967 “government-commissioned” report of the Political and Economic Planning (PEP) think tank⁶⁶ as well as a group of lawyers financed by the two boards themselves.⁷⁰

The PEP was founded by British businessman and Fabian Israel Moses Sieff and sought to bring together “experts” with “paid research staff” to deal with all manner of problems operating under anonymity. The group had previously played a huge role in creating FDR’s “New Deal” which Sieff described as “our plan”. Many members of the PEP were Fabians. While the organisation helped to pioneer the harmonisation of US and British policy, it also promoted increased socialism and economic integration, similarly to how organisations such as Chatham House and The Council on Foreign Relations became influential in foreign policy by bringing together experts from various fields to form study groups and create reports.⁷¹

Despite overwhelming public disagreement, the PEP research claimed a need existed for more rigid legislation due to widespread discrimination against Commonwealth immigrants,⁷⁰ an early example of think tanks and NGO’s influencing public policy in fundamental ways with serious long term consequences. The PEP report was a game-changer and it’s contents were widely promoted by the media, indicating a high level of consistent messaging already in place regarding multiculturalism.

“the reaction in most newspapers both editorially and in the selection of emphasis for news items, was that an intolerable situation had been revealed which called for urgent remedial action.”⁷²

New Home Secretary and Fabian, James Callaghan regarded the second Race Relations Act of 1968 as part of an ongoing fight for citizenship that would not differentiate between native British and newcomers, a Bill “to protect society as a whole” from race-based “social disruption”.⁷³

“It would be a denial of our history if, having won these freedoms for ourselves, we now exclude other groups who have come here to live as full citizens.”⁷³

Two months before the Bill was passed a panic measure to deal with migrants from recently independent Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania had been passed after it emerged they had full rights to enter Britain.⁷⁰ This was a very necessary measure as Commonwealth Immigration continued to rise throughout the 60’s with almost 75,000 arriving in 1967.⁷⁴

Interesting to note is the gulf between the trade unions and elites of the Labour party. Significant efforts were made to get the unions to agree that new legislation was necessary. The NCCI brought over American trade unionists to help convince their British counterparts of the need for new legislation.⁷² A report into “the effectiveness of anti-discrimination machinery in the United States” prepared by Professor Harry Street of Manchester University also influenced the legislation.⁷⁵

The ‘68 Act also created the Community Relations Board, a junior partner to the Race Relations Board created by the ‘65 Act and which was headed by Frank Cousins of the TGWU union. Cousins would retire in 1970 after a letter suggesting so from Jeff Crawford of the West Indian Standing Committee to be replaced by Mark Bonham-Carter of the Race Relations Board.⁷⁶

The Race Relations Board was taken over by bureaucrat and Quaker Sir Geoffrey Wilson who had a “one-time close connection” to Fabian President and “Britain’s most puritanical chancellor of the Exchequer” Sir Stafford Cripps.⁷⁷

European Commission on Human Rights and The 1971 Immigration Act

The European Commission on Human Rights ruled that British immigration measures violated the European Convention on Human Rights. Although Britain had not signed the fourth protocol of the Convention, the Commission claimed that “the 1968 Act had racial motives and that it covered a racial group”.⁷⁸

The Tories passed the 1971 Immigration Act as part of an election pledge to halt “large-scale permanent immigration” to Britain and the Act studiously avoided the question of citizenship by deriving who had the right of abode” from patrialty whereby patrials were either born or had an ancestral connection, as well as people who had settled for at least five years. In doing this the British diaspora was finally legislated for as having a “family connection”.⁷⁹

The Act had a cosmetic effect in that it technically reduced immigration from 63,000 to 34,044 in 1973. The problem was that this was because of the reclassification of Commonwealth migrants who had been in the country for five years or more being able to bring in their “dependents”. An internal report by Home Office Official Charles Hawley, who had gone to India to assess waiting lists found that there were 180,000 dependents and “that new applicants were appearing as fast as entry certificates were granted”.⁸⁰

The 1976 Race Relations Act

The return to power of Labour 1974 set the table for the next step in race relations regime. Having lobbied for more power than that accorded in the 1968 Act, the Race Relations Board once again had Roy Jenkins in the Home Office who was always amenable to their cause. An all-party Select Committee of MP’s suggested scrapping both the RRB and the CRB altogether. A new larger Committee was suggested by combining the two.⁸¹

When Roy Jenkins created the Equal Opportunities Commission to deal with women’s rights, he opted to amalgamate the two existing race quangos into a new, more powerful organisation, the Community Relations Commission.⁸¹

“In the latter case he followed the recommendation of Lord Rothschild’s Central Policy Review Staff, that the Race Relations Board and the Race Relations Commission should be merged.”⁸¹

The Central Policy Review Staff was established by Ted Heath in 1971 and disbanded by Margaret Thatcher in 1983. It functioned as an independent unit within the Cabinet Office advising on long term strategy, coordinating policy across departments.

As with the 1968 Race Relations Act, the PEP once again produced a report claiming that racial discrimination was still rife, “particularly in the employment area-the main target of the 1976 Act.”⁸²

“In championing the Sex Discrimination Act, Tory opposition was pre-empted from blocking similar legislation on race discrimination. As a result, the 1976 Race Relations Act passed with remarkable little opposition.”⁸²

Taking inspiration from the American affirmative action policies, a most dangerous aspect of the new Act was the definition of two kinds of discrimination:

“direct discrimination, in which an individual treats another ‘less favourable’ on the grounds of ‘colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins’; and indirect discrimination, in which a ‘condition or requirement’ is applied that does not allow persons of a particular race to comply with it equally, is not ‘justifiable’ on racial grounds, and works to the ‘detriment’ of these persons.”⁸²

Indirect discrimination was the first time that Britain took on an “equal result” direction as opposed to “equal outcome”. Despite claims to the contrary, the Act introduces what became known as “positive action”. Employers were allowed to provide training to minority employees and put special advertisements in minority newspapers. The Act allows for the priority hiring of minority workers for minority related roles and also for special facilities for minority groups if necessary. Despite the claims of moderation and assurances that affirmative action was not being introduced,

“the 1976 Act nevertheless created a space for the language of group rights and for the result-oriented logic of achieving statistical parity between the races.”⁸³

The Act justified councils in Labour controlled areas such as Camden declaring that “If two people of equal ability but of different colour apply for a job, we will pick the coloured person because coloured people are so underrepresented at the moment.”⁸³

Brixton Race Riots and the 1981 Scarman Report

Britain experienced it’s most extreme race riots up until that point in 1981 when Brixton youths of second generation background went on the rampage. A cringing establishment had to provide answers and there were plenty of incorrect ones to be found. The Thatcher government commissioned the Scarman report and a parallel House of Commons Report on Racial Disadvantage to provide answers.⁸⁴

Lord Scarman recommended “positive action” measures in housing, education and employment.⁸⁴

“A Policy of direct co-ordinated attack on racial disadvantage inevitably means that the ethnic minorities will enjoy for a time a positive discrimination in their favour. But it is a price worth paying if it accelerates the elimination of the unsettling factor of racial disadvantage from the social fabric of the United Kingdom.”⁸⁵

Scarman was heavily influenced by the Johnson administrations affirmative action program and even cited Lyndon Johnson’s 1968 speech on the riots that had affected 30 American cities that year.⁸⁶To facilitate such preferential treatment, it became necessary to obtain accurate statistical data about minority groups which was not specifically addressed up until the introduction of “ethnic monitoring” at the local government level after the riots. In 1991 an ethnic-group question was finally included but prior to this other data was used to give less accurate results such as “country of birth” information.⁸⁷

This institutionalised “positive discrimination has been ramped up since this time. In fact the CRE itself became dominated by racial minorities with 51% of it’s staff being black or Asian by 1982.⁸⁸ In 1984 it was found that Greater London Council was spending £5 million annually on minority organisations.⁸⁹

The CRE’s own report blamed the governments refusal to incorporate the recommendations of the Kerner Commission which investigated the 1968 riots in America. Kerner was later exposed as a fraud and his report was littered with baseless claims and repeated the attacks on whites now unfortunately standard operating procedure in sociology.

“The Kerner Report had concluded that the riots were cuased by ‘white racism’, black poverty and powerlessness. It also arrived at the sensational conclusion that the black rioter was, in O’Sullivan’s words ‘a most superior person, better-educated and more politically committed than the dull and self-effacing non-rioter.”⁹⁰

The Kerner Commission also “deeply influenced” the Institute of Race Relations report prepared by Jim Rose discussed earlier, a further indication of how unsound ideas and conclusions have influenced race relations since that time.⁴²

Labour Radicalises Local Government

Out of power in the Thatcher years, the Labour party turned to the multicultural town and city local governments to expand it’s power and influence during the 1980’s. The Institute of Race Relations had become radicalised in the 1970’s by Marxists such as it’s Director, Ambalvaner Sivanandan from Sri Lanka, who led an anti-police campaign.⁹¹

Ken Livingstone’s Greater London Council funded the Institute and crime-ridden areas such as Lambeth,Haringey, Islington and Lewisham were targeted by activists who agitated against police surveillance and discouraged racial minorities from joining the police.⁹¹

Livingstone took pains to “pension-off racists” in his crusade to acheive “total and complete racial equality in London”.⁹²

Labour’s radicalisation in this period led to using racial politics as a strategy to gain power with Diane Abbott being elected in 1987 as the first black female MP, along with numerous others across the country. Abbott stated plainly about traditional British institutions that “We are about dismantling them and replacing them with our own machinery of class rule”.⁹³

The Inner London Education Authority programmatic paper A Policy for Equality: Race outlined the philosophy of local governments increasingly in Britain. It described assimilation as wrong and “racist” due to its premise of “white cultural superiority”. Cultural diversity was also unsuitable due to ignoring the “structural aspects of racism” and the “power relations between white and black people”. Instead “equality” was the objective.⁹⁴

“The equality perspective is assimilation inverted, in which ‘whites’ figure as the problem subject to correction: and, not unlike the old notion of ‘coloured’, the new label ‘black’ swallows the diversity of South Asian and Afro-Caribbean immigrants, but now as a fighting term for their ‘common experience’…of being victims of racism”⁹⁴

Margaret Thatcher and the Tories reigned in local government and made substantive attempts to remove power from the more radical elements but this philosophy has underpinned the subsequent public policy approach more and more from the 1990s onward.

Conclusion

What we have seen in this essay is that an internationalist-minded elite within Britain has taken upon itself the management of a multicultural society underpinned by a set of flawed assumptions regarding the feasibility of such a program. This elite began in the 19th century, in a more conservative guise, to manage race relations in line with a scientific reality and from a colonialist mindset.

Communitarian attempts to integrate more diverse groups of people and the failure to do so yielded to more radical ideas emanating from the far left becoming entrenched within the original institutions over time. Since the 1970s, such ideas have been public policy in Britain. This produced a shift from scientific management to post-rational quasi-religious beliefs regarding white villainy being solely responsible for all manner of injustices faced by racial and ethnic minorities. The effects of this are borne out in the radicalization witnessed in elite media and academia regarding race relations today where eliminantionist rhetoric towards white people and their societies has become routine.

1. Paul Gottfried, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy, (University of Missouri Press, 2002) 140.[↩]
2. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway (Western Islands, 1966) 3.[↩]
3. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway, (Western Islands, 1966) 27.[↩]
4. Clare Ellis, The Blackening of Europe, (Arktos Media, 2020) 33.[↩]
5. Paul Gottfried, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy, (University of Missouri Press, 2002) 135.[↩][↩]
6. These ideas are outlined in Paul Gottfried, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Towards a Secular Theocracy, (University of Missouri Press, 2002) .[↩]
7. Encyclopaedia Britannica, “T.H. Marshall,” accessed July 2020, https://www.britannica.com/biography/T-H-Marshall.[↩]
8. Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Communitarianism,” accessed July 2020, https://www.britannica.com/topic/communitarianism/A-synthesis-Rights-and-responsibilities.[↩]
9. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 35.[↩][↩][↩]
10. Labour Party Executive Report 1918 cited in Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway, (Western Islands, 1966) 43.[↩]
11. Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 26.[↩]
12. Paul Gottfried, Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy, (University of Missouri Press, 2002) 14.[↩]
13. Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 340.[↩]
14. UNESCO Symposium, The Positive Contribution by Immigrants, (UNESCO, 1960) 75.[↩]
15. Royal Commission on Population report cited in UNESCO Symposium, The Positive Contribution by Immigrants, (UNESCO, 1960) 75.[↩]
16. Royal Commission on Population report cited in UNESCO Symposium, The Positive Contribution by Immigrants, (UNESCO, 1960) 76.[↩]
17. Royal Commission on Population Report cited in E.J.B. Rose and Associates, Colour and Citizenship: A Report on British Race Relations, (IRR Oxford, 1969) 207.[↩]
18. Atlee cited in Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 106.[↩]
19. UNESCO Symposium, The Positive Contribution by Immigrants, (UNESCO, 1960) 62.[↩]
20. Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 96.[↩][↩]
21. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 106.[↩][↩]
22. The British National Archives, “Origins of Commonwealth immigration”, accessed July 2020, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/origins-commonwealth-immigration.htm.[↩][↩][↩]
23. Lord Lothian cited in Andrea Bosco, The Roundtable Movement and the Fall of the ‘Second’ British Empire (1909 – 1919), (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017) 375.[↩]
24. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway, (Western Islands, 1966) 44.[↩]
25. Andrea Bosco, The Roundtable Movement and the Fall of the ‘Second’ British Empire (1909 – 1919), (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017) 375.[↩]
26. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway, (Western Islands, 1966) 67.[↩]
27. Andrea Bosco, The Roundtable Movement and the Fall of the ‘Second’ British Empire (1909 – 1919), (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017) 438.[↩]
28. Andrea Bosco, The Roundtable Movement and the Fall of the ‘Second’ British Empire (1909 – 1919), (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017) 461.[↩][↩]
29. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway, (Western Islands, 1966) 50.[↩][↩]
30. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway, (Western Islands, 1966) 66.[↩][↩]
31. Fabian News April 1958 cited in Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway, (Western Islands, 1966) 50.[↩]
32. Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 130.[↩]
33. Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 133.[↩]
34. Stephen Dorril, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, (Fourth Estate, 2001) 721.[↩][↩]
35. Stephen Dorril, MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, (Fourth Estate, 2001) 722.[↩]
36. Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 202.[↩][↩]
37. Harry Hodson, Autobiography, accessed online July 2020, https://web.archive.org/web/20101128155105/http://athelstane.co.uk/hvhodson/hvhbiogr/biogr13.htm.[↩][↩][↩][↩]
38. Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Sir Alexander Carr-Saunders”, accessed July 2020, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-Carr-Saunders.[↩]
39. Godfrey Hodgson, “Obituary: H. V. Hodson”, March 31, 1999, https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-h-v-hodson-1084147.html.[↩]
40. Holly Sklar Ed. Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, (South End Press, 1980) 187.[↩]
41. Note: The abridged and updated version of this report is cited liberally in this essay[↩]
42. E.J.B. Rose and Associates, Colour and Citizenship: A Report on British Race Relations, (IRR Oxford, 1969) 9.[↩][↩]
43. E.J.B. Rose and Associates, Colour and Citizenship: A Report on British Race Relations, (IRR Oxford, 1969) 1.[↩]
44. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway (Western Islands, 1966) 370.[↩]
45. E.J.B. Rose and Associates, Colour and Citizenship: A Report on British Race Relations, (IRR Oxford, 1969) 2.[↩]
46. Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 368.[↩]
47. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 224.[↩]
48. Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 369.[↩]
49. Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 370.[↩]
50. Julius Isaac cited in Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 338.[↩]
51. Dipak Nandy, “Obituary: Jim Rose”, June 4, 1999,https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-jim-rose-1097912.html.[↩][↩]
52. Dipak Nandy, “Obituary: Jim Rose”, June 4, 1999, https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-jim-rose-1097912.html.[↩]
53. Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 341.[↩]
54. Institute of Race Relations, “About”, accessed July 2020, http://www.irr.org.uk/about/.[↩]
55. Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 98.[↩][↩]
56. Butler cited in Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 108.[↩]
57. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 108.[↩][↩]
58. Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 172.[↩]
59. Booker and North, The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union, (Continuum, 2003) 94.[↩]
60. A.K. Chesterton, The New Unhappy Lords: An Exposure of Power Politics, (Candour Publishing, 1975) 153.[↩]
61. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 33.[↩]
62. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 239.[↩]
63. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 34.[↩][↩]
64. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 223.[↩]
65. Frank Soskice cited in Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 226.[↩][↩]
66. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 228.[↩][↩]
67. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 225.[↩]
68. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 31.[↩][↩]
69. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 227.[↩]
70. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 36.[↩][↩][↩][↩]
71. Rose L. Martin, Fabian Freeway, (Western Islands, 1966) 302.[↩]
72. Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 118.[↩][↩]
73. Callaghan cited in Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 228.[↩][↩]
74. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 37.[↩]
75. Nicholas Deakin, Colour, Citizenship and British Society: An abridged and updated version of the famous report, (Cox and Wyman, 1970) 123.[↩]
76. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 40.[↩]
77. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 41.[↩]
78. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 110.[↩]
79. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 111.[↩]
80. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 45.[↩]
81. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 44.[↩][↩][↩]
82. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 229.[↩][↩][↩]
83. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 230.[↩][↩]
84. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 231.[↩][↩]
85. Scarman report cited in Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 230.[↩]
86. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 66.[↩]
87. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 232.[↩]
88. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 60.[↩]
89. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 61.[↩]
90. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 85.[↩]
91. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 99.[↩][↩]
92. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 241.[↩]
93. Russell Lewis, Anti-Racism, A Mania Exposed, (Quartet Books, 1988) 133.[↩]
94. Christopher Joppke, Immigration and the Nation State, (Oxford, 1999) 242.[↩][↩]