show/hide profile info
Register to take part

Killing the English

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 3515
  • +75/-0
Killing the English
« on: January 30, 2013, 10:40:10 PM »

?   Tony Shell   9th July 2012
Page 1 of 6
Killing The English
Tony Shell
In April 1945, Dr. Raphael Lemkin (an adviser on international law to the former League of Nations)
provided an important review of the primary techniques of genocide, as employed by the Nazis. Those
techniques included: the partitioning of previously unified countries into administrative regions to destroy
political cohesion; attacking existing cultural structures to weaken national resolve and obliterate former
cultural patterns; the use of schools to poison the minds of vulnerable children; the undermining of the
spiritual and communal foundations of the established Christian church; the promotion of pornography,
alcohol and gambling to create moral debasement within the national group; the destruction of the
industrial infrastructure and economic independence of the country; and (most especially) the use of
various means to reduce the existing population, and the birthrate, of the targeted native people. 1
Such techniques closely parallel those of the Marxist Frankfurt School. And both originate from the same
malfeasant philosophy of forcing extreme and un-consented social change, by undermining the existing
homogeneity of a sovereign country. It is a political process that accrues power by inciting hatred towards
others ? and thereby providing to itself, and to its supporters, a self-serving and perverse justification for
the perpetual discovery of ?others? requiring elimination. 
In the decades following the Dr. Lemkin report, a covert form of genocide has been developed as a single,
?progressive? political doctrine ? but one which still retains the core techniques, as outlined above.
Although ?progressivism? is an ideology that promotes itself as ultra-liberal and tolerant, an arguably more
apt description (given the globally redefined, racist hatemongering) is ?progressive-Nazism?.
Therefore the problem the ?progressives? have with the English is that they are a native people, occupying
their own land (as an authentic nation). It is a problem compounded by the fact that much of English
cultural tradition is built upon core Christian belief ? a belief that allows no space for hatred (or for the
elimination) of the ?others?. 
This report describes (by reference to factual data and actual events) the way in which this ?progressive?
genocidal process is therefore being used for the surreptitious disposal of the un-compliant English. 
?   Tony Shell   9th July 2012
Page 2 of 6
?Progressive? Genocide
The most direct procedures for the implementation of ?progressive? genocide combine the politically
contrived import of large numbers of immigrant settlers, together with efforts to stop the native people
having children. 
This part of the study therefore examines these procedures ? as has been applied to the English.
In the last sixty years there has been a massive growth of non-native population, with no corresponding
increase in the native English. It is calculated that between 1951 and 2011 the number of non-native
people in England has been purposely increased from 1.5 million, to more than 10.4 million. 2 3 4 5 6 
This extraordinary and unprecedented growth in mass immigration (and settlement) is driven by covert,
genocidal intent ? to create a situation that will eventually deny the native population any possibility of
determining its own future. This is a necessary precursor to the final elimination of a distinct, native group. 
During its last term in office, the Labour Party kept secret its considerable efforts in driving forward mass
immigration ?to make the UK truly multicultural? ? not least because it hoped such a strategy would
(eventually) lead to it achieving permanent power in Westminster. 7 8 9  It is such behaviour, and the
fetishism for racialist politics, that provides an insight into the true nature of Labour Party ?progressivism?.
The argument that mass immigration is a necessary expedient for addressing the problems of a declining
and aging native population, is fatuously presented by those who expect us not to notice (for example) the
techniques also being used to considerably lower the birthrate of that same, native people. 
The procedures being implemented (to stop the English from having children) includes a variety of
extreme, social engineering practices, including: a discouragement of traditional family life; cultural
propaganda promoting childless marriages and divorce; the promotion of sexual depravity (enforced by the
arrest of those who dare to express dissent or opposition); the inculcation of degenerate social behaviour
in young children and infants (from extreme self-centeredness, to suicide cultism); and the political support
of the abortion industry as a provider of a vital ?social need?.
Notably, the ?progressive? pro-abortion stance is essentially a development of the Nazi eugenics
programmes of the 1930s and 1940s. 10 Since 1968 the lives of 4.3 million unborn babies, of English
parentage, have been terminated. 11 The justification for this ? which is aggressively flaunted ? is
essentially political, with such abortions being presented as an exercise in ?reproductive justice?. 12 13 14
The ?progressives? have vigorously promoted those abortions in the certain knowledge the greatest impact
will be upon the English, given that the native population is already in sharp decline (with an overall birth
rate now more than 17 per cent below replacement level). 15 16 
The fact that this disposal of unborn English children is driven by political extremism is made all-too-
obvious by the manner in which the ?pro-life? movement has been subject to hate-fomenting lies and
disinformation, by both the political State and the corporate media industry (TV and newspapers). The
?   Tony Shell   9th July 2012
Page 3 of 6
intention has always been to make issues concerning abortion (in addition to mass immigration) taboo
areas for serious investigation and debate.
In the 1997 Parliamentary Elections, candidates stood on a single-issue ?pro-life? platform, as an attempt to
present their concerns directly to the UK public. The response of the ?progressives? was to stir-up
unjustifiable fears and extreme hatred against pro-life groups. Over the following three years newspaper
articles appeared alleging widespread infiltration of the pro-life movement by ?secret Nazis? ? whose
existence and activities appear to have been known only to the newspaper journalists. 17 18 19
Subsequently the BBC transmitted a number of ?real life? TV dramas that sought to portray pro-life
campaigners as terrorists, and psychopathic child murderers. Notably all of the perpetrators were shown
as ?white? Christian people (and predominantly women) ? indicating a clear racist position of the BBC. 20 21 
The BBC chose to adopt such a stance, despite the fact that the genuine, UK-based, pro-life movement
has never used (nor supported) violence to further its cause ? and campaigned on behalf of all sections of
UK society (including the non-English immigrant community).
The effect of such propaganda will have been anticipated. It will have made many members of the public
extremely wary of joining pro-life groups ? and even fearful of expressing support. It will have done much
to help stop the emergence within England of any popular, and effective, pro-life movement. And quite
clearly this was the intention.
The Instigators of ?Progressive? Change
The installation of a Conservative/Liberal coalition Government in 2010 is unlikely to affect this use of
covert genocide. This is to be expected ? given that these ?progressive? techniques for population
replacement have such massive backing from many politically, as well as financially, vested interests. 
Broadly speaking, the agencies engaged in implementing this agenda can be divided into the local (UK),
and global power groups. 
In regard to the local (UK) groups, these include: the Parliamentary cabal at Westminster (of all major
political parties); the Home Office; the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; the British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC); and the Trades Union Congress (TUC). International groups include: the European
Commission; the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR); the Open Society Foundations (OSF);
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE); and the Global Forum on Migration and
Development (GFMD).
The local (UK) groups and the global groups are also intimately interconnected. It is through such
complex, incestuous arrangements that the ?progressives? are able to impose their will on all countries
(including, and especially, upon England). For example, in June of this year (2012) the head of the GFMD,
Peter Denis William Sutherland KCMG, declared that the EU should be doing its best to encourage mass
migration ?to undermine the national homogeneity of European countries.? 22 
?   Tony Shell   9th July 2012
Page 4 of 6
However, his assertion that ?an aging or declining native population ? was the key argument? is totally
disingenuous given that the rapid decline of native European populations has been deliberately
encouraged and assisted by ?progressive? political means.
Peter Sutherland is the UN Special Representative for Migration. He is also: Chairman of Goldman Sachs
International; Vice-Chairman of The European Round Table of Industrialists; Steering Committee Member
of The Bilderberg Group; Chairman of the LSE; International Board Member of US/Middle East Project Inc.
(Council on Foreign Relations); and Chairman of the Trilateral Commission (Europe). 23 24
Of the international groups, it is the activities of the OSCE and GFMD organizations (and their ancillary
sub-groups) that are seen to be of particular significance. Most notably, there are organizations such as
the military-orientated Centre for Foreign Policy Analysis (CFPA ? a UK-based organization, also linked to
the OSCE) that are seen to be engaged in giving support to such activities as: efforts by the State in
?propaganda, power and persuasion?; to the work of propaganda organizations such as the BBC; and to
providing for further expansion and empowerment of the global armaments industries. 25 26
There is a clear causal link between mass migrations, the demands of global big business, and the
behaviours of authoritarian administrations masquerading as ?democratic? bodies. Increasingly
governments see their purpose being that of changing society (including, if necessary, of disposing of
and/or replacing existing, settled populations). Whilst historically the people would change their
governments ? ?progressive? governments are now intent on changing the people.
Confronting Progressivism, and Genocide
The killing of the English is an important part of the global, ?progressive? agenda. It is recognized that
unless the native inhabitants can be totally subdued (and preferably eliminated as a distinct, and assertive,
native group) then the ?progressive? project will itself be under severe threat. 
The danger for the ?progressives? is of the re-establishment of social change being allowed to emerge
gradually, in a step-wise fashion, initiated by the common people ? rather than radical change being
imposed top-down by an authoritarian ruling class.  Given the historical rejection by the English of such
dictatorial forms of control, the ?progressives? will see this, in particular, as a threat to their global
aspirations. And hence the need for a covert programme of genocide against the English population.
This, therefore, is the challenge facing the English people ? the prospect of their own demise as a ?people?.
Any form of resistance needs to go beyond simple anger, dissent and protest, and will have to include
action under Law to halt such diabolical behaviour.
?   Tony Shell   9th July 2012
Page 5 of 6
References and Notes
1 ?Genocide ? A Modern Crime?, by Dr. Raphael Lemkin, Free World magazine, Vol.4, April 1945, pages 39 to 43, ?Techniques of
2 Population (demographic) figures for 1951 based (in part) on data contained within the report: ?A Nation of Immigrants? ? A Brief
Demographic History of Britain?, The Institute for The Study of Civil Society, 2007
3 Population (demographic) figures for 2001 based (in part) on data contained within the report: ?Estimates of The Population By
Ethnic Group For Areas Within England?, P Large and K Ghoush, Office for National Statistics, January 2006.
4 The demographic numbers (in millions), for the years 1951 and 2001, are as follows: native English (39.50m for 1951, 42.15m for
2001); non-English Britons (0.80m for 1951, 0.80m for 2001); Asian (0.08m for 1951, 2.76m for 2001); Afro/Caribbean Black
(0.10m for 1951, 1.17m for 2001); and European (0.56m for 1951, 2.57m for 2001). 
5 Calculated as an increase of: 5.76 million between 1951 and 2001, and a further increase of 3.14 million between 2001 and 2011
(using official ONS data). These are conservative numbers and do not include estimates for illegal migrants.
6 ?Migration Statistics Quarterly Report May 2012?, Office for National Statistics, 24th May 2012 ? and, in particular, figure 2.12
and accompanying text
7 ?Blunket: No Limit on Immigration?, BBC2, Newsnight interview, published on the 2003/11/13 15:33:43 GMT source:
8 ?The Great Immigration Scandel?, Steve Moxon, Imprint Academic, Exeter, 2006 (2nd Edition, first published in 2004)
9 ?Don?t Listen To The Whingers ? London Needs Immigrants?, by Andrew Neather, The Evening Standard, 23rd October 2009,
10 See, for example, the chapter ?Liberal Racism: The Eugenics Ghost In The Fascist Machine?, in: ?Liberal Fascism ? The Secret
History Of The Left From Mussolini To The Politics Of Meaning?, by Jonah Goldberg, Penguin Books, London 2007, pages 243 to
283, and (most especially) the corresponding source references given in pages 445 to 452.
11 ?Statistical Bulletin ? Abortion Statistics, England and Wales?, reports for 2006, 2007 and 2009, Department of Health. The
abortion numbers given are those under categories C and D of The Abortion Act 1967, as amended, section 1(1)(C)/(D) where the
risk of the pregnancy to the woman or to the family is greater than the risk of termination to the mother. An estimated 4.26 million
terminations of unwanted English children, under that category, occurred between 1968 and 2010. This is based on a figure of 68%
of all abortions, calculated from: 98% of all abortions being categories (C) and (D); 98% of ?White British? (of England and Wales)
being ethnic English; and 85% of those (relatively few) listed as ?unknown ethnic group? being ethnic English (from official ONS
12 See, for example, ?Continued Threats to Reproductive Rights?, The Public Eye, a publication for the Political Research
Associates, Fall 2009, Volume XXIV, No 3, pages 3 and 6, reference: pe-fall-09.pdf
13 ?Polished Lenses and Focused Targets: Defending Reproductive Justice?, by Pam Chamberlain, Political Research Associates,
2009, source:
14 The argument that the Abortion Act 1967 was introduced (in part) as a response to the huge numbers of illegal (so called ?back
street?) abortions is another myth propagated by the pro-abortion lobby. In 1965, out of a total of 1,013,575 pregnancies in the UK,
there were 16,300 miscarriages or stillbirths, 19,500 legal abortions, and 173 illegal abortions. Source: ?Historical Abortion
Statistics, United Kingdom?, Wm. Robert Johnston, 11th March 2012,
15 From data given in: ?Estimates of The Population by Ethnic Group for Areas Within England?, by Pete Large and Kamak Ghosh,
Office for National Statistics, January 2006, page 11 (Table 3)
16 ?Estimates of the Population by Ethnic Group for Areas Within England?, Office for National Statistics (ONS), January 2006,
reference ONS_ethnic_2003.pdf It is the English who have historically provided the largest number of emigrants leaving the UK,
and those that now remain have a birth rate in excess of 17 per cent below the sustainable replacement level.
17 See, for example: ?Hack ? Sex, Drugs, and Scandal From Inside The Tabloid Jungle?, by Graham Johnson, Simon and Schuster,
2012, page 261. In his autobiography, journalist Graham Johnson admits to having fabricated totally untrue stories, which were
subsequently published by the national (UK) press.
18 For example, in newspaper articles in The Sunday Mercury (Birmingham) on the 18th October 1998, and in The Sunday Mirror on
the 7th May 2000 (by journalist Graham Johnson). 
19 Quite clearly (and unsurprisingly) the police have no information on the existence of such groups ? this is in reference to specific
requests for information, by letter, to: the West Midlands Police (the 14th June 2012); the Greater Manchester Police (the 14th June
2012); and the Nottingham Police (also the 14th June 2012), 
?   Tony Shell   9th July 2012
Page 6 of 6
20 ?Spooks?, Season 1, Episode 1, BBC TV, broadcast: Monday 13th May 2002. The programme plot concerns the setting up of anti-
abortionist terrorist cells within the UK, with the help of an extremist from the USA. The script for the programme includes that of a
family planning doctor, and her young daughter, being killed by a bomb planted by the anti-abortionists.
21 For example: ?Hunter?, BBC TV, 18th and 19th January 2009. The programme plot of this ?real life? drama concerns the
kidnapping of two 7-year-old boys by ?pro-lifers? (anti-abortionists) who threaten to kill them if the BBC refuses to broadcast an
anti-abortion video. One of the boys is subsequently killed by one of the anti-abortionists, by lethal injection.
22 EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief, by Brian Wheeler, Political reporter, BBC News, 21st June
2012, source:
23 The US/Middle East Project Inc. was established by the US-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in 1994. Peter Sutherland
is listed as an International Board Member. See: and
24 Peter Sutherland KCMG SC is a former Chairman of the Allied Irish Banks, a former Director of GATT, a former Director
General of the World Trade Organization; a former Chairman of British Petroleum plc; and a former Director of the Royal Bank of
Scotland. He is also: a Consultor of The Extraordinary Section of The Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See, and a
holder of the following: the Grand Cross Order of Leopold II (Belgium); the Grand Cross of Civil Merit (Spain); the Chevalier of
the Legion d'Honneur (France); the Centenary Medal (NZ); the European Parliament Gold Medal; the Commandeur du Wissam
(Morocco); the Order of Rio Branco (Brazil); the Grand Cross of the Order of Infante Dom Henrique (Portugal). Source: Debrett?s,
25 ??Propaganda, Power and Persuasion ? A Conference in Memory of Philip M Taylor?, source:
26 ?UKTI Defence & Security Organisation Symposium 2009 ? Exporting In A Challenging Global Environment?, source:

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog


Powered by EzPortal
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 
Comodo SSL