Wednesday, 11 July 2007

Reconnecting Families and Communities


Reconnecting Family and Community.


The Conservative theory of the Broken Society, and the solutions they offer to solve the problem of social breakdown, are totally flawed. It is not unmarried or divorced single parents who are primarily responsible for the social problems of their children, it is the effect of the breakdown of parental relationships within extended families and the destruction of kin based communities associated with the process of becoming a single parent that causes the damage both to children and society. Every child begins life with two parents. It is when the parents separate and that child loses contact with a parent, loses contact with half their extended family and suffers social isolation and poverty as a result of divorce, relationship breakdown, the selling of the marital home and forced movement to a cheaper rental area outside of the extended family network and into already fractured communities that the damage is done to the children.
Its is the process of the breakdown of marriages and relationships that damages children and causes social problems. It is the removal of children from their fathers, their extended families and from communities formed from extended families that creates the social problems related to single parents. Some single parents are of course feckless, as are many married couples, and are the cause of many of the problems related to their children. But equally both married couples and non-married couples that suffer divorce and family breakdown endure a similar 'process' as regards the dismantling of the family unit. The process of relationship breakdowns, and the end result of the process, are the primary drivers of social problems - for they create dysfunctional parental units and unhappy children with broken parental relationships, broken family relationships and also create communities where family networks do not exist and where kin based communities are replaced by single parents mired in poverty.
Asserting that merely financing or supporting marriage will solve the problems of our broken society is fatuous and inane nonsense. Just as economic prosperity on its own can never solve social problems( though economic impoverishment can substantially aggravate already existing ones) marriage on its own also cannot solve all of societies problems (just as divorce after marriage can substantially aggravate social problems). The idea that economic equality would lead to social stability is a crypto-Marxist position, and the idea that marriage will solve societies problems is a reactionary Tory position. Both Tories and Labour regard the ties between parents, families, communities, and society as largely irrelevant. The Tory idea that taxing married families less than unmarried ones and giving married couples an extra twenty pounds a week will therefore solve all of societies problems, is as much an example of Reactionary Conservative False Consciousness as any Marxist theory.

Economics is simply one part of the total equation in relation to creating and sustaining social order, as are marriage and parenting. Marriage and parenting skills are just part of the total spectrum of stability required by parents, families and communities to prevent family breakdown and social problems. The family is more than just a parenting unit comprised of one single parent, two married parents, one divorced parent, two unmarried parents or a gay couple with children conceived by IVF - it is the totality of the entire family and community network required to sustain and assist each of those parental units. An individual, children, parents and families must be and feel rooted in their community in order for each to fulfil their full potential and the community itself to function as part of society. The principle of extended families and Kinship as important dynamics within communities and society has been repressed and denied by both the left, liberals and the right, and therefore we demand that family and community must become again the fundamental basis of British society. Re-connecting people, parenting, marriage, family and community is the only way to prevent the further downfall of society.

In the book The New East End - Kinship, Race and Conflict by Geoff Dench on page 186 it states "family ties are almost by definition a crucial basic component of local community sentiments, and it is those cases where respondents have a wide range of family members living near by, with family and local community overlapping and intertwining, we find that the clearest differences between negative and positive attitudes to Bangladeshis. This emerges when we compare race-attitude data with our 'Local Family Network Density' index (LFND). Those respondents with dense local kinship networks recorded much more hostile attitudes. Once we had analysed the results, it came as no surprise to us to discover that the respondent who notched up the highest density score had declared himself to be a supporter of the British National Party ". There was man who understood his own community.

On page 184 it states " The people who are most put out by Bangladeshi settlement are precisely those with the longest involvement in the community and greatest stake in the area. Conversely, those who mind least about Bangladeshi settlement are those with least local commitment. They have not been there long and are in many cases transient residents who do not plan to stay for long either. Hence it amongst the Yuppies that we found the most reliably positive attitudes to Bangladeshis… "

It appears that only the ' tourists ' in any community are the ones that regard diversity as a benefit as regards the existence of a community.
On page 182 it states that after interviewing white residents of Tower Hamlets 41 % of whites were totally hostile to the presence of Bangladeshi immigrants in their community, 18 % were predominantly hostile to them and 30 % of whites were indifferent, neither antagonistic nor positive. A total of only 11 % of the whites in Tower Hamlets had any positive things to say about immigrants. They were probably the Yuppie Housing Tourists.

The Tory idea that replacing the 'Parents, Family and Community' with Marriage, Church and Charity is just patronising paternalistic nonsense. The Marxist left thought that economic equality would create a functional society, and that theory was proved wrong. The Tory idea that a free market could create a functional society has also been proved wrong. The New Labour idea of the Third Way ( International Corporate Fascism) has failed. The Cameronite Tories theory of The Broken Society which is predicated on the basis that economic inequality has been solved and is therefore no longer relevant to the crises within society is also bogus. It is not charities and church groups that need to be empowered insociety, it is parents, extended families and kinship communities. The idea that bribing people to get married with a promise of giving them an extra twenty pounds a week tax break, and therefore that by the government doing this will stop social breakdown, is about as idiotic a policy as can be imagined.

Both New Labour and the Conservatives have an interest in attempting to blame the breakdown of society on parents, poverty or marriage as both cannot accept their responsibility in creating the social crisis we face. Both left and right see the problem of social breakdown in simple economic terms, as to see it otherwise would reveal their guilt in the creation of the problem.

New Labour regards the problem of social breakdown as simply a problem of parenting and poverty, and that the nature of the parenting unit ( whether it is a single mother, two married lesbians, an unmarried couple or a married couple ) is irrelevant. For New Labour the only political issue is their belief that by providing more money to those parenting units will mean they will become better parents and social stability will therefore improve. The uncomfortable fact that even though incomes have risen dramatically over the last fifty years whilst poverty and relative poverty levels have also increased, and all indices of social breakdown have also increased, is ignored. The answer for every problem for socialists is always to throw more money at it. Labour believe that parental units should receive more and more money from the state until some day they will have enough money to somehow spontaneously 'fix' themselves and thereby at the same time somehow magically 'fix' society. The importance of the extended family and a kin based community cannot ever be recognised as in any way relevant to parental unit problems and social breakdown by New Labour, as to do so requires recognising the damage caused to parental units, extended families and local communities by mass immigration, multi-culturalism, labour social policies, and labour social housing policies. It was labour social, immigration and housing policies that have destroyed traditional organic extended families and kin based communities and labour social engineering projects that have destroyed the 'rootedness' of parenting units and extended families in kin based communities.

The Tories have to avoid the issue of linking economic deprivation with social breakdown, and thereby have to blame the decline in marriages as the problem causing the broken society. As the entire basis of Conservatism is based on the principle of the unfettered free market, and therefore that inequalities in wealth between the classes are to be welcomed in society, the Tories cannot state that the problems causing social breakdown is related to parental units in poverty. To blame the problem on income deficiencies requires policies of higher taxation to solve the problems of social exclusion. These policies are unpopular with the electorate and also bring into question the whole basis of the moral legitimacy of the free market system. If the free market splits up families and kills communities and destroys society, then the free market is an enemy of the people, parents, families, communities and society itself.

The Tories free market model also depends on the availability of cheap, transient labour available for businesses whenever required and wherever required. This means the notion of 'rootedness' in an area that is the basis of the extended family and the kinship community and a stable society, has to be rejected. Tories believe that individuals, parental units, families and communities in the free market model are merely economic units able to be uprooted, deracinated and implanted into any area with no negative effects upon either them or society as long as they are paid to do so. This problem of the clash between the free movement of peoples in the global and national economy and the needs of British people and society also relates to the Tory support for mass immigration as a way to lower wages and increase productivity in the economy. To support the global free market and the free movement of labour is to support the destruction and breakdown of parenting units, extended families and kin based communities of the British people in Britain.
To say, as the Tories do, that the main reason why social breakdown is occurring is because parenting units are not getting married, is also to ignore the reality of economic inequalities present in society. It also relegates British parents, extended British families and British kin based communities to mere dehumanised abstractions, as if they are nothing more than mere economic units in the British economy who have no status and rights as Britons and who are required to exist in constant competition with the rest of the world. If politicians believe that local people, local families and local communities have no innate need to be connected to each other or their communities, society or nation in order to survive and flourish, then the economic imperatives for mass immigration and importing immigrants into an area can be used to eviscerate and destroy those communities.
The Tory Broken Society Model is nothing more than a crass attempt at trying to avoid raising taxes, by saying the problem is single mothers (regardless of whether they are divorced single mothers) and it isn't the free market economic system or poverty. That way any future Tory government does not have to address economic and social inequalities within society, nor address the debt crisis, the housing crisis, the problems of generational poverty, the problem of community disintegration and the problem of fractured families. In the four decades from the 1950's to the late 1990's the average real income of British families quadrupled. During that period housing conditions improved, incomes, access to consumer goods and disposable incomes all rose, yet at the same time communities were torn apart and society fractured. The Aspirational Working Class were somatised with rising incomes whilst their working class communities were eviscerated around them. Their extended families were split up, moved out and their kin based communities transformed into colonies of strangers. The crisis when it finally came was not economic, it was centred on their children, families, communities and society itself.

In the last ten years both poverty and relative poverty levels have increased. At the same time as the effects of social dislocation are becoming generationally entrenched, the rise in poverty is also impacting at the level of the parental unit, the extended family, the community and society. The problems of family and social breakdown are accelerating not diminishing.

In the old British social system of the 1950's single or two parent married/or unmarried nuclear family units lived near to their immediate families and were also able to call on help and assistance from their extended family networks who lived alongside them in communities related by kinship. Small neighbourhoods were linked by strong ties of family and community.
From the 1960's the traditional organic communitarian ethos and family based community networks were dismantled and replaced by a new centralised and individualised social models. The old ' Local Housing Lists' which prioritised those local people who had been on the housing list longest, and that was designed to place local families within their own areas, were replaced by a generic need based criteria open to anyone outside the community. The 1968 Housing Act specified that homelessness was to be placed above length of time on the housing list as the primary key to accessing a home in an area.
At the same time the beginnings of mass immigration into the UK also began to impact upon parents, families, extended communities and society. As the immigrants were regarded as being in more 'need' of homes than local families, then they went to the top of the housing list and took over the social housing stocks.

To quote page 48 of the New East End " This modernisation of welfare resulted in a system different both in its ethos and its implications from that operating in the early post-war period. Ideas about welfare as an insurance principle or commonly owned and shared pool which was simply administered by the state, started to give way to a view of the state as a powerful and benevolent agent for engineering social change by meeting personal needs in a manner compatible with universal and progressive social justice. It took control of citizenship benefits away from the local community, and underlined the power of state experts and bureaucrats to define acceptable rules and objectives. No longer would it be possible to work your way by patience and good behaviour to the head of the queue; a set of central and variable rules, dominated by the absolute requirement to house the homeless, would override your claim. The squatting movement rode confidently on this new wave of policymaking, against increasingly bitter white local sentiments. It was also a shift which boosted the cause of minorities. Immigrant groups had been served badly by traditional community-based welfare, but under the new system they could expect to move to the top of the list if they were able to demonstrate the greatest deprivation and need. The weight given to the homeless principle quickly opened up the East End to settlement by outsiders and loss of control ".

Successive British governments took the decision to place the interests of the immigrants before that of the indigenous British people. Regardless of the individual, family, community and social impact of their policies of dismantling and destroying all community connections between parents and families and communities, successive governments ploughed on with their policies of destroying communities and fracturing society.
No government ever contemplated the possible effects of these social policies on parents, families and communities and nor has any government ever attempted to measure the damage caused by immigrants entering the country and the devastation caused by their social policies that accelerated the breaking up of local families and extended communities. Older members of the family that could have helped parents raise their children were forced to move away, and those parents, children and families who would then have taken care of those older family members when they needed care were no longer functioning as families. The failure to provide support for families therefore today impacts upon all sections of society - children, parents, families and pensioners.

The idea that the problems in society derive simply from single parents or unmarried families and that the solution is two parents families and to promote marriage as an institution is plainly absurd. The problem is far deeper and far more complex. After WW1 and WW2 millions of single parent families, but they lived in communities and had family networks to help them. This made all the difference.

The problem is the isolation of parents, family estrangement and the fracturing of kinship based extended communities. The issue of social housing is important - but we don't need more social housing WE NEED MORE COMMUNITY HOUSING based on the principle of extended families and kinship communities.

Parents must be allowed to live alongside their extended families, and local people must take priority over immigrants in regard to community housing. We have to rebuild our extended family networks and communities. If we are to solve the problem of getting both parents to work and contribute economically to the nation, and at the same time also ensure that children are properly parented and raised properly, then we must create new Community Housing Schemes that allow families and communities to stay together and function together.

Even a modern, married, affluent, two parent nuclear family unit where both parents work full time cannot fulfil its duties to their children and community without a wider family, community and social network to assist them in raising and socialising their children. The stresses that accompany the modern model of working where both parents are forced to work are vast. The choice for most couples as regards their wish to work or their desire to stay at home taking care of their children has already been taken from many of them before they even get married. They both have to work if they are to stand any chance of ever buying a house. This also means that the family unit, the extended family network and the community and the interests of any children are never the primary focus of the parents attention, because their primary attention has to be on working to pay the mortgage and also to keep their jobs.
The offshoring of British jobs and the rise in numbers of immigrant labour competing for British jobs also means wages are falling and jobs getting scarcer. More and more stresses are being placed on the nuclear family unit, whilst the family networks and kinship community structures required to assist them are being dismantled. Parents are having to spend more and more time at work just to pay their bills or keep their jobs, and this is having a knock on effect on their children.

The problem of feral children involved in drugs, violence, crime and anti-social behaviour all links back to the lack of family and community support. This applies equally to middle class families in commuter towns where extended families and kin communities do not exist, where the affluent live in their enclaves of genteel isolation. When the socialising effect of the extended family and kin based community are missing then children from all classes will form for themselves peer groups that usually reflect the worst of the prevailing culture - in this case drug abuse, misogyny, rap music bling culture, anti-social behaviour, sexual irresponsibility and alcohol abuse as promoted by the media and the corporations that pay for advertising in the media. This applies across all classes.
The rise in anti-social behaviour and social dysfunction is not a working class specific phenomenon. We only have to open the papers to read almost daily about junkie aristocrats, middle class drink drivers and the cocaine addled professional classes to see that the problems of social breakdown are not class specific. David Cameron was almost expelled from school for smoking cannabis and was also a member of a binge drinking club at Oxford University. It is a fact that those who grow up with strong family networks in kin based communities are less likely to exhibit anti-social behaviour, but due to the fact that such anti-social behaviour is becoming more prevalent in wider society this means they are still liable at some point to be affected either via cultural osmosis or by direct contact with anti-social behaviour. The sons and daughters of the middle class get mugged, beaten up, end up snorting cocaine or have to move away and buy houses outside of their own locality due to rising house prices.

If both parents work and have a large disposable income that does not necessarily help the children. If the parents are stressed, argue, have dismal parenting skills, no time to help their kids, are bad role models, abuse drugs or alcohol ignore them, leave them to roam streets or do not notice or care when they form peer groups based on drugs or drinks - the fact their parents have money makes no difference. The children of those without any extended family support networks suffer regardless of the income of their parents - as proved by the numbers of middle class drug addicts, middle class people with alcohol problems, divorce, credit problems, drink driving etc etc in our society. Affluence is not the solution to social decay, it is the existence of family network and kin based communities that makes all the difference.

To paraphrase - we agree that part of the problem of social breakdown is related to the issues of parenting skills, social exclusion and poverty as the Labour Party say.
We also agree that part of the problem of social breakdown is due to falling marriage rates, welfare dependency and tax disincentives relating to married couples as the Tories say.
But we in the BNP state that the primary drivers of social breakdown over the last fifty years are the break up of extended families and the destruction of kin based communities, both of which are the result of the pernicious economic policies and social policies of the mainstream political parties.

The Tory policies on doubling Carers allowance to £90 a week, is an example of the problems caused by the breakdown in extended families. With the break up extended families and kin based communities individuals became the responsibility of either the state or their dependents. The way to solve this problem is to create communities where extended families are able to assist and help their family members, not by institutionalising the problem and getting the state to pay to replace families.

The issue of finance lessons for teenagers is also a joke, the fact is that with first time buyers borrowing 3.37 times their income to get a mortgage this means we have a created a society which forces young families into levels of debt that are crippling. It is the economic system that forces many families to go into unsustainable levels of debt just to exercise their basic human right of owning a family home. IN 1977 the average mortgage was £8,376 with an average salary of £4,451 with the ratio of salary to mortgage of 1.85 % with their mortgage payments representing 13.3 % of their total yearly income. Today the average mortgage is £117,000 with an average salary of £35,000 with a salary to mortgage ratio of 3.37 % representing 19.1 % of their total income.

The crackdown on loan sharks should also include a cutback on councils spending hundreds of millions a year on bogus 'race relations, lifestyles and sexuality' jobs, language translation costs and the rest of the Politically Correct jobs of the Servile State.

The policy of putting 7p on a pint is just another example of the hypocritical Tory Taliban Tendency. The fact that Dave Cameron was a member of the Bullingdon binge drinking club at Oxford, meant that he and his toff chums could always buy as much alcohol as they wanted regardless of cost. This policy is another paternalistic attack on the poor. If a working man wants to go to the pub after coming home from work and have a few pints then that is his right. The last thing this country needs is hypocritical posh idiots putting up drinks prices - a policy that only the Taliban and the Liberal Fascists would want to see. Just as raising the price of vodka in Russia just drove the alcohol dependent deeper into poverty, and forced them to drink anti-freeze resulting in blindness and death, this alcohol tax will merely profit the criminal and the booze bandits smuggling cheap beer into the country.

Upgrading cannabis to a Class B drugs is another idiotic policy. All drugs should be Class A, and those that import them should face the death penalty. Possession should include the presence in the blood as well as physical possession of drugs. Those arrested for supplying drugs should be held on remand until they reveal where they obtained the drugs from. But at the same time those with genuine medical reasons for using a drug eg cannabis for pain, stress, MS, ME, chemotherapy or nerve problems should be able to apply to be licensed by registered doctors to be able to possess and use the drug if it is of individual proven medical benefit to them. Criminalising and imprisoning people who suffer from Multiple Sclerosis for using a drug that restores some dignity to their lives, whilst allowing Rastafarians to smoke it with utter impunity, is an example of the idiocy and racism against those most vulnerable in our society.

Raising the age limit to gambling to 18 is also another idiotic policy. Whilst the Tories salivate at the prospect of the tax revenues to be generated by super casinos, they are more than willing to profit from mammon. Casinos and super-casinos should be banned and the promotion and advertising of gambling also banned and the age raised to 21.

The policy to make single mothers go to work when their children are five years old is also insanity. Unless single parents have extended families to assist them take care of their children and live in kin based communities, then forcing them to go to work will damage the interests of the child and society. The job of mothers is to raise children. Creating another generation of latchkey kids is an idiotic policy.

Policies of forcing the disabled to work, paying bosses to keep people in jobs and allow people on housing benefits to keep the difference between cheaper accommodation must be a joke, with social housing now controlled by immigrants the chance of 'house swapping' is pure fantasy. Once you have a council house these days, you keep it.

The Education Policies are also flawed - children should not be paid to stay in school, they should be forced to stay in school or do national service, medical service or environmental service to the nation. If they leave school they have to do a year in one of the services.
Giving marries couples a tax break of twenty pounds a week will do nothing to stop social breakdown.

Giving married couples working tax credits of £32.00 a week will also do nothing to stop social breakdown. If the Tories believe that the problems of society are not primarily economic, then why do they think that giving married families more money will improve society. Also if the problem is unmarried families, then why give money to those families that are not causing the problems - surely logic would dictate that the best thing to do would be to target money at those parenting units causing the social problems, not fund those people that are not causing problems. If Cameron thinks that people will get married on the promise of a few extra quid a week, then the Tories are living in cloud cuckoo land. A real policy that would encourage marriage would be to give low interest government backed mortgages to young British couples and also tax breaks related to them having children.

The reason why unmarried couples split up in our society is not due to money, it is due to the stresses of modern work life combined with a breakdown in extended family support networks and kin based communities that could help families under pressure. The divorce rate in the UK is vast. The peak year for divorce since 2000 was in 2002 with 160,000 divorces, though the all time peak was in 1993 when 180,018 people divorced. The number of divorces recorded in 1998 rose by 59 % from 1988. The divorce rate fell by 8 % in 2005 to 13 %. Though this fall is primarily due to falling numbers of people getting married, and hence falling numbers of people getting divorced. For men under 40 the divorce rate is 24.9 %. Over the last ten years the average of divorce in England and Wales has risen from 39.6 to 43.1. Encouraging young people to get married young, merely ensures they get divorced at a later date. 1 in 5 men and women divorcing in 2005 had previously been married.

In 1961 the number of divorces was 27,224 in 1969 the number was 55,556. In 1972 it was 124,556 and in 2002 was 160,000. The rise in divorces can be traced back to the breakdown of extended family networks in kin based communities that supported married couples and legislative changes eg The Divorce Reform Act that came into effect in 1971. There are about 315, 000 marriages a year in the UK and about 178,000 divorces. That means about 57 % of marriages will end in divorce.

The reason why married families offer a more secure environment for children is simply because they are by nature part of a wider family network. The children of a single parent are in many cases estranged from their wider family unit by the mother or father. Fifty percent of married fathers lose contact with their children three years after marriage breakdown and at the same time those children and single parent families lose all contact with their extended family networks The family home is sold and the children and single parent are forced to move to a new area where they have even less contact with their extended family networks . This has a devastating effect on children. The fact that Grandparents and extended families also have no contact or visitation rights also means that the children sufeer alienation from their own families. We believe that fathers, mothers and grandparents and society all have an interest in keeping families together, even after divorce.

The number of single mother headed households is about 91 % after divorce with the majority of these existing as a result of divorce. 40, 000 custody cases are heard by the courts every year. In 71 % of cases mothers will get sole custody of the children and fathers in about 7 % of cases. Whilst mothers usually get legal aid to fund custody cases, most fathers have to fund their own cases. Grandparents and extended family rights are not even recognised by the courts. A study of 1500 divorced fathers revealed that 43 % of fathers criticised the courts and the law on custody. 83 % of fathers suffered from stress as a result of divorce and custody battles with 41 % reporting illness leading to job loss or psychiatric care due to stress. 39 % of fathers just walked away from their children due to them not having sufficient funds to fight a custody battle.

Therefore what is the point of getting married when 50 % of marriages end in divorce and then result in estrangement from children, illness, job loss and financial ruin. Wives were reported as receiving 79 % of the assets of the family and also the children in three quarters of cases. Hardly a fair system and one that is obviously institutionally biased against men.
99 % of fathers wanted more contact with their children. We intend to change the law to allow this, to give legal aid to both parents in a custody battle and to give grandparents and extended families a right in law to demand contact and visitation rights with their grandchildren.

The Conspiracy of Indifference
Contrary to conventional thought it was not just the Tories under Thatcher who believed there was no such thing as families, communities and society. It is in fact both Tories and Labour Party, with the ongoing assistance of the liberal intelligensia, who did not and do not recognise the existence of either British families, communities or a British society. Both Labour and Tory have systematically set out to dismantle British families, communities and society and sunder the bonds of our once unified national community. They have done this by changing the law, by redefining the nature of citizenship and also by undermining the contributory concept of entitlement to social benefits. On page 106 of The New East End the authors write " When the negative side of individualism is considered now, it is conventionally seen as a product of the Thatcher years. But much is traceable further back, to the libertarian policies of Roy Jenkins in the 1960's and beyond. For what has enabled the individualistic behaviour and attitudes is the individualisation of citizenship and social support systems which started after the war. " The defining feature of these social changes is the damage that they have caused to the indigenous community and British citizens.

The transition from an contributory entitlement based welfare system, based on citizenship and individual and familial contribution, to the individual orientated demand type welfare system dominating contemporary society was undertaken during the era of liberal idealism. The turning point in this process was the 1968 (Local Government) Housing Act which specified that homelessness was the primary key to unlocking social housing entitlement not time spent on the housing list. The right of an itinerant non-local born person to enter a borough and demand a home above that of local families living in bed and breakfast accommodation, or living in sub-standard and unhealthy rented property and who had been waiting on the housing list for years, was now a legal right directly enforceable against the council to the detriment of the entire community. Need replaced contribution as the primary factor in getting housing from the council. Those who had been on the council housing waiting lists for decades in some cases were continuously shunted down the housing list every time a new influx of immigrants entered their area. The legal right of an immigrant family just off the boat to claim a council house on the basis of need due to homelessness was regarded by the law as more important than the right of homeless local families with long established family roots in an area to get a house in area even when they had been on the housing lists for years. This attack upon the civil and social rights of the indigenous working class communities was reinforced by the 1977 Homeless Persons Act which further reinforced the legal rules that individual need comes above that of contribution and entitlement.

What is required to save our families, communities and society is a return to a contribution based welfare system. Immigrants and asylum seekers should not be allowed any access to the Welfare state when they enter the UK. As they are not British citizens who have contributory entitlements to access welfare and social services, then immigrants and asylum seekers should have the status of subjects of the Crown until they are given citizenship. The needs of the indigenous British people, their rights to live near their families and their right to live in a functional community are more important than the needs of any immigrant. Guest workers from outside the UK and also migrant labour from the EU should also be denied any right to claim access to both the welfare state and social services. Migrant workers and guest workers should pay for any services, such as health care and schooling, that they use whilst in the UK. Emergency treatment would be allowed but the costs would have to be repaid. Guest workers would be able to pay for health insurance such as with BUPA and also pay for their children to attend British schools. Guest workers and migrant labour would have the same employment and legal rights as British workers once in the workforce, but in the event of unemployment would either be made to leave the country if they could not support themselves or their dependents. Access to any welfare benefits would be denied. All asylum seekers that we have as a nation have a moral duty to support, such as ex-pats from Zimbabwe or South Africa fleeing anti-white racism and pogroms or French, Irish and German asylum seekers, would have to work once they entered the UK. Those asylum seekers from nations that Britain has no duty to assist would be denied entrance to the country. Asylum seekers who do not abide by the requirements of international treaties such as the Schengen Agreement will also be refused permission to enter the country. All those asylum seekers and dependents who in the past have entered the country in breach of international law will be deported regardless of their existing citizenship status. All illegal entrants to the country and their dependents will be deported. All those entrants to the UK with criminal offences in their home nations, or criminal offences gained in the UK, will also be deported.

When we withdraw from the EU then one of the first things we will undertake is a population audit. All British citizens will be required to apply for free for a new British Citizen passport to replace the current ones that currently define us as citizens of the EU. At the same time we will issue every British citizen new National Insurance numbers and NHS entitlement cards to reduce fraud and identity crime in the country. New passports will be issued free of charge to all British Citizens to ensure terrorists cannot hide in the country. During the citizenship vetting process we will assess the claims of all naturalised persons through the mechanism of a Citizenship Courts structure that will be run by judges with a retrospective remit to rule on the citizenship status of naturalised applicants applying for British citizenship. They will also be able to remove the citizenship of those who have broken any UK laws.

Only those naturalised British citizens who have contributed to the country over a lifetime having served in the British Armed forces, been a nurse, doctor etc and who have learnt the English language, not been committed of any crimes and who have been in gainful employment in the UK will eventually be awarded naturalised citizenship status. Those that fail to gain full citizenship status may apply to the courts for leave to stay in the country in exceptional circumstances and allowed to apply for citizenship at a later date under conditions laid down by the courts.

Over successive decades in the UK local families and British citizens who had lived in an area all their lives were given less legal status as regards an 'entitlement' to social housing than immigrants, asylum seekers and the deliberately homeless. This meant that local families and communities began to break up. As ever more homeless immigrants in the 1960's and 1970's entered the country and were moved straight into social housing the less chance a local family had of ever getting a council house in that area. The fact that generations of these indigenous families had all contributed to the community, and had even fought and died defending their local communities during the Two World Wars, meant nothing under the new individual needs based system of welfare benefits.

The era where the cosmopolitans of all classes, socialists, liberals and capitalists all supported mass immigration into the UK as long as the working class paid for it with their taxes, social housing and low wages has to end. If the supporters of immigration had to put THEIR money where their mouths are, instead of the States and the working classes money, then we would soon see support for immigration fall amongst the cosmopolitan classes. If the establishment want open borders then they must pay for the privilege. Let the union barons and press barons pay for the cheap labour they want in the country and subsidise their housing, hospital and education costs directly via higher taxes. The trade unions, big business, Labour Party, Liberal Party and Tory Party all profit from immigration. But it is the working class who pay for their profits.

The Thatcher government in the 1980's opened up the borders of the country to allow in a flood of cheap foreign labour and at the same time began selling off council housing stock. The Thatcherite ' Right to Buy ' policy as regards the selling off of council housing meant the majority of council housing stock was sold to sitting tenants thereby depleting the pool of potential future social housing available to local families. As homeless immigrants were entitled to walk straight into the remaining council houses on the basis of them being homeless and in need then local families on the council waiting lists were forced to flee the area. Rental prices rose, house prices rose and middle class incomers then bought up the remaining housing stock that came on the market that was beyond the pockets of low paid local people. The remnants of the indigenous community were forced to send their children out of the areas where they were born, the same as the sons and daughters of the working class had once been sent from their orphanages and poorhouses to slave in plantations in the far fringes of the British Empire.

This was a deliberate program of social disenfranchisement enacted by successive Tory and Labour governments run by wealthy land owners, middle class bankers, rich businessmen, trade unions and Champagne Socialists to eradicate the rights of working class communities in Britain. Those working class heroes who stayed in their homes during the Blitz and who had manned the anti-air craft guns to defend London night after night during the war from Nazi bombers, were forced to watch their communities torn apart, their homes taken from them and their families split up as the price of peace. It was an ongoing campaign of treachery by successive governments that will one day be paid back. Entire white working class communities were transformed into ethnic colonies and ghettoes by mass immigration into the UK. With the New Labour government also embracing the pernicious principle of ' Need ' before ' Entitlement ' then the betrayal of the working class by Blair under his obscene Third Way Project have continued apace.

Anyone from the white indigenous working class community who has dared raise their voice to protest this ethnic cleaning of the indigenous peoples of Britain from their own communities during this forty year process of socialist and capitalist genocide was labelled a racist by the BBC, the newspapers and the Liberal Fascist Elite. Political Correctness was created by Leftists as a mechanism of the cultural struggle and used to terrify the populace into silence. During the Third Reich people were warned to only ever 'Speak through a Flower' when in public. This meant that one could only say what the Nazi government wanted to hear in public and in private or else one would be arrested and punished for speech crimes. In contemporary British society one can now only debate within the parameters set by the rules of Political Correctness, and anyone who dares to use their right to free speech to say or do anything the government does not agree with will be arrested and imprisoned. The Race Relations Act 1976 and the Public Order Act 1986 were enacted specifically as political laws and designed to criminalise free speech and to deny democratic debate on immigration and racial issues. A population that fears speaking freely will think twice before it dares to protest. Through the commencement of a politically correct 'public terror' like that enacted by the Jacobins after the French Revolution, dissenters and heretics that did dare speak out about the social disenfranchisement of the white working class were called racists, then were hunted down by the police and imprisoned by the courts to silence them.

The Labour government nor the Tory Party believe in the concept of British family, communities, society or British citizenship. The needs, rights and interests of the indigenous people mean nothing to them. Multi-Culturalism as a social model is of economic use to the Tory right ( for cheap labour ) and also the labour left ( for cheap votes ). The entire political mainstream are united by the delusion of the desirability of colonies of competing immigrant, religious and cultural groups within the nation state connected to each other and broader society only by the Welfare State, the economic system and state taxation. The indigenous British people are regarded as just another community amongst many other communities present geographically within the borders of the British nation. The historical contribution to British history, culture, communities and society by the indigenous British people and their ancestors, and the individual contributions of individual indigenous British citizens to contemporary British society, are both now regarded as irrelevant in relation to access to welfare and social benefits. The needs of the individual take priority over the social rights and entitlements of British citizens and British society. As a result there are no British citizens anymore, only British subjects with British passports competing with the whole world for an ever diminishing slice of the cake. The rights and needs of ethnic majority indigenous British citizens, and naturalised British citizens, are actively minimised in favour of the interests of immigrants and ethnic minorities regardless of the contributions that both the British citizens and the immigrants have made to their communities or British society.

The very basis of citizenship has been attacked and undermined and every British citizen has become simply another subject of the Crown. Nothing differentiates the British citizen from the rest of the migrant flotsam and jetsam of the world. We live in a British nation where the concept of equivalence and equality with immigrants is used to make indigenous citizens, and naturalised British citizens, rootless and deracinated second class subjects in their own land. The indigenous people of the country, and naturalised citizens, are no longer regarded as citizens of the state but simply as subjects of the Crown along with all those from other foreign ethnic and religious communities allowed entrance and residence in the country. We are denied the right to promote our national culture, we have had our citizenship rights as the indigenous people of Britain removed and we have become legally defined as second class subjects in our own land. A citizen of the state has constitutional, legal and social claim rights directly enforceable against the government, a subject of the Crown is merely the passive recipient of state charity.
The fact that anyone from around the world can move here and be given British citizenship just by entering the country is an admission that the government do not regard the indigenous British people as British citizens but simply as British subjects here only for the benefit of the government. British citizenship is both an inclusive and exclusive concept. We are indigenous British citizens by virtue of the fact that the indigenous French, Germans and Nigerians are NOT indigenous British citizens.
We are British citizens by virtue of the fact that Germans are German citizens and the French and Nigerians are French and Nigerian citizens. British citizenship and British nationality are both inherently inclusive and exclusive concepts. The moment that the ethno-specific basis of inherited citizenship, and also the legal rules concerning naturalised citizenship, are undermined by politicians by re-classifying everyone in the world as potential subjects of the nation state then this should be regarded as an unlawful attack on the civil rights of the indigenous citizens, and naturalised citizens, of that nation state. The Labour Party have done this by equating the needs, rights and entitlements of British citizens both inherited and naturalised as being equal before the law, or inferior before the law, with the demands of immigrants and foreign subjects under the legal protection of the Crown who have been given leave to stay in the country. For the Labour Party and the Conservative Party the only difference between an ethnic Chinese person living in Bejing and the indigenous British people, and naturalised British citizens, is that the ethnic Chinese person is at that moment not living in Britain. Everyone on the planet is potentially a British subject.

In an act of semantic duplicity the concept of the 'needs' of immigrants is disingenuously used by the government to undermine the concept of individual and family contributory rights and the reciprocal duty on the state to honour those contributions that form the 'Welfare Entitlements' of British citizens. The Labour government talk about 'need' being the basis of their social housing policy as regards immigrants without accepting that only those who have contributed to society have 'Entitlements'. Only those who have paid into the system have a right to claim back from the system. Only those who have paid into society have legally recognised individual and social 'claim rights' as regards welfare benefits and housing and hence have 'needs' that the British state has a duty to satisfy. The contribution of individual British citizens and the social rights of British citizens trump the non-contribution based needs of immigrants. Immigrants do not have any enforceable individual or social claim rights against the British state as they have never contributed either historically or individually to the British state. Instead they have and make only 'Demands' on the British state and British citizens. Individual entitlement claim rights and social rights to housing are the exclusive possessions of British citizens on the basis of their contributions to British society.

Only the indigenous British citizens and naturalised British citizens who have contributed to British society should have legally recognised social rights and enforceable entitlements. The indigenous British citizens and their families who have been here thousands of years have constantly fought and died for this country against foes both external and internal. Their ancestors fought and died for the freedoms and rights we possess today and we owe the families and descendants of the fallen an eternal blood debt for their sacrifice. The moral debt that we all owe to the fallen for the freedoms and rights we ourselves possess today is the basis of the social rights we owe their descendants. It is our relatives who died in their millions in the First and Second World War for our liberties and it is the taxes, National Insurance contributions and sheer physical labour of the descendants of our heroes that have built the foundations of British society and the Welfare State. This is the basis of the Community Rights of British citizens. British citizens whose ancestors were born and raised here and who have paid into the system all their lives should therefore always be first to be helped out by the system when they are in individual need on the basis of entitlement. The fact that they as citizens and their families and ancestors have paid into the system is also the basis of their individual entitlement to claim back what they have paid in when they need too.

The concept of ' Entitlement ' is based on the existence of a legal duty upon the State to address the individual needs and social rights of those citizens with an entitlement to assistance from the state based on their contributions to society. British citizens with an entitlement to assistance when in individual need due to them contributing financially to the system should have direct legal claim rights against the state in order to demand assistance from the state when required. In other words those British citizens who pay into the system are in fact paying insurance in case something happens to them in the future. Just as we pay insurance premiums to insure our cars, citizens pay taxes and pay national insurance contributions to the State so that if they need financial or social assistance in the future then the state has a legal duty to provide that assistance. Allowing immigrants to enter the country and claim benefits without them ever paying into the system is like an insurance company paying out full benefits to someone who has never paid for insurance when they crash their car. This is unfair and utterly illogical and makes a mockery of the contributions paid by British citizens to the government. In effect the government steals money from the citizenry to subsidise immigrants. The existence of a 'need' as an enforceable claim against the state is predicated solely on the duty of the state towards individual British citizens, families and the national community on the basis of their social rights and individual contributions as citizens. The state is not required either legally or morally to assist the needs of non-citizens that enter the nation as it has no duty based either on social right or individual contribution to assist them.

The States primary moral and legal duty is to assist the indigenous community and citizens to claim their social rights and assuage their individual needs on the basis of entitlement based on contribution before it diverts any resources to immigrants. An immigrant when they arrive in the UK does not have legally recognisable needs or any enforceable social rights as they do not have an entitlement to claim against the British State for benefits or assistance. They have not contributed to society either as a community or as individuals so therefore they are not British citizens, they are at best provisionally British subjects under the protection of the Crown if they are given leave to stay in the country. They do not have 'needs' they merely have 'Demands' which they seek to impose upon the British state and upon us as citizens. Entitlements, as I have stated, are accrued by individual citizens on the basis of that citizens individual financial contributions to society and the social contribution of their ancestors to society. Needs exist in a legally enforceable form only when the state has a duty to address them due to entitlement. Demands for social housing assistance from immigrants are not based on individual entitlement or social rights but are merely unlawful and immoral obligations imposed upon society by governments and against the interests of the working class. Profit, either financial or political, are not legitimate grounds for any government to remove the rights and entitlements of their citizens. In the absence of any contributions from them immigrants either financial or social to the national community then they do not have legally enforceable needs the state is required to address. When a government gives social or financial assistance to immigrants and as a result the rights and needs of British citizens are being damaged as a result of that assistance, such as when immigrants are given social housing when hundreds of thousands of British families and millions of British citizens are homeless, then this an unlawful action of the government.
When the demands of immigrants for social housing actively damage the entitlements and social rights of the indigenous community and British citizens then the government that accedes to those demands is breaching a fundamental tenant of the Social Contract between the Citizen, the State and the Nation. Any government that allows immigrants to enter the country and place demands on the state that increase and exacerbate existing problems within social housing, education, hospitals and the welfare systems for the indigenous people and naturalised citizens is not a legitimate government. When the 'demands' of immigrants allowed to enter the country increase individual and social 'needs' and also damage our rights as British citizens, families, communities and as a society then we have a moral and legal right to resist such government illegality and irresponsibility.

Only when all the needs and rights of the indigenous British community and all British citizens have been fulfilled should any immigrants be allowed to enter the nation or request assistance from the British State. All immigrants are subjects of the state until they are made naturalised citizens of the state. Citizenship is something earned and inherited, it is not something given to someone simply by them squatting on British land. Citizenship is either inherited via Jus Sanguinus, inherited as a result of both parents having earned citizenship or earned by the individual themselves. It is not something given out simply because an immigrant enters the country. Ways to earn British citizenship for example are service in the British armed forces or as a result of a lifetime commitment to Britain culturally, economically or socially. British citizenship should only be given to those non-indigenous British subjects that have demonstrated they deserve it with a lifetime commitment to Britain, British culture, the British people and the British way of life. Citizenship should never be awarded to immigrants just because they are resident in the country. It should only be awarded after a lifetime of proven service to the nation as a reward for that service to the nation. Only those who parents were both British citizens, either inherited or naturalised, should also inherit British citizenship. Just because someone was born in Britain should not qualify them either for British citizenship or for inherited British citizenship. The fact that the principle of Lex Sanguinus applies to most immigrants even with naturalised citizenship status in the UK means that a distinct and lasting difference exists between British Citizens and naturalised citizens. Inherited citizenship should be only for the children of British citizens, both inherited and naturalised. British citizenship should also be revoked for those naturalised British citizens who have been awarded British citizenship and who abuse the privilege of possessing British citizenship such as committing crimes or attacking society by supporting terrorism against the country.

Any request for assistance by non-citizens who are present in the country without having contributed to British society is not a request that the state need address and nor should it be regarded as something the state needs to address. The needs and rights of the indigenous and naturalised British people as citizens of the state must always come first before the demands of immigrants if British citizens are in need. Only once the needs of the indigenous and naturalised British have been fully satisfied then, and only then, should the claims of immigrants or asylum seekers for social assistance even be considered. Until all the needs of indigenous and naturalised British citizens are satisfied, then no immigrants, economic migrants or asylum seekers should be let in the country or get any social housing or benefits. Those that are allowed to stay either work to support themselves and their families or they leave.

4 comments:

montecristo said...

boy,that was a long article, I must have been the only one that read it to the end. Brilliant article and points as usual. but the beginning you stated about tories fake policy of marriage and giving tax breaks to married couple. Isn't that what the BNP mentioned about Married Men's allowance only a few months ago, except that they wanted to give it to men only.
Brilliant article though. Lee Barnes,best writer in the world.Better than Jack Kerouac, who I think now was a lefty,or just a sign of the times.

Andromeda said...

Boy, that was long even to scroll down!

For shorter pieces, please visit mine where you will find various links to more interactive discussion on ethnicity, Conservatism, the EU and other matters.

The subject I would particularly like to discuss is Direct Democracy and whether you think it could be useful as a tool of fringe party campaigning.

Supposing all the fringe parties presented every policy-item as a promise to hold a referendum on that matter - including a promise to conduct a referendum to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 - would that be helpful in resolving internal and external disagreements?

After all you only agree to ASK the question and abide by the answer in a referendum.

No point quarrelling about what the answer ought to be if you never get into power, is there?

All that is certain that the topic is controversial and people WANT to be asked their opinion and want to know that their opinion matters.

What do you think of this as a way of presenting a manifesto?

Comments also welcome on:

www.1party4all.co.uk

montecristo said...

Dear Mr Barnes,
I gotta comment to make about Phill Edwards who is always slagging off "wimmin" etc.I have to use your blog cos his comments are off. It just worries me that at a time when it's Muslims and black men and our own white useless male politicians who are causing all the problems for society,that he still manages to pick out women like Germaine Greer for special treatment.Maybe he would like to get off his fat arse and go out and deliver some leaflets cos a lot of women do that where he doesn't. What is it with these fucking old tories,he's better than most. But Strudwick's another old Bowden,someone's going to call him no oil painting one day and he will walk. The point is that with the standard of current white male arseholes generating in Britain and to come,it's women who will be providing the vast majority of Britain's workforce in a future BNP government,not the boys now who wouldn't even dane to work. Also the Doc is trying to give the BNP credit for inventing "Married couple's allowance". This has been going around Conservative circles for years. The tories weren't so crude as to call it "Married Man's allowance" that was left to the BNP. That is true isn't it,that under BNP, the man gets paid but the women doesn't(for being married and bored to death by an old fart). I think the BNP should be more clear on these laws it says it includes, and any other future discrimination laws,such as "homemaking" and employment laws that might affect women. If these are intentions of the BNP they should be written in their manifesto. You mentioned misogyny in your article but men seem to use it in every regime whether Islam or Labour or particularly it seems to come out in BNP.It's one thing women can't get away from.

Andromeda said...

Reference Montecristo's comments about women:

There will always be a gender war.

Hell, there will ALWAYS be war because people disagree. If we have words like patricide, matricide, fratricide and sororicide, then it is clear that the enemy within is always the most dangerous.

Politics should not be tribal but based on principle and debate. This is impossible under the party system, which is why Direct Democracy is the only viable solution.

Now, imagine a nation governed by shareholder democracy.

A demonstration of it can be found at www.1party4all.co.uk

Have a look and see!