From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Inner London is the name for the group of London boroughs which form the interior part of Greater London and are surrounded by Outer London. The area was first officially defined in 1965 and for purposes such as statistics, the definition has changed over time. The terms Inner London and Central London cannot be used interchangeably to mean the same area. Inner London is officially the richest area in Europe with the most expensive street in Europe, GDP per capita is nearly $80,000 while the UK GDP per capita is nearly $46,000. Many of the world’s richest people live in West and North London, but there is widespread poverty too in these areas as well as the East End and areas south of the river.
London Government Act 1963
Inner London – Primary Definition
ONS‘s Inner London
The inner London boroughs were defined by the London Government Act 1963, and the definition is used for purposes such as the local government finance system. They correspond to the former area of the County of London. These inner London boroughs are:
The City of London was not part of the County of London and is not a London Borough but can be included. North Woolwich is an anomaly as it was part of the County of London but was transferred to Newham, an outer London borough, in 1965.
ONS definition (statistics)
The Office for National Statistics and the Census define Inner London differently, adding Haringey, Newham and the City of London, but excluding Greenwich. This definition is also used by Eurostat at NUTS level 2. The land area is 319 km2 (123 sq. miles) and the population in 2005 (midyear estimate) was 2,985,700.
Figures before 1971 have been reconstructed by the Office for National Statistics based on past censuses in order to fit the 2001 limits. Figures from 1981 onward are ONS midyear estimates (revised as of 2010).
1891, April 5/6
1901, March 31/April 1
1911, April 2/3
1921, June 19/20
1931, April 26/27
1939, Midyear estimate
1951, April 8/9
1961, April 23/24
1971, April 25/26
1981, Midyear estimate
1991, Midyear estimate
2001, Midyear estimate
2002, Midyear estimate
2003, Midyear estimate
2004, Midyear estimate
2005, Midyear estimate
2006, Midyear estimate
2007, Midyear estimate
2008, Midyear estimate
2009, Midyear estimate
London postal district shown (in red) against the Greater London boundary
The area covered by the London post town is sometimes referred to as ‘Inner London’. However it is not coterminous with other definitions of Inner London as its area is somewhat larger and covers 624 km2 (241 sq. miles). A small part of the London Borough of Lewisham falls outside its boundaries whilst 44 of its 119 districts are in Outer London and its irregular shape stretches to the Greater London boundary at Scratch Wood and beyond it at Sewardstone.
From 1990 to 2000 London used two separate telephone dialling codes with one code designated for Inner London, however the area covered by this code was widely different from all of the above definitions and most of Greater London is now covered by a single020 dialling code.
The term can also be used in a variety of other contexts with different meanings.
Central London is the innermost part of London, England. There is no official or commonly accepted definition of its area, but its characteristics are understood to include a high density built environment, high land values, an elevated daytime population and a concentration of regionally, nationally and internationally significant organisations and facilities. From time to time, and for a variety of purposes, a number of definitions have been used to define its scope.
Road distances to London are traditionally measured from a central point at Charing Cross, which is marked by the statue of King Charles I at the junction of the Strand, Whitehall and Cockspur Street, just south of Trafalgar Square.
Panorama of central London as seen from the London Eye
The central area is distinguished, according to the Royal Commission, by the inclusion within its boundaries of Parliament and the Royal Palaces, the headquarters of Government, the Law Courts, the head offices of a very large number of commercial and industrial firms, as well as institutions of great influence in the intellectual life of the nation such as the British Museum, the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the University of London, the headquarters of the national ballet and opera, together with the headquarters of many national associations, the great professions, the trade unions, the trade associations, social service societies, as well as shopping centres and centres of entertainment which attract people from the whole of Greater London and farther afield.
In many other respects the central area differs from areas farther out in London. The rateable value of the central area is exceptionally high. Its day population is very much larger than its night population. Its traffic problems reach an intensity not encountered anywhere else in the Metropolis or in any provincial city, and the enormous office developments which have taken place recently constitute a totally new phenomenon.
— Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 24 January 1963., Eric Lubbock
The London Plan includes a central activities zone policy area. This comprises the City of London, most of Westminster and the inner parts of Camden, Islington, Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Lambeth and Kensington and Chelsea. It is described as "a unique cluster of vitally important activities including central government offices, headquarters and embassies, the largest concentration of London’s financial and business services sector and the offices of trade, professional bodies, institutions, associations, communications, publishing, advertising and the media".
For strategic planning, from 2004 to 2008, the London Plan included a sub-region called Central London comprising Camden, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Southwark, Wandsworth and Westminster. It had a 2001 population of 1,525,000. The sub-region was replaced in 2008 with a new structure which amalgamated inner and outer boroughs together.
The 1901 census defined Central London as the City of London and the metropolitan boroughs of Bermondsey, Bethnal Green, Finsbury, Holborn, Shoreditch, Southwark, Stepney, St Marylebone and Westminster.
1959–1963 proposals for a Central London borough
During the Herbert Commission and the subsequent passage of the London Government Bill, three attempts were made to define an area that would form a central London borough. The first two were detailed in the 1959 Memorandum of Evidence of the Greater London Group of the London School of Economics.
‘Scheme A’ envisaged a central London borough, one of 25, consisting of the City of London, Westminster, Holborn, Finsbury and the inner parts of St Marylebone, St Pancras, Chelsea, Southwark and Lambeth. The boundary deviated from existing lines in order to include all central London railway stations, theTower of London and the museums, such that it included small parts of Kensington, Shoreditch, Stepney and Bermondsey. It had an estimated population of 350,000 and occupied 7,000 acres (28 km2).
‘Scheme B’ delineated central London, as one of 7 boroughs, including most of the City of London, the whole of Finsbury and Holborn, most of Westminster and Southwark, parts of St Pancras, St Marylebone, Paddington and a small part of Kensington. The area had an estimated population of 400,000 and occupied 8,000 acres (32 km2).
During the passage of the London Government Bill an amendment was put forward to create a central borough corresponding to the definition used at the 1961 census. It consisted of the City of London, all of Westminster, Holborn and Finsbury; and the inner parts of Shoreditch, Stepney, Bermondsey, Southwark, Lambeth, Chelsea, Kensington, Paddington, St Marylebone and St Pancras. The population was estimated to be 270,000.
The London Borough of Newham is seeking recognition as an Inner London borough for central government grants, as this would have financial benefits for the borough. It is not currently considered an Inner London Borough as it did not form part of the County of London.
^ Saint, A., Politics and the people of London: the London County Council (1889-1965), (1989)
^ "Inner London through time: Administrative History (post 1974)". A vision of Britain through time. Great Britain Historical GIS. Retrieved 2009-11-20.
^ Obtained from Neighbourhood Statistics website at URL http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/datasetList.do?JSAllowed=true&Function=&%24ph=60&CurrentPageId=60&step=1&CurrentTreeIndex=-1&searchString=&datasetFamilyId=1813&Next.x=11&Next.y=10 (accessed July 12th 2010)
^ HMSO, The Inner London Letter Post, (1980)
Sub-regions of London
London: Heart of Empire and Global City
Or, how the city has reinvented itself.
The European Social Forum in London is the third to be staged in one of Europe’s great cities. David Packer here discusses the way London has been described as an imperial monster, a ‘do as you please’ Babylon, a polypus, a stain, a mighty carbuncle, William Cobbett’s ‘great wen’, or Mayhew’s vast ‘bricken wilderness’. It has always been considered ungovernable and a city of extremes and contrasts. 
London is no longer the centre of a global colonial empire on which the ‘sun never sets’. In 1900 London was the largest and richest city in the world, reaching the highpoint of its demographic and industrial expansion as late as 1938. However, from the 1960s onwards the decline of old industries, the docks and the city’s population paralleled the relative decline of Britain.
Yet London has a history of re-inventing itself or at least of making adjustments to radically new conditions. With the recent growth and rebirth of the City’ as a global financial centre, London continues to be one of the great cities of a rapacious globalised capitalism. As a metropolitan capital and global financier, London draws in wealth along with people – labour power – from every corner of the globe. It remains an imperial centre sucking the life-blood of the planet.
London: The Imperial Vampire
London has always been highly cosmopolitan, from its foundation 2000 years ago by the Romans. As Roy Porter emphasises, ‘’the story of London begins with the ‘foreigner’. Londoners owe their city, so to speak, to the Italians’.  London has, moreover, always been a centre of rule and exploitation. Roman Londinium was not a mere tribal capital (civitas) but an imperial city – an implanted seat of government of the province of Britannia. Londinium contained extensive port facilities, a colossal commercial Forum and Basilica, the largest complex north of the Alps (as large as St Paul’s Cathedral) and a military barracks.
Medieval London, still protected by the old Roman walls enclosing the area known today as the ‘City’, was also a major European port and commercial locus. However, the seat of Royal government had been shifted upstream to the royal borough of Westminster, so that the monarch could maintain some independence from the power and influence of the city merchants, artisans and especially the volatile London masses.
For more than three hundred years, from the late sixteenth, to the beginning of the twentieth centuries, London, together with Westminster (there are two cities at the centre of London), grew to become the largest, richest and most advanced capitalist city in the world. Medieval London was already large but during the sixteenth century it began its extraordinary expansion from approximately 50,000 to 250,000 by the end of Elizabeth reign. The destruction of the monasteries by Henry VIII had freed up vast sources of wealth, stimulating capitalism and laying the basis for the English bourgeois revolution in 1642.
This unprecedented expansion was linked to Britain’s acquisition of a colonial empire. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the port of London, now shifted to the Thames estuary, became the greatest entrepot in the world and, as in Roman times, a major centre of the slave trade, along with Bristol and Liverpool. By the mid-1840s London was widely recognised as the greatest city in the world, a global centre of world trade and finance.
Many of London’s problems were associated with its rapid growth and monstrous size. By 1700 London had already become the largest urban conurbation in the world, with the possible exception of Edo (Tokyo), and by 1800, contained nearly one million people – about the size of Ancient Rome at its height. Between 1800 and 1900 London’s population grew from just under a million to more than 4.5 million – a veritable super-city – which reflected its economic position as a world centre of finance capitalism and of the British Empire.
However, by about 1850 Paris and New York had also passed the million mark and by 1900, with the rapid spread of capitalist industrialisation beyond the shores of Britain, there were sixteen cities with over one million people. During the twentieth century, New York became the first financial and industrial city to overtake London in size and wealth.
The nineteenth century acknowledged London as the centre of things, with the creation in 1884 of the Greenwich Meridian in which London put the world in its place with all the continents spreading out east and west. It was of course those quintessential products of the industrial revolution, the steamship and railway network which required the creation of a standardised national and international time.
London has often been regarded as a city of consumption, rather than production – the centre of both elite and popular culture in Britain, for example, the theatre, literature, newspapers/information, fashion, commercial music and the art markets. But this image is one-sided. For several centuries London was the greatest manufacturing centre in the country with a significant export capacity. During the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century the number of industrial workers in London exceeded the whole population of Manchester.
However, it was not London, but Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow that were the main centres of the industrial revolution. Compared to the great northern industrial cities, much London industry remained small-scale, with many sectors based on cheap, sweated, often immigrant labour – this is still the case today in much of East London.
The Imperial Melting Pot
London is a city that has over time absorbed significant numbers of refugees and migrants, who have often experienced resentment and racism. During the Middle Ages, communities of traders and merchants – Jews, Lombards, and other Italians, and the Germans of the Baltic Hanseatic League lived and worked in the city. Religious refugees also flooded into the city from all over Europe, most notably Huguenots from France. Around 1700, according to Porter, fewer than half the city’s inhabitants were actually Londoners born and bred.
The sources of immigration shifted during the eighteenth century, as the imperial beast became hungrier. Black people began to arrive in significant numbers – a spin off from London’s thriving slave trade. In the late nineteenth century, Jews fleeing racial discrimination in Eastern Europe came to the East End as did immigrants from the Empire and by 1870 there were more Irish living in London than in Dublin.
But it was after the Second World War, when London and Britain as a whole required new sources of cheap labour, that immigration from the West Indies and the Indian subcontinent occurred on a large scale. Subsequently, further influxes of people from Africa, Asia, the Americas and Europe occurred.
This long history of demographic replenishment has been central to London’s success and its capacity to revive and remake itself under new conditions. Today, its hospitals, transport system and many of its social services rely on migrant labour. London is one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the World, a polyglot, multiracial city with hundreds of languages spoken.
City of Conflict: London’s Super Rich and the London Mob
London’s rich were always very, very rich but its poor were among the most impoverished and degraded in the world. The centuries of capitalist growth saw many outbreaks of class war and violence – although in the long term London has remained relatively stable. During the eighteenth century there was agitation and rioting by numerous artisans and tradespeople, caused by rising food prices and creeping industrialisation. During this and especially the subsequent century,
…there was the notion that the mob would take over. Indeed with the Gordon Riots of 1780, radical activity in the age of the French Revolution, the Chartist rallies of the 1840s and the new trade unionism of the 1880s – grounded not in the industrial North but in London’s docks – this was a justifiable fear… In a later age, the race riots that flared in Notting Hill in the 1950s [to which could be added the Brixton and Broad Water Farm riots in the 1980s] rekindled such anxieties. 
Many writers and commentators were both fascinated and appalled by the ‘London crowd’, including Frederick Engels, who was a great observer of imperial London. He was shocked by the levels of poverty and describes ‘sickly’ and ‘half-starved children’, living in an ‘immense tangle of streets’ and ‘nameless misery’. He noted that even among the better off, ‘the brutal indifference, the unfeeling isolation of each . . . is nowhere so shamelessly bare-faced . . . as just here in the crowding of the great city…’ And, with a premonition of future road and tube journeys: ‘each keeps to his own side of the pavement, so as not to delay the opposing streams of the crowd, while it occurs to no man to honour another with so much as a glance.’ 
At the same time Londoners of all classes have valued their independence from the seat of government and have often been powerful enough to assert it. London has always been a difficult problem for the ruling class. Even recently, and despite all the machinations of the national British establishment, media and Labour bureaucracy, Ken Livingstone was elected mayor of London by popular acclaim. And Thatcher had had to abolish the Greater London Council (GLC) to unseat him!
Even a thousand years before, the Norman robber baron William the Conqueror, after crushing the Saxon nobility at the battle of Hastings in 1066, did not dare to lay siege to the city, still protected behind its Roman walls. William withdrew to negotiate a settlement with its burgers, with the result that London was granted a Charter ensuring all those privileges, exemptions and powers that it had traditionally accrued to itself, in exchange for their agreement to crown him King of England. London could and sometimes did become both kingmaker and regicide.
London is a highly class polarised city and therefore a very political city, and political movements such as the peasant movements of the fourteenth century or Chartism in the nineteenth century, always found their reflection and often active support. Richard II had to assassinate Watt Tyler, leader of the Peasants Revolt of 1381, on Blackheath, in his desperation to stop the peasant army forging links with the London populace.
No less than in Paris, the London masses, traditionally described by bourgeois historians as ‘the London mob’, have always been greatly feared by the British ruling classes, both feudal and capitalist. Royal castles such as the Tower of London or military barracks have always been a feature of the city landscape. Modern Londoners have extended active support and solidarity to workers’ movements, such as the General Strike of 1926 and the great miners’ strike of 1984-5.
Unfortunately, for those of us who seek revolutionary changes, the enormous power of the working people of London, recognised by the bourgeoisie, is far less understood by the working class itself. But London’s public spaces have witnessed historic confrontations, from the Chartist demonstration of 1848 on Kennington Common to the more successful Trafalgar Square riots of the early1990s which helped bring down both the poll tax and its creator, Margaret Thatcher. Nearly two million people marched to Hyde Park in February 2003 to declare their opposition to the invasion of Iraq.
In the late nineteenth century the London County Council (LCC) was first established. London had lacked a unified government until then, but the political representatives of the ruling class had at last understood that the free market could not solve London’s huge social problems, which were dangerously explosive. Developments in public health, water supply, municipal housing, transport and a ‘welfare’ approach to poverty required the development of a modern interventionist state, an important lesson from Victorian history that Margaret Thatcher failed to appreciate. Social control was also high on the agenda, but the Metropolitan Police force was thought to make London too powerful and it continued to be separately controlled by the government. The GLC was founded in 1964 with fewer powers,  and the current regime has even fewer.
With its tradition of sweatshops and small-scale manufacturing as well as a large retail and service sector, London is not the centre of British trade unionism, although workers in important sectors such as transport, including railways, docks and airports, and service workers in local government and hospitals have been highly unionised. They have often engaged in important struggles, including the ‘new unionism’ movement of unskilled and semi-skilled workers at the end of the nineteenth century.
As economic expansion gained momentum in the late eighteenth century, London became the focus of a high concentration of craft skills and established the city as the supreme manufacturer of quality wares. This led to a relatively high wage economy (for a layer of skilled male workers) which sucked thousands of people into the capital. The expanding port of London and the attendant processing industries – timber, sugar, tobacco, rum, molasses – together with transport sectors also provided new employment for less skilled workers. However, there was always a great pool of unemployed and casual labour.
Much female employment was generated in servicing the rich and the burgeoning middle classes. The 1841 census reveals that London employed 168,701 domestic servants, overwhelmingly women, as well as thousands of dressmakers and milliners, laundry-keepers, washers and manglers. Also, by 1859 there were approximately 80,000 prostitutes regularly working, servicing all classes, but especially the middle and upper classes. As large numbers of working class women and children of both sexes drifted in and out of prostitution, the figure may have been even higher. This made the sex industry easily the second largest employer of women in the capital.
By the end of the century, alternative forms of employment for women, in factories, or as shop assistants and clerks, raised the price of female labour, including in the traditional sectors – in domestic service, the rag trade and in the sex industry. It also tended to make women more independent and less subservient. The famous match girls’ strike was indicative of this new class confidence. Increasingly the large middle class, in search of cheap, servile labour, turned to rural areas, Ireland, the wider Empire, or the European Continent.
London: A Social View of its Urban Fabric
London developed as a vast, chaotic, conurbation, made up of a multitude of local foci, originally small towns and villages, which have been swallowed up by urban sprawl. London’s complex development does not conform to modern ideas of urban growth and planning, nor to the type of planning associated with older absolutist European monarchies. Centralised state planning in this tradition could still impose rigid urban schemes, epitomised by the later Haussmann boulevards that criss-cross Paris. Laissez-faire and deregulation were always more ideologically and economically in tune with the premier city of free market capitalism. The pockets of planned city that were built, only serve to emphasise the improvisation or chaos of all the rest.
During the nineteenth century there was a gradual break with a past in which the poor had often lived cheek by jowl with the rich. With changes in the London economy and the development of manufacturing, the well to-do began to move to the suburbs to escape the overcrowding, squalor and pollution of the inner city. In the early twentieth century, vast new suburbs were created, including for the professional and skilled working classes. The process continues today. London is like a great onion, with its multiple centres embedded within the different layers of development, with each layer or period of expansion architecturally distinct.
Present-day London dominates the economy and demography of the whole of south east England. In the post-war period more than two million Londoners and many London businesses moved out to ‘satellite’ towns beyond the ‘green belt,’ while many villages were designated New Towns. Milton Keynes, for example, is today a substantial urban sprawl. Tens of thousands of middle class and professional workers also moved out to the more attractive small towns and villages in the Chilterns, or Kent and Sussex. 300,000 now commute into London daily.
Despite the decanting of population to the New Towns, London’s population during the fifties and sixties remained stable, at about 8.5 million. This was due to large-scale immigration from the ex-colonies. There was also the phenomenon of the ‘gentrification’ of old working-class neighbourhoods by new professional workers. However, Britain’s post-war industrial decline eventually had an impact, reflected in demographic contraction from the late 1960s.  More recently, however, from approximately 1984, re-expansion of service industries and international finance has reversed this decline.
Postscript: Decline and Revival?
London has long been a base for foreign financial operations, but when Thatcher abolished exchange controls in 1979 the protective barrier between the domestic and the international sectors of the city economy was pulled down. This enabled foreign firms to take over existing broking and jobbing houses and allowed the creation of highly competitive financial conglomerates. The ‘Big Bang’ of the 1980s consolidated London’s International Stock Exchange. This continues today. According to Inwood, ‘In 1994 London processed $300 billion of foreign exchange each day, as much as New York and Tokyo together, and five times as much as Germany.’ 
It has been argued that the world-wide dispersal of industrial production in search of cheap labour, of which London itself, and especially its working class, has been a victim, has demanded the growth of these regional ‘global cities’. They are financial regulators, ‘transterritorial market places’ and ‘command centres’ of the ‘new global economy’ – cities which have the capacity to handle the massive and rapid financial flows required by international corporations. However, the gulf between London’s rich and the working classes, especially its poorest sectors, ethnic minorities, unemployed and under-employed, has never been greater – it is potentially an explosive mix.
By 1994 London’s unemployment rate had risen, according to the London Research Centre, to over 13 per cent, the highest in the UK, and with few prospects for the unskilled. By 1997, London possessed two-thirds of England’s worst public housing, and contained a total of 230,000 dwellings unfit for human habitation. The crime-rate once again increased. All this is in the context of London’s Gross Domestic Product in 1993 reaching $180 billion (18 per cent of national GDP) and it has continued to grow – its economy is twice the size of Saudi Arabia, bigger than Turkey and Russia and two-thirds that of India.
A visit to central London will not only reveal the presence of many expensive residential districts, but an extraordinary large numbers of big limousines. But here is the rub – they are mostly Mercedes, BMWs and Lexuses from Germany and Japan – even Rolls Royce is now owned by Mercedes. How long London can maintain a leading role in the world economy – with Frankfurt snapping at its heels, and when Britain as a whole has suffered a disastrous decline in manufacturing production – is a moot point.
Dave Packer is a longstanding member of the Trotskyist movement in Britain. Packer has held a number of leadership roles in the International Socialist Group and the Fourth International. Dave is a former editor of Socialist Outlook.
 See recent London histories, most notably, Peter Ackroyd, London. The Biography, 2001, Vintage; Stephen Inwood, A History of London, 1998, Macmillan; Roy Porter, London. A Social History, 1994, Penguin. See also, Steen Eiler Rasmusssen, London: The Unique City, reprinted in 1961, Pelican Books.
 Roy Porter, ‘Foreword’, in Inwood, 1998, p. xvii
 Porter, in Inwood 1998, pp. xix-xx.
 The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 (1845), quoted in Ackroyd, 2001, pp. 393-4 and 576-77.
 Greater London Council, 1964-85.
 Between 1961 and 1981, 1,186,000, or, 15% of its population moved out and were not fully replaced.
 Inwood, 1998, p.909.
Image – London. Note the fact that Whites have fled most of inner city London and gone to the suburbs, whilst the only majority White areas in inner London are those areas for the rich – which is why they remain mainly white. The moment rich non-whites start moving into those wealthy white enclaves, then the rich whites will also leave.
White flight is how the White Middle Classes vote with their feet against multi-culturalism.
Whilst most white middle class people are hypocrites who follow the established politically correct social line about immigration and multi-culturalism and bleat along with their peers about the joys of diversity blah blah blah – in reality the white middle classes are embracing white flight and fleeing those areas that have become colonised.
White flight is an issue for schools as white children are pulled out of ‘enriched’ schools.
White flight is an issue for our cities as middle class whites pack up and leave cities like London and Birmingham as the colonists arrive and establish their colonies amidst us.
White flight is an issue for the nation as the most educated, intelligent, skilled white British people leave Britain and unskilled immigrants and colonists enter Britain.
At every level our country and society is in crisis, yet the pernicious effect of political correctness and the climate of fear it has engendered ensures that the issue is hidden and minimised.
Of course every now and then the issue is exposed and idiots like Trevor Phillips and The Guardian writers try and find a way to pin the blame on whitey for not wanting their children to live in a colonised area, go to colonised schools or wanting to live in a colonised country.
The articles below reveal some interesting facts ;
Note that the issue of white flight is not just a British one, it is also also an issue in America ;
Wherever a majority white population suffers from mass immigration, colonisation and the fascistic imposition of multi-culturalism and political correctness – they flee.
Of course this is a sign of two things – 1) how weak whites have become as a result of political correctness that they are no longer wiling to defy or resist the process due to fear of being called racist and 2) that in reality, contrary to what they say, whites despise multi-culturalism
This is of course what any group with intelligence would do – as all the research shows that the effects of multi-culturalism are pernicious to a society.
Robert Putnam in his book Bowling Alone made this clear, and he caanot be called a ‘racist’ seeing as he is a darling of the US liberal left.
The research is clear DIVERSITY KILLS COMMUNITIES.
Whilst the cowards in this country, and those terrorised into silence, mutter the mantra of multi-culturalism in public – with their private actions, such as emigrating, pulling their kids out of colonised schools and leaving colonised communities, they are revealing what they really think and feel.
Whilst the government and the media have panic attacks due to the 1 million votes for the BNP, the real issue of White Flight is ignored.
At the same time as those who have no choices in our society, such as the White working class who do not have the income to just move away, vote BNP as a way to protest what is happening to them in their communities – the White Middle class who do have economic options are voting with their feet and fleeing those areas that they live ion when they are colonised.
Even the hypocrites who bang on in their music and in the media about the joys of diversity, like Billy Bragg and Pete Doherty, have voted with their feet and fled it. Bragg lives in the whitest part of the country in rich Dorset and Doherty lives in Wiltshire in a rented country mansion – and only ventures forth into enriched areas in order to restock on the drugs he buys from the enrichers in those areas.
At every level our once homogenous White nation and communities have become divided, terrorised by political correctness, cowed into silence and abused – and so we see a rise in the vote for the BNP, white flight from colonised schools, white flight from their colonised communities and white flight from Britain itself.
The effects of the racial terrorism that is political correctness is such that we can see a schizophrenic pathology is arising amongst the White British people.
Whilst most seem to be in denial, or so in fear that they will not speak out, they express their real opinions on multi-culturalism via mechanism other than speaking out.
Voting demographic figures for the BNP shows us that White Working Class people who are forced to live amongst their devastated colonised communities, and who cannot move away vote, for the BNP as a way to protest what is happening to them and their communities.
The fact that Middle Class people have options of either moving to new White areas, moving to White nations with limited non-white immigration and moving their kids to new schools with majority white pupils is a sign of the pathology of the Middle Class.
The fact that most rich people already live in virtually 100 % white areas and send their kids to majority white British public schools means they can go on TV and tell us how wonderful diversity is and then return to their gated estates and re-enter a 100 % white environment.
Every social class can be seen to be opposing multi-culturalism – yet each does so in a manner unique to their own economic position and social class.
Multi-culturalism is the greatest curse ever inflicted upon our nation.
A tiny elite of less than 10,000 academics, media bosses, free market capitalists, proffessional politicians, leftist radicals and liberal idiots are responsible for this curse placed upon our country.
Their treason in allowing and supporting mass immigration is the greatest crime in our countries history.
There will come a day when our society collapses as a result of multi-culturalism, and on that great day those guilty of that crime will feast on a banquet of conseqences.
Sooner or later a Tipping Point will be reached – when the White Working Class will rise up and the Middle Class who cannot flee the country realise that they cannot run and hide forever and the rich in those white enclaves in cities like London realise that they also cannot stem the tide anymore.
The present days of hypocrisy, cant, political correctness, the terrorism of the word ‘racist’ and white flight in all its forms are signs of growing and dangerous social pathology – and sooner or later those ‘safety valve’ options such as fleeing areas, fleeing the country and moving schools will no longer be an option for people.
That Tipping Point is growing closer every day as more and more immigrants flood into our nation.
Truly the politically correct elite in their delusional state are creating the conditions for a future civil war.