Two weeks ago, Paulette Hamilton was elected as the new MP for Birmingham Erdington. A few days before the by-election, media reports exposed Hamilton by releasing a video of her speaking at an event in 2015. The event was titled, The ballot or the bullet – does your vote count?

Paulette Hamilton with Kier Starmer

Quoting Hamilton directly, she said,

“So you talk about the bullet or the vote. I’m not sure, although I believe in the vote and I believe in our right to use that vote or destroy that vote. I’m not sure that we will get what we really deserve in this country using the vote”. 

She went onto say, “But I don’t know if we are a strong enough group to get what we want to get, if we have an uprising. I think that we will be quashed in such a way we would lose a generation of our young people. So I am very torn, I went away and watched the Malcolm X film to make sure and listened to alot of what he said to make sure I was ready”.

“We had Trojan horse in the council. Our Muslim brothers and sisters for many many years, you know, there were things out there saying that had made a plan about how they were going to try and not integrate…..but ensure their teachings and what have you, got into the system. What then happened was, many of the schools, inner city schools in Birmingham, certain schools, the Muslim families they filled a school, they then ensured they took over the governorship, as they took over the governorship they made sure that the heads of those schools were people that they wanted to represent their cause. What they then did with doing all of this was made sure that their religious views and beliefs were taken through the education system. It was also then taken into politics, we have large numbers of Muslim councillors, we’ve got two MPs in this city that look after the needs…..well they don’t, but they’re supposed to look after the needs of a community. What has happened is, they got into positions of power and they forgotten the reason they were put there in the first place. The problem with our community, we’re not even on the map”. 

Finally she spoke about postal votes, “The postal vote is the way some of our ethnic minority communities actually lock it down. Because what they do is, whole families have the postal vote. Whoever comes in says ‘hold this one’, tick, postal vote goes back and in one household you can have eight votes and it’s locked down”.

The following is a response from British Democrats chairman Dr James Lewthwaite.

Dr James Lewthwaite

Enoch Was Right!

By Dr James Lewthwaite

Half a century on, Paulette Hamilton’s election victory in Birmingham Erdington brings his prediction of inter-ethnic turmoil closer to realisation.

Just 54 years after Enoch Powell’s historic April 1968 speech, and close to his Wolverhampton South West constituency, the election of Labour’s incendiary new Member of Parliament threatens to bring the likelihood of inter-ethnic conflict a step closer.

The recent events in Birmingham however promises nothing but trouble, as Ms Hamilton has made it plain that she is only interested in advancing the interests of her own ethnic minority at the expense of the indigenous white majority.

The 27 percent turnout suggests that Ms Hamilton owes her victory at least in part to massive ignorance and indifference of the white working class, which they will doubtless have reason to regret when her true feelings towards them become only too obvious. 

It is instructive to compare this event with the other recent big news story: the heroic resistance by the Ukrainian people against Russian aggression. 

The events in the Ukraine show what an ethnically homogeneous nation is capable of: As Chilean activist Victor Jara said “El pueblo unido jamás será vencido,” (“A united people will never be defeated.”)

If the Ukraine conformed totally to the ideal type of nation-state as exemplified by the nineteenth-century unification of Italy or Germany, there would be no crisis. Unfortunately, the mass immigration of Russians into Eastern Ukraine to take advantage of the industrialisation of the Donbas and the great city of Kharkiv has led to an inevitable conflict of interests. 

This immigration created a region of Ukraine in which the loyalty of a majority of the local people lays not with their supposed nation-state, but rather with a contiguous power, Russia. Had Russian immigration not occurred, Putin would have no excuse for intervention.

It was precisely for this reason that Stalin introduced Russian settlers into the Baltic States to provide a “casus belli” there: the “protection of vulnerable minorities” supposedly being oppressed by the wicked Balts. (The parallels, by the way, between the examples of Luhansk and Donetsk and World War II’s Sudetenland and the Polish corridor questions are all too obvious for those who want to see them).

Nevertheless, the way in which Ukrainians have rallied to their homeland’s defence – even many expatriates comfortably settled in the West have returned home to take part in the fight – shows that the ties of blood and soil come before physical survival.

In reality, this is – or should be – the norm for any mono-ethnic community. It is no coincidence that freedom-loving democracies, bound together by trust, arose in Europe, first and most strongly among homogeneous communities isolated by seas and mountains – Iceland; The British Isles; The Eidgenossen of Switzerland; even Transylvania.

One can also recall how the Japanese people rallied at the time of the Fukushima nuclear incident. Workers at that nuclear facility selflessly sacrificed themselves to protect others, a behaviour in marked contrast to say, that of the population of New Orleans who infamously took advantage of Hurricane Katrina to loot and pillage.

Other recent examples that spring to mind include the behaviour of Haitians after the earthquake in their nation, and the wholesale looting of mainly Asian-owned stores in South Africa’s Kwa-Zulu during the second half of 2021.

The general principle from all these examples is quite clear: the homogenous nation-state is more stable than a multi-ethnic empire (such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Tsarist Russia). It is also no coincidence that many homogenous nation-states emerged out of the breakup of those multi-ethnic empires.

It is only in homogenous societies that the ties of kinship allow people to rise to their full potential.

The legacy of conflict in Central Europe and the Balkans serve as crystal-clear examples where this principle of self-determination was ignored, and how hostile minorities included within the badly drawn boundaries of some states ended up being flashpoints.

Superficially, this may all seem far removed from Birmingham Erdington, but it is not. Ms Hamilton’s inflammatory rhetoric, which can be summed up as “Only black interests matter” is our Luhansk-Donetsk moment.

She has made it clear that she is not interested in the future of her white constituents, still less in the future of the British people.

Is this not a betrayal of the whole point of an elected representative? Our nation is rapidly becoming a pie to be divided up among grievance-ridden competing immigrant minorities. 

It is, of course, perfectly understandable that Ms Hamilton cares for her own people more than for she does for us. We feel the same about our own kith and kin – who in their right mind would not – but the difference is that we are indigenous to this land.

We are entitled to survive as an ethnic group and to preserve our unique identity, integrity and heritage. We have nowhere else to go. As things are at present, our future will resemble New Orleans or Kwa-Zulu Natal or Haiti, rather than the Ukraine or Japan.

Enoch Powell saw all this coming. His purblind, cowardly, and corrupt colleagues did not. Fifty-four years later, we might ask: How much did the treacherous Labour leadership know of Ms Hamilton’s real views? And how much do they actually care?