Churchill and his cabinet discuss restricting nonwhite immigration, 1954

Erich, the author of Jihad Watch Watch, writes:

You wrote:

“For [Robert] Spencer, there is and can be no such thing as concern for the white race that is not tending toward Auschwitz. Meaning, among other things, that virtually all leading figures in American history until the mid twentieth century, who as a matter of course identified with the white race and saw America as a white man’s country, were proto-Nazis.”

Not only leading figures in American history—also the great Winston Churchill, as reported at the Guardian:

Sir Winston Churchill and his cabinet colleagues, concerned at the number of “coloured people” they thought were moving to Britain to take advantage of the welfare state, considered introducing immigration controls more than 50 years ago, according to records released yesterday from the National Archives.

In hand-written notebooks, the cabinet secretary, Sir Norman Brook, noted that the then home secretary thought there was a good case for excluding “riff-raff”.

… Churchill commented: “Wd lke also to study possibility of ‘quota’—[number] not to be exceeded.”

The prime minister began the discussion, saying: “Problems wh. will arise if many coloured people settle here. Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in UK? Attracted by Welfare State. Public opinion in UK won’t tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits.”

Florence Horsbrugh, the minister of education, added that the problem was becoming “serious” in Manchester. David Maxwell-Fyfe, the home secretary, reported that the total of “coloured people” in Britain had risen from 7,000 before the second world war to 40,000 at the time of writing, with 3,666 of those unemployed, and 1,870 on national assistance, or benefits.

He referred to those “living on immoral earnings”. Of 62 people convicted the previous year in the Metropolitan police area, 24 were “coloured”. He added: “All adminve. measures to discourage have bn. taken. Only further step wd. be immigrn. control over admn. of [British subjects] to UK. Wd. have to admit in Parlt. tht. purpose of legn. was to control [admission] of coloured. There is a case on merits for excludg. riff-raff. But politically it wd. be represented & discussed on basis of a colour limitation. That wd. offend the floating vote viz., the old Liberals. We shd. be reversing age-long tradn. tht. B. [subjects] have right of entry to mother-country of Empire. We shd. offend Liberals, also sentimentalists.”

LA replies:

Tragically Churchill, seemingly out of fear of offending liberals, dropped the subject and ended up doing nothing. The man who was willing to risk everything to fight Nazism, was unwilling to challenge liberalism.

The other great Conservative hero, Mrs. Thatcher, also never lifted a finger to stop the Third-Worldization and Islamization of Britain.

Stephen F. writes:

Also interesting in the Churchill notes is the wishful thinking on the part of leaders that some kind of “public opinion” would arise demanding restriction on nonwhite immigration. “Public opinion in UK won’t tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits.” I remember reading a Southerner writing in the early 20th century in support of racial segregation, saying much the same thing, something to the effect that whatever sentimental ideas intellectuals might have about racial equality, the racial prejudice of the common man would never disappear (this said with implied approval for the common man). The leaders count on the people while the people count on the leaders, and liberalism continues to advance. A valuable piece of documentation.

LA replies:

Yes, it’s the opposite of leadership, and shows a very regretable failure on Churchill’s part. I’ve pointed out before how when it comes to such issues as immigration, or the Islam threat, various columnists seem to be wishing, even begging for SOME ONE ELSE to take a stand on the issue. It doesn’t occur to these people to start the ball rolling by taking a stand themselves.

It’s like Ayn Rand’s idea of the “second-hander” in The Fountainhead. If people are always looking to other people to provide ideas and leadership, nothing ever happens.

By the way, we discussed this Churchill 1954 cabinet meeting in an entry last year, but the quote we had then wasn’t as long and detailed as this one.

LA continues:

Also, note that the public opinion Churchill was hoping for to save the day would not be a reasoned, principled position, but just a popular reaction that would make it ok to stop the non-European immigration without having to ennunciate an explicitly non-liberal position on race.

In other words, Winston was hoping to be saved by an unprincipled exception to liberalism. Examples of the UE are public opinion, common sense, and a spontaneous shared feeling that things have gone “too far,” none of which require a reasoned defense. He wasn’t willing to take a principled non-liberal stand to save Britain from Third-Worldization.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 25, 2008 12:57 AM | Send