TRANSCRIPT:
(This is a copy of the prepared speech that Harry spoke from, with some updates. The video recording is authoritative.)
Harry Cummins:
Well good evening ladies and gentlemen my name is Harry, Harry Cummins. I was born 64 years ago in Townsville. When I was 9 my brother and I were taken by my parents who are of an Australian generation who only wanted to live in London or New York to the UK. In fact, after flying down from Townsville, we boarded our ship to the UK not far from here at the port on the Brisbane River on the 24 November 1970.
So I grew up in London. I recently came back to live in Australia because I was looking after my parents who were ill and old at their home on the outskirts of London. And when they died in their mid nineties, I wanted to live in Australia again because I had regularly returned here and I loved it. I bought a flat recently in Sydney which is where I live now as I find Townsville a little bit too hot.
Well I went to uni in the UK and I did various jobs there including being a lecturer at Kingston University in London. Then I published articles as a freelance journalist in The Times and the Daily Mail and the Independent. And then, in the year 2000 I was appointed the senior press officer of the British Council, also in London. The British Council is a group founded in 1934 in response to the rise from 1933 of Nazi Germany. At that time it was meant to advance the UK's democratic values worldwide via the global promotion of Britain's art and culture. And I worked for the British Council in Russia and Columbia and Georgia in the Caucasus but I was dismissed by this organisation in 2004. This was because I published under a pseudonym in 2004 a series of 4 articles critical of Islam in the UK Sunday Telegraph. They appeared over the four weekends of July 2004.
I came to publish them because the British Council would not listen to me when I begged it to stop publishing on its own website a series of incendiary, anti-semitic, pro-terrorist articles by group of young Muslim writers from around the world. This was under the guise of a project called "keeping in touch". I told my colleagues that this was very dangerous for the Council politically. Because the articles attacked not just the UK, but countries like India and Russia and China and the United States and, of course, above all, what one of the writers called "the fascist jewish state"
The Council rejected my advice on the grounds that they were, by definition, as a promoter of British values, defenders of free speech. And I said, come on, you know you would never allow me to publish articles like that, being the press officer and they indicated they would. And so I went ahead and I contacted the Sunday Telegraph which agreed to commission such articles. I specified though that they must not appear under my or the British Council's name, unlike the incendiary Muslim articles.
I pointed out in my articles that, in the countries that the Muslims initially invaded & conquered in the middle ages, although they were a minority, they had a monopoly of violence and could get their way simply by threatening violence. And I wrote that the muslim migrants in Britain were already starting to leverage this sort of violence-backed blackmail to obtain what they wanted politically. They had already won for instance the right to groom, rape and torture about 250 thousand small white indigenous british girls . Neither the police nor social services made any attempt to stop this atrocity , because they were frightened by threats of muslim violence, and this, of course, is ongoing.
We saw a few months ago how the Birmingham Police chief banned Jewish and Israeli fans from a local football match after the local Muslims threatened violence if he didn't. We saw how a Christian "Walk for Jesus" in Whitechapel in london - a suburb Muslim migrants recently took over - was banned by the police a few weeks ago. The police said that the christians would be guilty of the muslim violence which would ensue if the police didn't ban it , and so they did ban it. But first they blamed the peaceful christians for the Muslim threats just as the birmingham police chief had blamed the jews for the Muslim violence
And of course , the local ruling left wing parties in Whitechapel and Birmingham the gay and womens rights loving UK greens and Uk labour have formed a nazi-soviet pact with the reactionary muslim migrants. And so they aren't going to protect these Christians or these tiny raped girls either because the muslims form their vote bank.
So when Mr Trump recently said at the United Nations that Britain is ruled by sharia law and of course, was attacked for it, he was speaking the truth. Because at the basis of the apartheid system that is shariah law lies the fact that anybody who has a monopoly of violence in a given society will get their way.
And that is why the Muslims always get their way in Britain, because their potential for violence is more feared by the police and the government ' who always give in to them - than the hatred that accrues to the authorities for capitulating.
The name of my publisher connor court was inspired by the great American writer Flannery o'connor. Her most famous book was called "the violent bear it away" and the muslims have learned the wisdom of that saying. That is why they always deploy violence and thus always bear whatever they want away.
Indeed the salience of my warnings about the Muslims in the telegraph, and the leverage they had gained not only through the ballot box but by threatening recourse to the bullet box was soon proved. The Guardian newspaper, the BBC and the New York Times started a witch hunt to find out who the author of these "Islamophobic" articles was and how to punish him. Rather than blaming Islam for the threats that the Muslims were directing at the Telegraph, they blamed the Telegraph and the unknown author for stirring up violence.
When someone claimed their reward from the Guardian by denouncing me, the paper published my identity and the Muslims, among other things, threatened harm to the British Council unless I was sacked. I was duly dismissed for the crime of - in the words of the british council - "offending against islam", not an offense you will actually find in the british council's code of conduct.
Twenty years after my ordeal , I decided to write this book about the issues my public dismissal raised because all of the prophecies of my Telegraph articles had by then come true. Indeed , things had become much worse than I had said they would.
The Muslim population of the uk in 2004 when I published the Sunday Telegraph articles was 1.6 million. By 2025 it had climbed to 4.3 million. The Muslim population of Europe in 2004 was 5.7 million. By 2025 it had risen to 46 million.
This startling increase in the number of islamic colonisers is entirely due to the european convention on human rights and the european court of human rights which dictate that the millions of foreign Muslims that have entered Europe each year via the Mediterranean, the Balkans and Belarus, hundreds of thousands of whom then proceed across the English channel to Britain and Ireland, must never be turned away. Instead each must each be processed, housed, fed, and funded by the relevant european governments when, as they all do, they claim political asylum.They must also all receive free health care and free translators, their kids' education must be funded, and the parasitised countries must also fund these Muslims in the endless lawsuits against deportation they launch against said governments when they are found to have no right to stay. Even in this event the European convention on human rights means that they can never be returned to their muslim homeland if it is a human rights abuser which all muslim countries are.
As it is a ticket to an eternity of idle luxury is it any wonder that 85 percent of muslim asylum seekers worldwide seek refuge in Western countries rather than in muslim states? It is also relevant that the richest and the emptiest of the Muslim states, like saudi arabia and the gulf states.have always refused to take in a single Muslim refugee.
The european convention on human rights also grants every person on earth if they come to europe "the right to a family life". This means family reunion, according to which a Muslim with 5 kids will ensure that every one of them chooses a spouse not from the millions of Muslim colonisers that are already in Europe but from his muslim homeland. Australia and New Zealand are also destabilized by this phenomenon.
Given that there are at least two billion people on earth who qualify for asylum in European states under the European Court of Human Rights' extremely elastic criteria it is only a matter of time before each european country must sacrifice its existence on the altar of human rights and international law. 88% of the population of Brussels under the age of 20 are now African and Middle Eastern, and most are Muslim. And this is the capital not only of Belgium but of the European Union. Meanwhile, the UK census shows that the white British proportion of the population of London fell from 97% in 1961 to 36% in 2021, and there are now non-British majorities in Birmingham, Manchester and a dozen other UK cities as well.
And in the meantime the Muslim and other 3rd world immigrants have rewarded the generosity of the indigenous Europeans with a tsunami of crime and terrorism and by raping their women and children on an industrial scale. Between the year 2000 and 2025, the number of rapes in England and Wales rose from 8000 to 90,000, which coincided with the population of those countries soaring by a staggering 11 million thanks entirely to immigration. Though, proportionately, in the same period, Australia's population, actually rose even more than England's, jumping by 47 percent. As in England this was almost entirely due to 3rd world immigration.
How do we fix this? In this book I have just published called Suicide Blonde I discuss our leaders' prioritisation of the "rights" of every individual on earth over the rights of their own peoples. I point out that this has condemned the Europeans who created once beautiful societies like Australia, Ireland, Britain, France, Germany, Spain and Sweden to both suicide and genocide. At current rates of immigration the white europeans who created these countries will become a minority in each of them within the next fifty years and in most it will be much earlier than that. In the uk the native anglo-celtic group is forecast to become a minority by 2063 at the very latest. A brilliant civilization that created the modern world and stretches back 1500 years will be destroyed. In Australia however, the destruction of the most perfect and desirable country on earth will come much quicker, unless immigration is reduced to nothing immediately. White Australians will become a minority in the country whose attributes only they can create and sustain by 2050.
And yet, just a few days ago, Mr Albanese said that, despite the Bondi atrocity, he will not tolerate any reduction in immigration whatsoever, even from hostile muslim countries. And we all know why that is. We will remember how, shortly before the last general election, Tony Burke handed out 12,500 Australian passports to Muslim immigrants in the west of sydney so they would vote for the Labor party.
What I say in the book is that individual peoples have rights but people don't. That the Western idea of human rights, that "people", ie human beings, ie everyone on earth are born with rights as they are born with pituitary glands, is wrong. It is wrong because my own case proves that life is so arranged that if one individual or group of individuals wins an access to rights, another individual or group will lose such access.
Therefore the idea we have been sold & that is at the heart of the modern human rights industry , that it is possible for everyone on earth to simultaneously access human rights is a lie. Our lived experience will always prove that the access to and enjoyment of rights is a zero sum game. Moreover my own ordeal taught me that those who refuse to deny rights to outsiders will find their own rights taken away from them.
The main point I make is, as the philosopher of law Carl Schmitt wrote, "democracy requires first homogeneity", ie ethno- cultural homogeneity. He noted that so called multicultural democracies usually disintegrate. Schmitt noted that in the absence or the decline of white westerners in such states, Western values become the opposite of themselves and facilitate, not the liberalism of white people, but the fascism of non-white people, a phenomenon we have seen all over Britain and Europe of late and which we are beginning to see now in Australia. He pointed out that in a democracy , it is not actually constitutions or laws that ensure freedom, wealth and justice, it is which ethnicity dominates the population.
This is because, as the French philosopher Henri Bergson wrote : “Human beings were designed for very small societies”. Human rights were also designed for very small societies. Indeed, the very term “human rights” - like the word “multiculturalism” - is a contradiction in terms as circumstances always conspire to ensure that so called “human” rights can never be enjoyed by one group of people unless they are denied to another. Why on earth, then, should Australia follow Britain's practice of sacrificing its own people on the altar of "human" rights by defending the interest of mass intruders ? Mass intruders who may also be “human rights abusers” as well?
What we call "Western values” have only ever truly existed within a few societies, and they have only ever been sustainable and feasible in certain types of community. The idea they are universal is an illusion. This illusion arose when the unusual societies that created these values, having little knowledge at the time of other peoples, extrapolated what human beings generally were like from themselves.
Recent history has shown that, if these values are to survive for anyone, they can only ever be accessible to the specific examples of humanity in whose orbit they arose. The only outsiders with whom these values can safely be shared are those who are prepared to erase themselves and become like the creators of the values.
This is because values are created by societies, societies are not created by values. And unique values like those of the West are created by unique societies. Societies can survive the destruction of their values, especially if they are only destroyed for intruders, but values cannot survive the destruction of the society that gave them birth, and a society is destroyed when its population is changed.
The contrary view, the view that prevails in every western state including Australia, is that societies cannot be democratic and thrive unless their constitutions enshrine the values of the American revolution and open their borders and their rights to every human being on earth, because all indivdual human beings are "born" with rights as they are born with an appendix.
What my book says is that this idea is ludicrous precisely because what we falsely call "human" rights have only ever been able to exist within a tiny handful of specific, pre-existing ethnically European countries like Australia. There are no individual “rights” absent these unique nations because, in historical and political terms, such communities preceded and created what we know as “the human being” and “the individual”. Therefore, the only entities with intrinsic rights are these very rare European ethnostates that begot and still protect the individual and the individual’s prerogatives: the world’s Western democracies.
The idea that any such state is obliged to welcome in and confer its protection on all the earth’s inhabitants equally, regardless of their behaviour or agenda, is absurd, as it would soon be destroyed, though first it would find itself in the trap that the nations of Western Europe have dug for themselves. Forced by the European Convention on Human Rights to place hostile, barbaric aliens on the same privileged level as natives, simply because these enemies are homo sapiens, Britain like other European states has had to discriminate against its own people in favour of those who seek to destroy them. Would justice and reason not suggest it should be the other way around? As the legal philosopher Carl Schmitt writes in his book "The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy":
"One has to say that a democracy - because equality always depends on inequality - can exclude one part of those governed without ceasing to be a democracy, that right up to the present time people who in some way were completely or partially without rights . . . let them be called barbarians, uncivilised, atheists, aristocrats, counter-revolutionaries, or even slaves, have belonged to a democracy . . . Until now there has never been a democracy that did not recognise the concept 'foreign' and that could have conferred its equality on all human beings . . . To illustrate this principle it is sufficient to name two different examples of modern democracy: contemporary Turkey, with its radical expulsion of the Greeks and its reckless Turkish nationalisation of the country, and the Australian commonwealth, which restricts unwanted entrants through its immigration laws, and like other dominions only takes emigrants who conform to the notion of a ‘right type of settler.’ ” ie people of good character who come from a Christian and European background.."
Carl Schmitt wrote this in 1923.
In a radio interview he gave in 1955, the then Prime Minister of Australia Robert Menzies said that the country’s 1901 Immigration Restriction Act (to which Schmitt referred) was still necessary. Although Menzies believed, as a Christian, that every man and woman was equal before God, unlike God, Australia could not “confer its equality on all human beings” because, as Menzies put it:
“I do not want to see reproduced in Australia the kind of problem they have in America or increasingly in Britain”.
In his book "The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy", Schmitt put it in a similar way:
"Equal rights make good sense where homogeneity exists. But the ‘current usage’ . . . implies something else: every adult person, simply as a person, should because of that alone.be equal to every other person. This is a liberal, not a democratic idea; it replaces formerly existing democracies, based on a substantial equality and homogeneity, with a democracy of mankind . . . However great an injustice it would be not to respect the human worth of every individual, it would nevertheless be an irresponsible stupidity, leading to the worst chaos, and thereby to even greater injustice, if the specific characteristics of various spheres were not recognised. In the domain of the political, people do not face each other as abstractions, but as politically interested and
politically determined persons . . . politically allied or opponents”
What Schmitt and Menzies are both saying is that no country can offer settlement and voting rights - much less “human rights” - to any and every individual on earth (ie “the democracy of mankind”). Any state that does will empower actors who can’t or won’t assimilate to what is a very specific political “family”. As has been noted, this could mean giving power over the local ethno-cultural family to “opponents” who still remain loyal to a different and hostile family. Schmitt and Menzies are saying that a country that treats unfiltered aliens as natives is playing with fire.
This is because institutions created by and for a specific population break down if exposed to human groups which behave in a different way. The law is only half of the law. If it is humane, its mildness depends, not on its own merits, but on the virtues of the pre-existing homogeneous population. In liberal Western states, the law presumes the innocence, not only of the accused, but of society. But with mass immigration, society has changed. In Britain and now tragically in Australia, too, repressive laws only necessitated by uninvited enemies have been imposed on the innocent, indigenous many, much as one might attempt to "cure" a tapeworm patient, not by removing the tapeworm, but by killing the parasitised human victim. The Albanese government's new hate speech law , which was scandalously passed with the liberal party's backing is a case in point.
And now , Australia is following Britain by reacting to the misery caused by Muslim and other third world migrants, not by repelling or expelling them, but by resorting to unprecedented forms of universal repression which mostly impact the innocent natives, robbing them them of their ancient rights, rights that were never meant for foreigners in the first place . . . As a strategy, it is also somewhat irrational, like trying to heal a leg infested by leeches, not by removing the parasites, but by cutting the limb off at great harm to oneself so that the invaders feeding on it can survive.
For example Tony Burke's response to the Bondi massacre was to ban the entry to Australia of a Jewish British activist named Sammy Yahood because he had called for Western countries to criminalise the practice of Islam, a measure that would actually bring all terrorism in Australia to an end, especially if were paired with stopping all Muslim immigration and deporting Islamic troublemakers to a remote island.
Since it is inevitable that only one group in any given situation can get rights it is surely better that they are given in Australia to the Australian and the good rather than, as in Britain, to the evil, the foreign and the hostile. The only way we can defend our values is by defending our people. The only way we can betray our values is by betraying our people. Destroying our people in the name of universal values as Angela Merkel did when she opened the doors of Europe to millions of hostile Middle Eastern Muslims will actually lead to the destruction of those values because it will lead to the destruction of the tiny handful of unique peoples that created those values, which are also the only humans among whom they have borne positive fruit.
In my book I insist that if one really wants to advance the interests of humanity, one should defend the principle that, while individual peoples have rights, people who are individuals do not. Above all I believe that the cult of human rights, of striving to ensure that every human being has rights by virtue of being a large ape that walks upright, will deny the chance of a safe and civilised existence even to the few communities on earth that already enjoy such an existence, above all Australia.
