Must immigration stop?

Post Reply New Topic

Nice compliments for you, skafather- being singled out for a racist's attacks is one of the highest accolades I can think of.

thought it might be useful to share these on the BNP:
Councillor Will Blair (BNP) Rotheram County Council:

Questions tabled to council = 0
Motions brought to council = 0
Allowances claimed: £10,974 (maximum permitted is £10,974)

Councillor John Gamble (BNP) Rotheram County Council:

Questions tabled = 0
Motions brought = 0
Allowances claimed: £10,974

(source www.rotheram.gov.uk)

Last edited by TitusLucretiusCarus on 02 Oct 2009, 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Seriously? If you're so concerned about Britain returning to the "indigenous British ethnic groups" you damn Englishmen get off the island and give it back to my family. We Celts were there before the French Normans invaded in 1066. If you've got Norman blood in you (and an Englishman probably does) you can just go back to France.

Or we can act like sane people, and accept that populations and individuals are free to move around at will. I'm in a sub-tropical region now, but my ancestors were mostly from Northern Europe. Go farther back, and all our ancestors were African. Strictly speaking, there are no human ethnic groups indigenous to England. It was populated by successive rounds of immigration over history.

What can one say? The world was, is and always will be a tough neighborhood.

I suggest you read -Guns, Germs and Steel- by Jarrod Diamond to get a feel for how the world works.

In any case the United States whose existence is unfortunate for many of the aboriginal tribes and nations who dwell in North America has prospered because of it relatively liberal immigration policies. New folks coming over have brought new ideas. Think of Nikola Tesla, for example. A Serbian who was responsible for our country being wired up with alternating current.

Things get broken, but they also get built.

ruveyn

Not to mention wireless transmission.

Marconi got the credit but Tesla was the first to it.

Edit: Tesla didn't get due credit for AC either...I mean it isn't called ConTes.

It is, to be sure. So when we kick out all the wannabee Jihadists, and stop any more immigrants coming here, you'll understand. Perhaps they can move in next to you, ruveyn? I'm sure you'd love the wail of the mullah calling your muslim neighbours to prayer five times a day...

The issue is more about culture than race, Orwell. It's probably difficult for an American living in a country defined by its diverse mix of peoples to understand that. You see, when I was growing up over here almost everyone where I lived was a white Christian who'd been born here. That was typical for most, though not all, of the British Isles. Nearly everyone spoke English, and in certain area like Wales and the Scottish Islands they also spoke some form of Celtic. That was part of what defined this country. That is no longer the case. For me, to visit the local city is like visiting a foreign country. Race does come into it here, because the huge number of people of Asian of African extraction is very obvious, as are the strange clothes they often wear. If you walk through areas like this, there's very little English spoken. I also see large areas of what's left of our countryside being carved-up to house all these newcomers. Or rather, to house the real-British people displaced by them. England is the most densely populated country in Europe, now. I don't want to live in an overcrowded country. Even in my short lifetime I've noticed significant changes because of that population increase. This is all justified by invoking the need for economic growth, and the "prosperity" that this brings, but that's another argument.

What I'd say to you and ruveyn is that you obviously love your country for what it is, and like I said the cultural mix arrived at through immigration is part of that. So, why can't I love my country for what it is (or was)? Britain is not the US. We do not have your vast tracts of land to accommodate people. We do not have the history of welcoming immigrants like you do. Most of us just want to live in Britain, or more specifically England, Scotland or Wales and live amongst people of our own kind who at least worship a familiar god and speak the same language. Furthermore, we don't want to contend with all the imported troubles from far-off lands such as Islamists intent on mass-murder, or Romanian organised crime. That view doesn't preclude some immigration, especially if you were to turn the clock back 20 years. But what's happened over those last few decades is argued to be one of the most significant waves of immigration in the history of this country, and something a large number of people find totally unacceptable.

Those figures mean nothing out of context. For example, how do they compare with those of councillors from other similarly-sized political organisations?

That article you have quoted assumes all the people of the world are simply interchangeable units. It’s not so. Group differences exist. Africa is different to Europe because Africans are different to Europeans. Replace Europeans in Europe with Africans and Europe will not be Europe anymore. The basic natural interest of any ethnic or racial group is self-preservation. This comes before the economy, and certainly before useless abstractions like “equality”. Ethnic or racial groups secure their self-preservation (in the vast majority of cases) by acquiring a piece of land and keeping invaders out. An ethnic invasion is an ethnic invasion regardless of whether the invaders are “immigrants looking for a better life” or if they are dressed in military uniform and brandishing weapons. This is a simple concept, and it never seems to sink in to the liberal mind. (I suppose if it ever did, that mind would cease being liberal.)

That article was just shameless propaganda. I suppose it’s one of the benefits of living under a liberal internationalist system that people get fed such drivel in so-called “science” magazines. You probably thought you were being clever and moral posting that article. Well, you weren’t. You were simply spreading the propaganda of people who don’t give a stuff about you.

You know, sometimes I wish I could take white liberals who cannot even accept that the races are different and make them go and live in Zimbabwe or the Congo for a few years.

Your last sentence there is quite typical of the sort of nonsense you quite often come out with, seemingly in the hope that no one will challenge it. In what sense are we “free to move around at will”? Would you or I be free to go and settle in Israel or Japan or Saudi Arabia?



You live in a country where 95% of blacks voted for the black candidate, where you have an organization called La Raza who openly claim they want to reclaim part of the country for Hispanics and where the foreign policy is pretty much dictated by Jews for Jews. And yet you still kid yourself you live in a post-racial society, and you try to prove your post-racial credentials by opposing anyone who expressed a pro-White viewpoint.

I mean, would you talk about Australian aborigines the way you talk about the English and other Europeans? Would you call them mutts?

If there is no one indigenous to England, is there anyone indigenous to anywhere in your view? The English are a group sufficiently distinct to be distinguishable by genetic testing from closely related groups such as the Danes. You will find “the English” predominantly in a place called “England”. The Normans had a minimal genetic impact on England’s population, and now there is no one in England who would call themselves a Norman. Up until the end of World War II, England was one of the most ethnically and racially homogenous nations on earth.

Europeans’ supposed African origins are of no importance either. Europeans natural interests pertain to how Europeans are now – and Europeans are not like Africans.

Why do you think that propagandizing for open borders for European countries is the moral position? It isn’t. It seems from what I’ve read that you have personal reasons for coming out with this stuff. It doesn’t make it right.

Your morality is false. But you are a conformist, and you have not really thought about where your opinions come from or whose agenda they aid. If you’d been born 100 years earlier, your opinions would be more like mine and like 99% of the other people who have ever lived.

No thanks. Diamond is just another Jewish propagandist like Franz Boas, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, Ashley Montagu etc.
By the way, it is not the objective brilliance of these people's work that explains these people's prominence, it is the nature of the media and publishing world.
Try finding a book by JP Rushton or Richard Lynn in your local bookstore.

LOL!

Yeah it's a white liberal conspiracy.......

FYI, whenever I read an article correlated to statistics and studies....doesn't mean I always agree or "choose" them because they suit my own personal views...> >

rofl

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InsspuvAmBs[/youtube]

A rarely mentioned factor of immigration is assimilation.

America was called the "Great Melting Pot." This is because if you come to America, you are expected to become part of our culture. By sharing we merge together the best parts of all cultures.

You can't have an effective nation without national unity. When people want to be "hyphenated Americans," they refuse to assimilate. Instead they want to retain their "old world" identity and force their new neighbors to treat them accordingly. This sows division in the community.

This is why a "global" society is never really possible. You have people that will come together and meld together their best qualities. You have those that will refuse to do so. Such people need their own nation, their own culture, their own communities, and all you will ever manage with them is diplomatic relations...but never unity.

I have issues with Muslims, Hispanics, Mexicans, Asians, etc. who want to come to America and think that WE must ADAPT to THEM but they owe no similar obligation to those living here already. That sows disunity, and if they don't want to relinquish who they were to become "American" then they should have stayed in their home countries in the first place.

Respect is a two-way street, and some immigrants don't recognize that. They will demand everything but yield nothing.

By stopping everyone from coming here we miss out on new fresh ideas and viewpoints. On balance, immigrants (in the past anyway) have enhanced the economy for all of us.

You may have a point in prevented diseased individuals from coming here, or likely terrorists and sabateurs. But this is a far cry from stopping immigration altogether.

If we are clever about it, we can have the best of both worlds. Immigrants that can add to our prosperity and wealth, and safety from sinister types.

ruveyn

Low fertility sure beats intense wars (as in WWI and WWII) for keeping down the population. I can't really think of any particular advantage of war over reduced fertility.

Economists certainly love to fret, don't they? "Big News! Economists are Fretting!" So what? It is just their way of drawing attention to themselves. The "Baby Boom" represented a temporary glut in baby production. Once the baby boomers die off, we'll be back to a more sustainable ratio of workers to pensioners.

And, anyway, with China being willing to produce cheap, high quality consumer goods, there is really less need for people to work in Europe and elsewhere. The number of people living in leisure should be able to increase.

As for immigration--there are massive numbers of people of European descent living in the Americas, South Africa, Australia, etc.

If we were all to return to Europe, then what? The American Indians could have their continents back. But, most of us really wouldn't know to which country to return.

If Africans want to go and live in Europe--fine, let them.