HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Dachshund
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by Dachshund » Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:57 pm

I agree with the German philosopher of history, Oswald Spengler who predicted that around the year 2000, The West, (by which I mean the nations of America, the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Western nations of Continental Europe, including France, Holland Germany and on, considered as that totality we call Western Civilisation) would start to enter a phase of cultural decline. He prophesied that around this time The West would experience a kind of "pre-death emergency" which would need be countered by "Caesarism", that is, the rule of political "Caesar"- a strongman who seized power, then led a political administration where an extra-constitutional, omnipotent executive branch of government controlled all affairs of the State. Spengler described "Caesarism" as being a kind of "socialism" in the sense that all persons in the polis would be synergized into a happy and harmonious totality by a dictator/"Caesar" who would be, metaphorically speaking, like a conductor synergizing all of the different instruments in a large symphony orchestra into musical harmony.


The way I see it, Spengler was pretty much on the money, because In 2016 Donald Trump was elected President of the The West's most powerful nation, America, and although Trump does not LITERALLY, EXACTLY match the portrait Spengler sketched of his predicted "Caesar", Trump's political style, personality and world-view are - and I am sure Spengler would agree- definitely very "Caesar-like". As you will recall, 2016 was an extraordinary tumultous year in Western politics. First we had BREXIT - a remarkable people's revolt grounded regional England which saw the the UK bail itself OUT of the European Union. No one had believed it could happen: none of the British bookmakers, none of the expert political pundits, none of the national newspapers, not even Nigel Farage himself who had said when he was asked by a TV journalist how he felt the referendum would go, just before the polls were opened on the 23rd of June, 2016: "I think we might get close, but I don't think we can win it." Second, we had the election of the political outsider, businessman Donald Trump, as the 45th President of the United States; from the moment he entered the fray and began to campaign, NOBODY gave Trump a chance of winning; all of America's most experienced and respected political experts and all the media's political commentariat, (not to mention millions of smug Democrat faithful) were absolutely stunned when he defeated Hilary Clinton.


I believe that BREXIT and the election of Donald Trump as American President were not merely coincidental events but rather they had some critical,
features and causal factors in common, namely: (1) These events took place in two major Western democracies; the US is the most powerful Western country and the UK is arguably the second most powerful nation in The West; (2) The primary cause of these events was fall - out from MASS IMMIGRATION policy implemented by the political Left: Tony Blair's "New Labour" in the UK and Democrat President Lyndon Johnson's "Immigration and Naturalization Act" of 1965 in the US, and (3) The overwhelming majority of individuals who voted for BREXIT in the UK, and for Trump as to become President of the United States in 2016, were persons of white European (e.g. Anglo-Saxon, Germanic) descent.


LET'S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT WHAT CAUSED "BREXIT"...ENGLISH ANGER OVER MASS IMMIGRATION


"BREXIT" would not have happened were it not for the anger felt by English nationalists in the UK anger at years of uncontrolled mass immigration into their communities. Immigration was the political issue that won the day for Nigel Farage ,the leader of UKIP ( the "United Kingdom Immigration Party") who was successful in organising a referendum in 2016 ( the "BREXIT" referendum) on the membership of the UK to the European Union (EU). Whether it was immigration from Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary or any of the other 10 former communist bloc nations now in the EC, or immigration from Muslim countries, Sub-Saharan African countries or other non-white majority 3rd -world nations , as far as the native folk of regional England were concerned there was far too much of it going on in their "back yard", they were very angry and they wanted it stopped immediately.


I joined the British Conservative Party in the mid-1990's, and I can still remember doing some "door- knocking" in my Constituency for the Tories in the run-up the the 1997 General Election. I had decided to lend a hand and do my bit for the Tory cause, as things were looking pretty grim that autumn for then Prime Minister John Major, and I was a big fan of "Citizen John".Anyway, on election day, 1st May, 1997, the Tories suffered the worst electoral defeat by a ruling party Britain since 1832 ! Tony Blair was the new Prime Minister. I knew from the moment the Conservatives conceded defeat on election night, that the incoming Leftist/socialist "New Labour" government of Tony Blair would be a disaster and it was in a number of ways, though in this In this post, I will only be looking at the issue of of Blair's (multiculturalist) immigration policy and how it subsequently influenced outcome of the UK's "BREXIT" referendum of 2016.


Farage's UKIP Party won the 2016 referendum, a majority of UK citizens voted for the UK to leave the European Union and the result is referred to as "BREXIT" ( BRitish EXIT). I mentioned above that immigration was the key issue that drove the result, though before I continue I would like to qualify that remark. Persons who voted for the UK to leave the EU are called "Brexiteers", and the "Brexiteers" were predominantly English nationalists, that is, English folk who felt strongly attached to their English identity and proud of their Englishness (their English language, history, traditional culture, institutions, customs, social mores, etc). A post-referendum research investigation found that of those voters who chose the highest value for English identity on a 7 - point scale, over 70% voted to leave the EU. Conversely, over 80% amongst those who only emphasise their Englishness slightly ( 2 on a 7 - point scale) voted for the UK to remain in the European Union. Thus national identity was, it seems, the most powerful factor in the "BREXIT" referendum, but it is rarely discussed to to the same extent as questions of socio-economic class, level of education or even age, despite the fact the divide is much more dramatic and cuts across all the different socio-economic groups in the population. For these people - the English who felt deeply attached to their identity and an overwhelming desire to preserve their sovereignty, I think their view of the essentially uncontrolled mass immigration into England of migrants from non-white and/or non - Western European nations that had taken place between 1997 and 2010 under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's "New Labour" administrations, was that it was wholly unacceptable and as it constituted a clear and serious threat to their English identity/sovereignty. (I will explain why in more detail below).

So, in sum, I think that immigration was the key issue that motivated the "Brexiteers" vote for the UK to leave the European Union, but it is also important to acknowledge that this was the case because the mass immigration into England they had witnessed over recent years was viewed as a threat to the identity of millions of voters who were proud and passionate English nationalists. Put simply they saw that their English identity (their love of their English culture, history, language, customs, institutions social manners mores, moral values, and religion, etc) were under attack and they voted to have the multicultural project terminated.


BLAIR'S MASS IMMIGRATION CONSPIRACY


Tony Blair and his so-called "New Labour" government were in power from 1997 to 2007, Blair resigned in 2007 and he was replaced by Gordon Brown who was Prime Minister of the "New Labour" government until he was defeated in the 2010 General Election. During the period 1997 to 2010 while New Labour were in power, net immigration into the UK quadrupled and the population of the UK was boosted by 5.4 million, plus another estimated million "undocumented" illegals. This mass immigration proved to be a catastrophe and it is Blair who is chiefly responsible for the whole mess. In 2010, even his favourite progressive think = tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) commented, "It's no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country for ever."


Thanks to the public revelations of Andrew Neather - a speech writer and government adviser during the Blair years who worked both for Blair himself in Downing Street and for two high-ranking government ministers: Jack Straw (Foreign Secretary) and David Blunkett (Education and Employment Secretary) in the Home Office - we now know the truth of how and why this unprecedented, mass influx if immigrants into the UK took place under Blair's government.


Neather has publicly revealed that the plan to open Britain's borders to mass immigration was chiefly politically motivated; an attempt by Ministers to help engineer a "truly multicultural" country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity" :shock: . Neather said that Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up" the UK to mass immigration, but that ministers were nervous about it and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would "alienate its core working class vote."


Due to this, the public argument for immigration was deceitfully concentrated instead on the economic benefits and the need for more migrants. Gordon Brown's Treasury adopted the view that a high level of immigration made economic growth look good and it would help to keep wages low and, therefore, inflation down. There is no doubt, as well, that the employer's organisations were privately encouraging a supply of cheap labour which was good for profits, regardless of its effects on society. Blair was clearly not concerned at the how the effect mass immigration would have in lowering wages would impact on the livelihoods of those native Britons living in the poorer, working class neighbourhoods of the UK.


In 2000, it turned out there was a "major shift" in immigration policy after the publication of a policy paper that came from the PIU (Performance and Innovation Unit), a Downing Street "think tank". Neather said he wrote a major speech for the then immigration minister in 2000 that was largely based on this PIU report. He said the final, published version of the report promoted the labour market case. However, earlier drafts had also included a driving political purpose: "that mass immigration was the way the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural."


Another major factor was the attitude of the Left - leaning BBC, and, in particular, its devotion to multiculturalism. For years, it avoided discussing immigration if it possibly could. Although in the autumn of 2005, for instance, official statistics for the previous year showed an increase of 50% in net immigration, there was no mention of this on the BBC. Its own report into impartiality, published in June 2007, concluded that its coverage of immigration amounted to bias by omission. In December of 2010 the corporation's Director - General admitted: "There are some areas, immigration,business and Europe, where the BBC has historically been rather weak and rather nervous about letting that entire debate happen" (!!). The net effect was to deter any discussion of immigration and give plenty of space to the Left to accuse anyone who raised the subject of being a covert racist. On this matter the BBC failed to meet its own standards of objectivity.


So, in short, the huge meteoric increases in immigration that took place under Tony Blair's Labour government were part of a planned, and essentially clandestine political conspiracy, one whose foremost objective was to promote multiculturalism in the UK by stealth (i.e; by deceiving the British public into believing that increased immigration was needed to strengthen/boost the national economy) and thereby destroy forever that which was culturally British.


WHY BLAIR'S POLICY OF MASS IMMIGRATION IN THE UK WAS A CATASTROPHE


In the West, anyone who is a Conservative knows that in politics, a government that sets about impetuously making large, sudden/swift changes to the existing status quo, is behaving foolishly in the extreme and courting disaster. Conservatives respect and revere the status quo for the fact it embodies those traditional customs, institutions, social norms, moral principles, pearls of wisdom, intellectual accomplishments and other valuable achievements of our Western culture which have endured the harsh vicissitudes of countless centuries and survived. These principles come to us having been found good and life-affirming by dint of human experience and experiment over 1000 years of Western civilisation. Conservatives accept that the status quo cannot remain rigid and "frozen", that it will from time to time need to be reformed; BUT, any changes that are made by government reforms must always be made very gradually and should be kept as small in scale as is possible under the circumstances, whatever they may be..


The political Left in the modern West thumbs it nose at this advice. They believe, when they are in power, that a moral obligation exists for them to carry out ongoing radical, - even revolutionary -, reforms of the status quo, because PROGRESS ! PROGRESS ! PROGRESS! means making lots of big, bold CHANGES ! CHANGES! CHANGES! and this is what we must strive with all our might to do in order to ultimately achieve a perfect utopia (of universal love, peace, tolerance, justice etc;) for all mankind. Of course, there is no such thing as utopia, and this kind of thinking is merely the symptom of a diseased mind. Voltaire, Helvetius, Robert Owen, Charles Fourier Henri de Saint - Simon, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio - Cortes, etc. With the exception of Ocasio Cortes the 28 year old US socialist who is just plain dumb (low IQ), most of the other notable socialist and communist utopians ( NB: some scholars deny that Marx and Engels were egalitarian utopists, but that is no true, and if anyone is interested I can briefly explain why in a separate post) were intelligent, well-read men who all write some very high quality political rhetoric. Their problem is that they were self-deluded, or if you like they were afflicted with what a modern-day Western psychiatrist would call a "Delusional Disorder."


Briefly, the famous social and communist egalitarian utopists listed above, as well as their like-minded fellow-travellers in the general public oftoday's modern Western societies are deluded because:


(1) Egalitarianism is a false philosophical (ethical) doctrine. The best known example of egalitarianism today is that moral egalitarianism which is expressed in the form of the claim that "all men are created equal". This mean created equal in the sense they they are all innately endowed with an equal portion/allocation/measure of moral value or worth that is typically called "dignity". So, in short, the claim is made that all men are equal in dignity and thus they are therefore (logically) equally entitled to, for example, the human rights that are listed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNUDHR).


The problem is that all human beings do not possess this equal measure of moral worth/vale/"dignity that the moral egalitarian theorists say they do. Their claim is merely the presumption of an assumption that to this day has never been theoretically justified by any expert philosopher/s who specialises in ethics or axiology. And this, BTW, is not for want of trying; indeed, the very best and brightest of these intellectuals have tried long and hard to come up with a rational justification for moral egalitarianism but to date they have ALL failed.


Not only is moral egalitarian a false thesis, but so too is the notion that a genuinely equalitarian (where "equal" is taken to mean "the same" or "identical") society could ever be created when it is painfully obvious - even to youngsters ! - that human beings differ tremendously in terms of their individual characteristics like: intelligence (IQ), wisdom, personality traits (like the "Big 5" personality traits, for instance), social class, general mental health; physiology, anatomy (bone density, lean muscle mass, visual acuity, physical strength, height, weight, etc.) behaviour and so on. Any politician who sincerely believes that by enacting "progressive" legislation to: reform education; eliminate class and other social inequalities; stamp out social injustices; provide absolutely equal housing, healthcare, education and welfare provision for all; abolish the exploitation of the marginalised by abandoning free-market capitalism promote multicultural diversity throughout society, etc; all with a view to progressing toward some kind of egalitarian utopia where all of humanity will be living in world that is perfectly peaceful, universally just, saturated with love, kindness, tolerance, mutual respect and consideration, and where all men are men of "good will" is living in Cloud Cookoo land.



THE PROBLEM WITH BLAIR''S PROGRAM OF RAPID MASS IMMIGRATION INTO THE UK



I want to make it clear that I think immigration is a good thing, generally, PROVIDED that there is a chance for immigrants to integrate. Integration into a Western nation like the US or the UK is perfectly possible. If a person from Poland or Hungry or say an African or Hispanic country comes to live in England as an individual, (and s/he is generally doing so in order to better their prospects in life) wants to bring up children and start a family, and go to work and do all of the other typical things that people do, in time s/he will learn the language, the customs, the laws and will become pretty much British. Moreover, no one will get in his way and try to obstruct or prevent him from doing so. There are, in short, many good arguments for controlled and limited immigration. Migration in both directions is a natural part of an open economy; and there are many immigrants who are valuable to both the the economy of the UK and to its society in general.


BUT, if massive numbers of immigrants come in simultaneously the process of assimilation is impossible. People will simply not integrate, rather they will gather in isolated enclaves and form solitudes with their backs turned on each other and you will end up with a situation where a large parts of the population do not encounter other parts of the population in any realistically integratory manner. This is what has happened in England in towns like Dunstable and Luton where at least 90% of the population are Muslim immigrant. These immigrants have not integrated at all into mainstream British society and have effectively zero contact with any other groups of people in the population.


Rapid mass immigration is also damaging because few immigrants tend to be rich, they will tend to come and live in the poorer areas of the cities. Here they will experience coming into contact with the poorer native inhabitants, the kind of people who are not terribly interested in the fact that a funky, new restaurant has just opened around the corner, or that you can hire nannies cheaply. Rather, what they see in many cases is simply competition for their jobs.


Large numbers of immigrants also inevitably put pressure on government housing, education, healthcare (the NHS), public transport, Welfare, social services and so on, which means that everyone is slightly worse off, and this inevitably causes resentment. Between 1997 and 2010 were , in fact, increasingly pushed to breaking point, the annual Welfare bill rocketed to a monumental $200 billion Pounds (contrary to the fashionable Left - wing mythology about lazy Britons, migrants were now more likely to be the claimants), violent crime rose, incidents of gang warfare between rival ethnic/racial groups became a serious issue for the police, as did domestic terrorism, Islamic Sharia law courts operated with impunity in Muslim- majority regions of England and Britain became an increasingly fractured, fragmented and divided society due the Blair's fervent promotion of multiculturalism.

Yet another problem caused by mass immigration in the UK is that many people no longer feel at home in their own areas/neighbourhoods. You may laugh, but I think it not very funny when you're an old person who lives alone (now that their family have all moved out, etc.) in a poor area where they grew up up in, to find that bit by bit that area where you were raised is no longer recognisable. I think this is a serious problem - it hurts people - and I think it's something that we should try to avoid.


BREXIT - DEFENDING THE GREATEST CULTURE THE HUMAN RACE HAS EVER PRODUCED


Brexit was a revolt staged by the folk of regional England, it was an English emotion fuelled by English votes. In all honesty we should not be speaking of "BREXIT", because what happened in the referendum was "EXIT" These people wanted to stop the mass immigration of non- Western foreigners into the UK. Part of the reason was economic, the mass influx of cheap labour was lowering wages and hurting millions of native English who were members of the working class. Another important reason was that the rapid influx of mass numbers of non-Western European immigrants meant the migrants arriving could not assimilate into British society. Rather they tended to form, as I mentioned above, isolated enclaves/"solitudes" and did not meaningfully interact in any way with the mainstream native population. Within these immigrant enclaves immigrant continued to practice their own customs, laws cultural traditions and social mores, making no attempt to adopt those of their new home, the UK, which are Western in nature.

To be continued (in the next installment I will prove using the appropriate, official demographic statistics that Ameria has already sown the seeds of it own destruct and will collapse into a 3rd world nation in in 150 to 200 years time

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7655
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sat Mar 23, 2019 8:37 pm

It's not just a 'left wing' thing. In fact it's the so-called 'neo-liberal' Govts. that love lax immigration policies--cheap immigrant labour is good for their Big Business buddies. It's all about money.
There are the wealthy immigrants who buy up every business they can get their hands on then only employ their own (some supermarkets here are staffed almost exclusively by Indians, in areas where statistically Indians still only account for about 5 percent of the population). There are numerous different kinds of immigrants whose reasons for emigrating are many and varied. Wealthy white South Africans are coming here in droves to escape majority rule in SA. Chinese come here to buy up swathes of realestate as a way to 'launder' their money. Poor immigrants come here to work, being told that the people here are 'too lazy' to do just about any job you can think of, while the reality is that they are being brought here to work for peanuts (and given Govt. housing when our own homeless population is going through the roof--if they had a roof). But naturally it's 'Politically Sound' to insult the existing population in this way (it's not a 'protected group').
This is all just social evolution. The country that people flocked here to be (have a) part of no longer exists (typical of the stupid irony of humans--they see something appealing, want it, and then it's gone because too many people wanted it).
And of course there are the refugees, people who are fleeing their beloved homelands because arsehole places like unGreat Britian and the United Arses of A have bombed their own countries to smithereens.
Inevitably people will be upset and unsettled by these massive changes that have occurred within a very short space of time. Forced change is difficult for many people to cope with, especially when they no longer recognise their home or even feel part of it. So you end up with extreme acts of brutality from extreme types of people (like NZ's deplorable mosque shooting (incidentally perpetrated by a feral Australian arsehole) ).
Who knows where it's all heading? Politicians have been prepared to gamble on their countries' future and resources for the sake of a quick buck and 'economic growth' (always a trusty buzz phrase) so we have no choice but to 'suck it up' and see what the future holds (I imagine not a lot, with global warming snowballing, and diminishing resources (unless a convenient war 'just happens' to come along at the 'right time') ).

Odd though, that we are told that we need mass immigration in order to function properly and 'thrive' (how did we manage before?), yet many of the richest countries in the world have little to no immigration. You don't hear the PC deriding Japan as 'racist', or see the UN ordering it to take more immigrants and refugees. I wonder what percentage of China's population is Arab or Somalian muslims.

This is quite interesting:

''There is a sizeable community of black Africans primarily concentrated in Guangzhou, China. Since the country's late 1990s economic boom, thousands of African traders and businesspeople predominantly from West Africa[2] migrated to the city of Guangzhou, creating an "Africatown" in the middle of the southern Chinese metropolis of approximately 10 km2. The primarily male population often set up local businesses and also engage in international trade.
According to official statistics of the PRC government, the number of Africans in Guangzhou has increased by 30-40% each year, and now form the largest black community in Asia.[3] However, as many have overstayed their visas, official figures may be understated. Estimates vary on the number of Africans living in Guangzhou: from 20,000 to over 200,000.[4] This has led to controversies and anger by the local community due to rumors of increasing numbers of crimes, including rape, fraud, robberies and drug dealing committed by Africans.[4] Huang Shiding of the Guangzhou Institute of Social Sciences estimates the number of permanent residents of foreign nationality (six months and above) to be around 50,000, of which some 20,000 are of African origin.''



How ironic and 'racist' of the people of Guangzhou to complain about this. Don't they know that we are all human, and there is no difference, either cultural or otherwise, between humans?(Yeah right).

gaffo
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by gaffo » Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:57 am

Dachshund wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 7:57 pm
I agree with the German philosopher of history, Oswald Spengler who predicted that around the year 2000, The West, (by which I mean the nations of America, the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Western nations of Continental Europe, including France, Holland Germany and on, considered as that totality we call Western Civilisation) would start to enter a phase of cultural decline. He prophesied that around this time The West would experience a kind of "pre-death emergency" which would need be countered by "Caesarism", that is, the rule of political "Caesar"- a strongman who seized power, then led a political administration where an extra-constitutional, omnipotent executive branch of government controlled all affairs of the State. Spengler described "Caesarism" as being a kind of "socialism" in the sense that all persons in the polis would be synergized into a happy and harmonious totality by a dictator/"Caesar" who would be, metaphorically speaking, like a conductor synergizing all of the different instruments in a large symphony orchestra into musical harmony.


The way I see it, Spengler was pretty much on the money, because In 2016 Donald Trump was elected President of the The West's most powerful nation, America, and although Trump does not LITERALLY, EXACTLY match the portrait Spengler sketched of his predicted "Caesar", Trump's political style, personality and world-view are - and I am sure Spengler would agree- definitely very "Caesar-like". As you will recall, 2016 was an extraordinary tumultous year in Western politics. First we had BREXIT - a remarkable people's revolt grounded regional England which saw the the UK bail itself OUT of the European Union. No one had believed it could happen: none of the British bookmakers, none of the expert political pundits, none of the national newspapers, not even Nigel Farage himself who had said when he was asked by a TV journalist how he felt the referendum would go, just before the polls were opened on the 23rd of June, 2016: "I think we might get close, but I don't think we can win it." Second, we had the election of the political outsider, businessman Donald Trump, as the 45th President of the United States; from the moment he entered the fray and began to campaign, NOBODY gave Trump a chance of winning; all of America's most experienced and respected political experts and all the media's political commentariat, (not to mention millions of smug Democrat faithful) were absolutely stunned when he defeated Hilary Clinton.


I believe that BREXIT and the election of Donald Trump as American President were not merely coincidental events but rather they had some critical,
features and causal factors in common, namely: (1) These events took place in two major Western democracies; the US is the most powerful Western country and the UK is arguably the second most powerful nation in The West; (2) The primary cause of these events was fall - out from MASS IMMIGRATION policy implemented by the political Left: Tony Blair's "New Labour" in the UK and Democrat President Lyndon Johnson's "Immigration and Naturalization Act" of 1965 in the US, and (3) The overwhelming majority of individuals who voted for BREXIT in the UK, and for Trump as to become President of the United States in 2016, were persons of white European (e.g. Anglo-Saxon, Germanic) descent.


LET'S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT WHAT CAUSED "BREXIT"...ENGLISH ANGER OVER MASS IMMIGRATION


"BREXIT" would not have happened were it not for the anger felt by English nationalists in the UK anger at years of uncontrolled mass immigration into their communities. Immigration was the political issue that won the day for Nigel Farage ,the leader of UKIP ( the "United Kingdom Immigration Party") who was successful in organising a referendum in 2016 ( the "BREXIT" referendum) on the membership of the UK to the European Union (EU). Whether it was immigration from Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary or any of the other 10 former communist bloc nations now in the EC, or immigration from Muslim countries, Sub-Saharan African countries or other non-white majority 3rd -world nations , as far as the native folk of regional England were concerned there was far too much of it going on in their "back yard", they were very angry and they wanted it stopped immediately.


I joined the British Conservative Party in the mid-1990's, and I can still remember doing some "door- knocking" in my Constituency for the Tories in the run-up the the 1997 General Election. I had decided to lend a hand and do my bit for the Tory cause, as things were looking pretty grim that autumn for then Prime Minister John Major, and I was a big fan of "Citizen John".Anyway, on election day, 1st May, 1997, the Tories suffered the worst electoral defeat by a ruling party Britain since 1832 ! Tony Blair was the new Prime Minister. I knew from the moment the Conservatives conceded defeat on election night, that the incoming Leftist/socialist "New Labour" government of Tony Blair would be a disaster and it was in a number of ways, though in this In this post, I will only be looking at the issue of of Blair's (multiculturalist) immigration policy and how it subsequently influenced outcome of the UK's "BREXIT" referendum of 2016.


Farage's UKIP Party won the 2016 referendum, a majority of UK citizens voted for the UK to leave the European Union and the result is referred to as "BREXIT" ( BRitish EXIT). I mentioned above that immigration was the key issue that drove the result, though before I continue I would like to qualify that remark. Persons who voted for the UK to leave the EU are called "Brexiteers", and the "Brexiteers" were predominantly English nationalists, that is, English folk who felt strongly attached to their English identity and proud of their Englishness (their English language, history, traditional culture, institutions, customs, social mores, etc). A post-referendum research investigation found that of those voters who chose the highest value for English identity on a 7 - point scale, over 70% voted to leave the EU. Conversely, over 80% amongst those who only emphasise their Englishness slightly ( 2 on a 7 - point scale) voted for the UK to remain in the European Union. Thus national identity was, it seems, the most powerful factor in the "BREXIT" referendum, but it is rarely discussed to to the same extent as questions of socio-economic class, level of education or even age, despite the fact the divide is much more dramatic and cuts across all the different socio-economic groups in the population. For these people - the English who felt deeply attached to their identity and an overwhelming desire to preserve their sovereignty, I think their view of the essentially uncontrolled mass immigration into England of migrants from non-white and/or non - Western European nations that had taken place between 1997 and 2010 under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown's "New Labour" administrations, was that it was wholly unacceptable and as it constituted a clear and serious threat to their English identity/sovereignty. (I will explain why in more detail below).

So, in sum, I think that immigration was the key issue that motivated the "Brexiteers" vote for the UK to leave the European Union, but it is also important to acknowledge that this was the case because the mass immigration into England they had witnessed over recent years was viewed as a threat to the identity of millions of voters who were proud and passionate English nationalists. Put simply they saw that their English identity (their love of their English culture, history, language, customs, institutions social manners mores, moral values, and religion, etc) were under attack and they voted to have the multicultural project terminated.


BLAIR'S MASS IMMIGRATION CONSPIRACY


Tony Blair and his so-called "New Labour" government were in power from 1997 to 2007, Blair resigned in 2007 and he was replaced by Gordon Brown who was Prime Minister of the "New Labour" government until he was defeated in the 2010 General Election. During the period 1997 to 2010 while New Labour were in power, net immigration into the UK quadrupled and the population of the UK was boosted by 5.4 million, plus another estimated million "undocumented" illegals. This mass immigration proved to be a catastrophe and it is Blair who is chiefly responsible for the whole mess. In 2010, even his favourite progressive think = tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) commented, "It's no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country for ever."


Thanks to the public revelations of Andrew Neather - a speech writer and government adviser during the Blair years who worked both for Blair himself in Downing Street and for two high-ranking government ministers: Jack Straw (Foreign Secretary) and David Blunkett (Education and Employment Secretary) in the Home Office - we now know the truth of how and why this unprecedented, mass influx if immigrants into the UK took place under Blair's government.


Neather has publicly revealed that the plan to open Britain's borders to mass immigration was chiefly politically motivated; an attempt by Ministers to help engineer a "truly multicultural" country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity" :shock: . Neather said that Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up" the UK to mass immigration, but that ministers were nervous about it and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would "alienate its core working class vote."


Due to this, the public argument for immigration was deceitfully concentrated instead on the economic benefits and the need for more migrants. Gordon Brown's Treasury adopted the view that a high level of immigration made economic growth look good and it would help to keep wages low and, therefore, inflation down. There is no doubt, as well, that the employer's organisations were privately encouraging a supply of cheap labour which was good for profits, regardless of its effects on society. Blair was clearly not concerned at the how the effect mass immigration would have in lowering wages would impact on the livelihoods of those native Britons living in the poorer, working class neighbourhoods of the UK.


In 2000, it turned out there was a "major shift" in immigration policy after the publication of a policy paper that came from the PIU (Performance and Innovation Unit), a Downing Street "think tank". Neather said he wrote a major speech for the then immigration minister in 2000 that was largely based on this PIU report. He said the final, published version of the report promoted the labour market case. However, earlier drafts had also included a driving political purpose: "that mass immigration was the way the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural."


Another major factor was the attitude of the Left - leaning BBC, and, in particular, its devotion to multiculturalism. For years, it avoided discussing immigration if it possibly could. Although in the autumn of 2005, for instance, official statistics for the previous year showed an increase of 50% in net immigration, there was no mention of this on the BBC. Its own report into impartiality, published in June 2007, concluded that its coverage of immigration amounted to bias by omission. In December of 2010 the corporation's Director - General admitted: "There are some areas, immigration,business and Europe, where the BBC has historically been rather weak and rather nervous about letting that entire debate happen" (!!). The net effect was to deter any discussion of immigration and give plenty of space to the Left to accuse anyone who raised the subject of being a covert racist. On this matter the BBC failed to meet its own standards of objectivity.


So, in short, the huge meteoric increases in immigration that took place under Tony Blair's Labour government were part of a planned, and essentially clandestine political conspiracy, one whose foremost objective was to promote multiculturalism in the UK by stealth (i.e; by deceiving the British public into believing that increased immigration was needed to strengthen/boost the national economy) and thereby destroy forever that which was culturally British.


WHY BLAIR'S POLICY OF MASS IMMIGRATION IN THE UK WAS A CATASTROPHE


In the West, anyone who is a Conservative knows that in politics, a government that sets about impetuously making large, sudden/swift changes to the existing status quo, is behaving foolishly in the extreme and courting disaster. Conservatives respect and revere the status quo for the fact it embodies those traditional customs, institutions, social norms, moral principles, pearls of wisdom, intellectual accomplishments and other valuable achievements of our Western culture which have endured the harsh vicissitudes of countless centuries and survived. These principles come to us having been found good and life-affirming by dint of human experience and experiment over 1000 years of Western civilisation. Conservatives accept that the status quo cannot remain rigid and "frozen", that it will from time to time need to be reformed; BUT, any changes that are made by government reforms must always be made very gradually and should be kept as small in scale as is possible under the circumstances, whatever they may be..


The political Left in the modern West thumbs it nose at this advice. They believe, when they are in power, that a moral obligation exists for them to carry out ongoing radical, - even revolutionary -, reforms of the status quo, because PROGRESS ! PROGRESS ! PROGRESS! means making lots of big, bold CHANGES ! CHANGES! CHANGES! and this is what we must strive with all our might to do in order to ultimately achieve a perfect utopia (of universal love, peace, tolerance, justice etc;) for all mankind. Of course, there is no such thing as utopia, and this kind of thinking is merely the symptom of a diseased mind. Voltaire, Helvetius, Robert Owen, Charles Fourier Henri de Saint - Simon, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio - Cortes, etc. With the exception of Ocasio Cortes the 28 year old US socialist who is just plain dumb (low IQ), most of the other notable socialist and communist utopians ( NB: some scholars deny that Marx and Engels were egalitarian utopists, but that is no true, and if anyone is interested I can briefly explain why in a separate post) were intelligent, well-read men who all write some very high quality political rhetoric. Their problem is that they were self-deluded, or if you like they were afflicted with what a modern-day Western psychiatrist would call a "Delusional Disorder."


Briefly, the famous social and communist egalitarian utopists listed above, as well as their like-minded fellow-travellers in the general public oftoday's modern Western societies are deluded because:


(1) Egalitarianism is a false philosophical (ethical) doctrine. The best known example of egalitarianism today is that moral egalitarianism which is expressed in the form of the claim that "all men are created equal". This mean created equal in the sense they they are all innately endowed with an equal portion/allocation/measure of moral value or worth that is typically called "dignity". So, in short, the claim is made that all men are equal in dignity and thus they are therefore (logically) equally entitled to, for example, the human rights that are listed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNUDHR).


The problem is that all human beings do not possess this equal measure of moral worth/vale/"dignity that the moral egalitarian theorists say they do. Their claim is merely the presumption of an assumption that to this day has never been theoretically justified by any expert philosopher/s who specialises in ethics or axiology. And this, BTW, is not for want of trying; indeed, the very best and brightest of these intellectuals have tried long and hard to come up with a rational justification for moral egalitarianism but to date they have ALL failed.


Not only is moral egalitarian a false thesis, but so too is the notion that a genuinely equalitarian (where "equal" is taken to mean "the same" or "identical") society could ever be created when it is painfully obvious - even to youngsters ! - that human beings differ tremendously in terms of their individual characteristics like: intelligence (IQ), wisdom, personality traits (like the "Big 5" personality traits, for instance), social class, general mental health; physiology, anatomy (bone density, lean muscle mass, visual acuity, physical strength, height, weight, etc.) behaviour and so on. Any politician who sincerely believes that by enacting "progressive" legislation to: reform education; eliminate class and other social inequalities; stamp out social injustices; provide absolutely equal housing, healthcare, education and welfare provision for all; abolish the exploitation of the marginalised by abandoning free-market capitalism promote multicultural diversity throughout society, etc; all with a view to progressing toward some kind of egalitarian utopia where all of humanity will be living in world that is perfectly peaceful, universally just, saturated with love, kindness, tolerance, mutual respect and consideration, and where all men are men of "good will" is living in Cloud Cookoo land.



THE PROBLEM WITH BLAIR''S PROGRAM OF RAPID MASS IMMIGRATION INTO THE UK



I want to make it clear that I think immigration is a good thing, generally, PROVIDED that there is a chance for immigrants to integrate. Integration into a Western nation like the US or the UK is perfectly possible. If a person from Poland or Hungry or say an African or Hispanic country comes to live in England as an individual, (and s/he is generally doing so in order to better their prospects in life) wants to bring up children and start a family, and go to work and do all of the other typical things that people do, in time s/he will learn the language, the customs, the laws and will become pretty much British. Moreover, no one will get in his way and try to obstruct or prevent him from doing so. There are, in short, many good arguments for controlled and limited immigration. Migration in both directions is a natural part of an open economy; and there are many immigrants who are valuable to both the the economy of the UK and to its society in general.


BUT, if massive numbers of immigrants come in simultaneously the process of assimilation is impossible. People will simply not integrate, rather they will gather in isolated enclaves and form solitudes with their backs turned on each other and you will end up with a situation where a large parts of the population do not encounter other parts of the population in any realistically integratory manner. This is what has happened in England in towns like Dunstable and Luton where at least 90% of the population are Muslim immigrant. These immigrants have not integrated at all into mainstream British society and have effectively zero contact with any other groups of people in the population.


Rapid mass immigration is also damaging because few immigrants tend to be rich, they will tend to come and live in the poorer areas of the cities. Here they will experience coming into contact with the poorer native inhabitants, the kind of people who are not terribly interested in the fact that a funky, new restaurant has just opened around the corner, or that you can hire nannies cheaply. Rather, what they see in many cases is simply competition for their jobs.


Large numbers of immigrants also inevitably put pressure on government housing, education, healthcare (the NHS), public transport, Welfare, social services and so on, which means that everyone is slightly worse off, and this inevitably causes resentment. Between 1997 and 2010 were , in fact, increasingly pushed to breaking point, the annual Welfare bill rocketed to a monumental $200 billion Pounds (contrary to the fashionable Left - wing mythology about lazy Britons, migrants were now more likely to be the claimants), violent crime rose, incidents of gang warfare between rival ethnic/racial groups became a serious issue for the police, as did domestic terrorism, Islamic Sharia law courts operated with impunity in Muslim- majority regions of England and Britain became an increasingly fractured, fragmented and divided society due the Blair's fervent promotion of multiculturalism.

Yet another problem caused by mass immigration in the UK is that many people no longer feel at home in their own areas/neighbourhoods. You may laugh, but I think it not very funny when you're an old person who lives alone (now that their family have all moved out, etc.) in a poor area where they grew up up in, to find that bit by bit that area where you were raised is no longer recognisable. I think this is a serious problem - it hurts people - and I think it's something that we should try to avoid.


BREXIT - DEFENDING THE GREATEST CULTURE THE HUMAN RACE HAS EVER PRODUCED


Brexit was a revolt staged by the folk of regional England, it was an English emotion fuelled by English votes. In all honesty we should not be speaking of "BREXIT", because what happened in the referendum was "EXIT" These people wanted to stop the mass immigration of non- Western foreigners into the UK. Part of the reason was economic, the mass influx of cheap labour was lowering wages and hurting millions of native English who were members of the working class. Another important reason was that the rapid influx of mass numbers of non-Western European immigrants meant the migrants arriving could not assimilate into British society. Rather they tended to form, as I mentioned above, isolated enclaves/"solitudes" and did not meaningfully interact in any way with the mainstream native population. Within these immigrant enclaves immigrant continued to practice their own customs, laws cultural traditions and social mores, making no attempt to adopt those of their new home, the UK, which are Western in nature.

To be continued (in the next installment I will prove using the appropriate, official demographic statistics that Ameria has already sown the seeds of it own destruct and will collapse into a 3rd world nation in in 150 to 200 years time
all empires fall - all have the day in the sun, then fall.

its now time for America' sun to set.

deal with it.

China will be the next world empire for the next 2 centuries - an empire ruled by non-whites.

deal with that reality,

unlike you, i'm an humanist and though not happy that America will become the next Britain, do not fear it either. Chinese are just as human as i am, though not white (shocking! concept i'm sure for a White Supremist).

world will contine to rotate, life with continue on as before, and yes China will rule the world until the next now unscene empire will inherit the earth.

Dachshund
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by Dachshund » Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:57 am

Gaffo,

You think you understand human nature, right Gaffo?

Sorry to tell you this, dude, but you don't.

But because I'm such a nice guy, I'll tell you a really good way to start educating yourself. That is, get yourself a one-way ticket to let's, say, Johannesberg ( where the blacks have declared open season on whitey) or Iraq/Syria, where a warm- welcome awaits each and every white Yankee "Kafir" (like you !) for a 6- month holiday in the sun. You might like to try Japan as well, maybe hangout in Tokyo for a while (the Japanese JUST LOVE WESTERERS visiting their island !

You idiot

Regards

Dachshund

gaffo
Posts: 1904
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by gaffo » Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:04 am

Dachshund wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:57 am
Gaffo,

You think you understand human nature, right Gaffo?

Sorry to tell you this, dude, but you don't.

But because I'm such a nice guy, I'll tell you a really good way to start educating yourself. That is, get yourself a one-way ticket to let's, say, Johannesberg ( where the blacks have declared open season on whitey) or Iraq/Syria, where a warm- welcome awaits each and every white Yankee "Kafir" (like you !) for a 6- month holiday in the sun. You might like to try Japan as well, maybe hangout in Tokyo for a while (the Japanese JUST LOVE WESTERERS visiting their island !

You idiot

Regards

Dachshund
look forward in fear Bubba, history is clear, all empires fall.

the Yellow Man's empire is next.

fear fear fear, for they are not like you - not white nor men - fear fear fear.

your fears ensure your future will not be one of peace.

goodbye Bubba - i bet you look good in a white sheet. in fact i know you do.

now go to your KKK meeting down the street, they are wondering why you are not at the meeting.

Dachshund
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by Dachshund » Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:46 am

gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:57 am


unlike you, i'm an humanist and though not happy that America will become the next Britain, do not fear it either. Chinese are just as human as i am, though not white (shocking! concept i'm sure for a White Supremist).

world will contine to rotate, life with continue on as before, and yes China will rule the world until the next now unscene empire will inherit the earth.

You don't geddit, Gaffo. I was pointing out that what happened in Britain was bad; Blair's policy of mass-immigration was suicidal, but Britain is still (thank God! thank God!) a strong ,white majority nation. They have learned their lesson and the current government has implement VERY strict clampdowns on immigration policy.

America on the other hand is "walking dead" in terms of being a genuinely Western country. Whites of European descent will be a demographic minority in the US by 2042. After that the black, Asian and Hispanic members of the US population will begin to rapidly out-breed the White/Europeans. And ,as they say, "Demography is Destiny", Gaffo. Do you really think Black Americans or Mexicans or Chinese have any sincere love for Western culture? Do you think they give a flying fuck about the contents of America's Constitution or its Bill of Rights? Documents, that were drafted by 18th WASPS who explicitly argued that America should always remain white; do you think they will make any effort to conserve America's traditional institutions (legal, educational, political etc), culture and social mores (respectful, polite behaviour in public, good manners on display at all times blacks don't understand the concept of civilised behaviour and why it is so vitally important in any society that is worth living in) !!

Imagine America (the Western nation) is like the Roman Empire. Do you remember what happened after the fall of the Roman Empire ? Right- a dark age fell across Europe for centuries wherein barbarians and thugs ran riot. That's what will happen in the US, unless something radical is done right now, and to tell you the truth, I can't see it taking place.

Regards

Dachshund

PS (Don't ever write England off, Gaffo, Hitler made that mistake in 1940. England will defend its White Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage with every atom of strength it has. It will fight tooth and claw and to the bitter end before it allows savages to over run "Jerusalem".

It was primarily the traditional Anglo-Saxon/modern era English cultural heritage that the Founding Fathers took with them to create the American Republic in 1776 ( consider the role of the Magna Carta and English Common Law in American law, for instance.

RULE BRITANNIA !!!!

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11622
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by Arising_uk » Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:54 pm

Dachshund wrote:... Imagine America (the Western nation) is like the Roman Empire. Do you remember what happened after the fall of the Roman Empire ? Right- a dark age fell across Europe for centuries wherein barbarians and thugs ran riot. ...
:lol: :lol: You mean like the Saxons, Angles and Jutes?

Like most simpletons you don't appear to understand that the term 'dark age' refers to a lack of recorded history about the time.

Still, you're just here to troll aren't you poochie, woof woof eh! Why did you come back yet again?

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7655
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:02 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:54 pm
Dachshund wrote:... Imagine America (the Western nation) is like the Roman Empire. Do you remember what happened after the fall of the Roman Empire ? Right- a dark age fell across Europe for centuries wherein barbarians and thugs ran riot. ...
:lol: :lol: You mean like the Saxons, Angles and Jutes?

Like most simpletons you don't appear to understand that the term 'dark age' refers to a lack of recorded history about the time.

Still, you're just here to troll aren't you poochie, woof woof eh! Why did you come back yet again?
He obviously hasn't heard of Charlemagne.

Dubious
Posts: 2050
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by Dubious » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:35 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:46 am
RULE BRITANNIA !!!!
That was long ago when Britain ruled those who were far less technologically advanced; they created their empire by picking on those who lacked the technology which Britain possessed along with most of Europe. When facing a major European power as advanced as themselves like Germany, that's when they had to plead in both World Wars for the Americans to help them out...or maybe you don't know that history.

Britain only ruled those who had far less capacity to defend themselves.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7655
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:09 pm

Dubious wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:35 pm
Dachshund wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:46 am
RULE BRITANNIA !!!!
That was long ago when Britain ruled those who were far less technologically advanced; they created their empire by picking on those who lacked the technology which Britain possessed along with most of Europe. When facing a major European power as advanced as themselves like Germany, that's when they had to plead in both World Wars for the Americans to help them out...or maybe you don't know that history.

Britain only ruled those who had far less capacity to defend themselves.
just as the US has been doing for about three quarters of a century.

HexHammer
Posts: 3123
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by HexHammer » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:12 pm

There will soon be civil war.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11622
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by Arising_uk » Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:59 am

Dubious wrote:When facing a major European power as advanced as themselves like Germany, that's when they had to plead in both World Wars for the Americans to help them out...or maybe you don't know that history. ...
Well them and 20,000,000 dead Soviets.
Britain only ruled those who had far less capacity to defend themselves.
What's new?

Dubious
Posts: 2050
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by Dubious » Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:42 am

Dubious wrote:When facing a major European power as advanced as themselves like Germany, that's when they had to plead in both World Wars for the Americans to help them out...or maybe you don't know that history.
Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:59 am
Well them and 20,000,000 dead Soviets.
Is that all! Clearly anything Hitler could do Stalin could do better. That's why he was so valuable to both Churchill and Roosevelt.
Dubious wrote:Britain only ruled those who had far less capacity to defend themselves.
Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:59 am
What's new?
...nothing! Except the nostalgia for the good old times when singing Rule Britannia really meant something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgd9nYqVz2s

...and a damn good patriotic song it is!

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7655
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:37 am

Dubious wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:42 am
Dubious wrote:When facing a major European power as advanced as themselves like Germany, that's when they had to plead in both World Wars for the Americans to help them out...or maybe you don't know that history.
Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:59 am
Well them and 20,000,000 dead Soviets.
Is that all! Clearly anything Hitler could do Stalin could do better. That's why he was so valuable to both Churchill and Roosevelt.
Dubious wrote:Britain only ruled those who had far less capacity to defend themselves.
Arising_uk wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:59 am
What's new?
...nothing! Except the nostalgia for the good old times when singing Rule Britannia really meant something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgd9nYqVz2s

...and a damn good patriotic song it is!
Not many muslims in the crowd.

Dachshund
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: HOW MASS IMMIGRATION WILL DESTROY THE WEST

Post by Dachshund » Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:59 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:09 pm
Dubious wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:35 pm
Dachshund wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:46 am
RULE BRITANNIA !!!!
That was long ago when Britain ruled those who were far less technologically advanced; they created their empire by picking on those who lacked the technology which Britain possessed along with most of Europe. When facing a major European power as advanced as themselves like Germany, that's when they had to plead in both World Wars for the Americans to help them out...or maybe you don't know that history.

Britain only ruled those who had far less capacity to defend themselves.
just as the US has been doing for about three quarters of a century.
What I know buddy is that everything that was ever civilised in the US was exported there from England "right from the word go". Every scientific/technological idea, every cultural , moral intellectual standard and achievement. The US became powerful, simply because it was founded on a large area of resource-rich land (i.e. dumb luck). Don't ever forget that the American Republic was founded by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants : since 1776 all of its institutions (educational, legal, political, religious) all of its cultural traditions and values all of its social mores have essentially been English. That's all unravelling now, civilised society in the US is disintegrating FAST. The end result will be a dystopian landscape, are hunted down like dogs.

I know that England held out in 1940 during the Battle of Britain against all odds when the RAF was HEAVILY outnumbered by Goering's incoming Messerschmits (ME- 109's). Had the RAF lost the "Battle of Britain" Hitler would certainly have launched an amphibious/airbourne invasion of England ("Operation Sealion". The "Battle of Britain" was the first major German defeat of WW2 , and it proved to be a turning point in the war. Britain was isolated and stood alone against Hitler after the fall of France in 1940.

Churchill called the period of time from the fall of France (22 June 1940) "our darkest hour" to the axis invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 "our darkest hour". In particular "the darkest hour" refers to the time that Britain was at great risk of invasion , between the evacuation of the BEF from Dunkirk and victory in the Battle of Britain" (31 October 1940).

I am surprised that while the war in Europe had been raging since September 1939, the US did not enter the conflict until after Pearl Harbour in December 1941. When the war erupted in Poland in 1939, the Americans wanted nothing to do with it. FDR's isolationist policy was a consequence of public opinion, the American people did not want to become involved in any major foreign entanglements on account of lingering memories of the many US soldiers lost in WW1 and also the ongoing grief many were suffering on account of the Great Depression.

I have, I must say, always found FDR's refusal to join the allies at the start of WW2, selfish and short-sighted. The reason is that America was, quite literally, created by England; and everything decent, worthwhile and successful in the US has always, since 1776, had its roots in English thinking, English ideas, English morality and English history. England and America were always like blood brothers - kin ! So why did FDR turn his back on America's dearest friend, England, when the chips were down for Churchill? I find FDR's " Sorry, not our problem, you'll have to sort it out yourself, mate" attitude difficult to justify, in particular, as it was evident that Hitler was a extremely dangerous psychopath who, did indeed, have the military strength to carry out his maniacal plans. As it happened, FDR got a wake-up call on 7th December 1941, when the Japanese launched an unprovoked, unannounced attack on Pearl Harbour. The attack killed some 2,500 US servicemen and wounded a further 1,200. FDR declared war on the Axis the very next morning.

Don't get me wrong, the West owes a great debt of gratitude - one it can never repay - to all of the GIs who fought (and in many cases, tragically lost their lives) pushing back the AXIS in the European and the Pacific theatres. If it weren't for America, Australia (where I grew up as a young man) would have been invaded by the Japs (that means raped, murdered, starved, imprisoned, etc) because that's the kind of treatment The Japanese Imperial Army dished out to any enemies they managed to conquer. Uncle Sam and his GI's saved our skin BIG TIME. A lot of the fighting the Americans were involved in against the Japanese in the Pacific was absolutely ferocious - unimaginably brutal and desperate.( I've watched a lot of footage of it and I can tell you, its like looking into Hell.) When they were beaten, General Hideki Tojo , the head of the Japanese army was interrogated and insisted that Japan had no plan to invade Australia - lying bastard (!). I don't trust any Japanese to this day; most Japs would cut your head off as soon as look at you . They let NO ONE and I mean NO ONE immigrate to Japan, because they don't want their "superior" culture diluted. (But no one on the Left in America has called them out for racism ?) Fair enough, but Japanese culture is not superior. Western culture is the world's objectively superior culture; the Japs should've realised that when they got nuked in 1945.

When you say "just as the US has been doing for about three quarter of a century."

The only foreign military entanglements the US have become involved in, with the exception of the "Gulf War" and the fight against ISIS in Iraq/ Syria etc; have been those that we necessary to put down communist insurrections (sponsored the Red China or the Soviet Union) during the Cold War, which I think was very admirable of Uncle Sam. Vietnam was on such conflict, and BTW the US won the war in Vietnam in 1972, but the moderators deleted a recent post of mine wherein I proved this, because they said the particular issue was "Political" and not to do with the "Philosophy of Politics" (?) Anyway, as for the "Gulf War" (1) Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant. He killed over a million of his own people, and often in the most gruesome of ways. As for the question of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). After 9/11 people in the West, and especially the US, were "kinda touchy" about the idea of militant Muslim/Arab despots holding stocks of WMD. Why? Because radical, militant Muslims have, by definition, got "shit for brains" and would not hesitate to fire Nukes, say, if they had them, at the US (you know, because the Koran said it was what I should do, man). You have to remember that the vast majority of these people are, as Trump, rightly observed, "animals". I mean someone like Assad who intentionally dumps SARIN nerve gas on a crowd of children in Syria is not really a human being. I saw a very long interview between a BBC (i.e; leftist) journalist and Tony Blair not long ago. Blair repeatedly insisted that as far as he knew the intelligence reports saying Saddam Hussein was harbouring WMD were true. With respect to the veracity of the intelligence that he received, Blair said that, in the period before the Gulf War was actually launched he had consulted with every relevant government and private expert in the field he could possibly find, and in each case he was told that the intelligence re WMD in Iraq looked very much like it was sound. Now, either Blair has been repeatedly lying through his teeth for 20 odd years about all of this, or he hasn't. I KNOW that politicians are renowned for lying. Its just that studying Blair's face, body language, speech patterns, etc; during this interview I came to the conclusion that he was telling the truth. As for George Bush, I've never seen him grilled by journalists about this matter ?

That's all for now Regards

Dachshund
Last edited by Dachshund on Wed Apr 17, 2019 6:44 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests