RSS
From the New York Times:
Britain Is an Immigrant Nation
By RACHEL SHABI MARCH 9, 2017
Not until recently.
This is the kind of thing we can get hard statistics on these days through genome analysis, and the weight of evidence suggests that Britain’s population in 1950 was very heavily descended from its population in 1100.
Of course, Ms. Shabi’s definition of “immigrant” is as broad as Led Zeppelin’s:
In a larger way, of course, the very story of Britain has always been one of migrants. Poke around behind Britain’s currently rigid surface of chauvinism and a composite picture emerges — of Romans, Vikings, Celts, Normans, Jews, Indians, Chinese, Africans and more.
Actually, Britain has traditionally been an Emigrant Nation, with Brits settling large swathes of the world.
Who is Rachel Shabi, you might ask? She is the author of We Look Like the Enemy: The Hidden Story of Israel’s Jews from Arab Lands.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
There’s barely a word that Rachel Sharmi has written that couldn’t come from the keyboard of Opinionator of silviosilver. She’s objectively alt-right.
Her gaylord book is all about how Mizrahi Jews would be living peaceful lives in prosperous Arab edens if teh Zionism hadn’t come and turned them into a low IQ population, then brainwashed them into voting Likud, or something.
I’m surprised she doesn’t have a blog on Unz to be honest.
https://ukmediawatch.org/2012/06/07/the-stunning-moral-failure-of-the-anti-zionist-left-rachel-shabi-compares-israel-to-european-fascists/
Ashkenazi Jews will go back to Europe and North America, Russian Jews will go back to Russia, but where will the Mizrahi go?Replies: @Romanian
I remember being very surprised. Why would any Jew travel to Iran for ANY reason when Iran was full of exterminationist Muslims?
But I was also surprised that poor Cuban "refugees" in the US regularly flew back and forth to Cuba ... passing through Mexico to avoid the US government ban on travel to Cuba.
As the man said, "It's complicated."
Indeed:
Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Angloworld
by James Belich
They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America
https://www.amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTfjv_wFBWs&t=712sReplies: @syonredux
Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Angloworld
by James Belichhttps://www.amazon.com/Replenishing-Earth-Settler-Revolution-Angloworld/dp/0199604541Replies: @syonredux, @utu
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/visit/floor-plan/emigration/
“Poke around behind Britain’s currently rigid surface of chauvinism and a composite picture emerges — of Romans, Vikings, Celts, Normans, Jews, Indians, Chinese, Africans and more.”
Silly me I thought the Romans, Vikings & Normans were technically conquerors as opposed to immigrants but I guess these days they amount to pretty much the same thing.
To be fair to her, the article does focus on the post-Huguenot arrivals but balanced by the millions and millions of Briton that went on to seed & settle on the rest of the New World & Commonwealth; the British & Irish saga, like Germany, is certainly one of emigration (I think the case for France as one of immigration may be more compelling even prior to WW2 France was talking in Catholic immigrants from Italy, Spain & Poland).
Whatever a nation’s past may have been it doesn’t need to dictate it’s future. The British Asian population, which is rooted in immigration, isn’t necessarily pro-immigration or Bremain; the island is crowded!
Finally I thought of a refugee policy that really worked. When I lived in Uganda there were tonnes and tonnes of Congoloese refugees living there. Though there were cultural differences (Francophones etc) these refugees seemed to have settled reasonably well in Uganda.
The rub was that as soon as Congo would stabilise even slightly they would try to “return home.” These were genuine political refugees harbouring in a culturally compatible neighbouring country (like Afghans in Pakistan). What “enlightened” liberal Westerners need to understand that refugees should be entitled to security and stability but that their “refugee obligations” can be outsourced to poorer countries.
If as an example the EU has an UN obligation to house X number of Syrians refugees every year why doesn’t it pay Turkey/Lebanon/Jordan a stipend to house that allotment. They could even send EU citizens down to supervise the whole process so that it could be fair. Everyone wins! But the maybe the goal is to effect the goal of population replacement in the West..
What would it take for you to accept that this is so? I appreciate your putting in a word of support around here for a genuine refugee policy. Refugees who aren't scammers deserve our compassion.
“Who is Rachel Shabi, you might ask? She is the author of We Look Like the Enemy: The Hidden Story of Israel’s Jews from Arab Lands.”
Look like the enemy? You are the enemy darls.
An understatement, actually. Oxford geneticist Sir Walter Bodmer: “Britain hasn’t changed much since 600 AD.”
The Normans didn’t leave much of a genetic impact, which is counterintuitive.
Most Normans stayed in Normandy!Replies: @Rapparee, @dearieme
----
this kind of propaganda has been going on a long time. in the 50s/60s the anglican church was making pamphlets claiming that Britian had always been a multiracial society because it comprised of 'angles, saxons, jutes, flamboyant kelts, normans', etc
http://www.businessinsider.com/faces-of-tomorrow-2011-2?op=1&IR=T/#tiro-station-in-buenos-aires-9Replies: @Grace Jones
The same or even more so holds true for Ireland. Until very recent times the bulk of the Irish population can trace their origins to prehistoric times. In this regard, the Celts were relatively recent interlopers who changed the culture but did not significantly affect the underlying gene pool.
Of course things may now be changing, since the most recent Irish census found that about 10% of current residents were born outside Ireland.
Got to check the accompanying slide show, “12 Times Immigration Changed Britain”:
1. Romans (as if they were not simply invaders)
2. Huguenots – textile industry and potato fries (echoes of Cowen’s cheap chalupas)
3. Nannies brought from India in 19th century (so much of a change!)
4. Irish fleeing the Potato Famine (as much as 600,000)
5. 150,000 European Jews by 1914
6. 10,000 Jewish children by 1931
7. Caribbean and South Asian workers “rebuilding post WWII England” (numbers unspecified)
8. 30,000 Indians expelled from Uganda by Amin
9. 15,500 Vietnamese by 1988
10. 8,000 Bosnians and Kosovars (totally changed Britain!)
11. Unspecified number of Poles since 2004, thanks to EU
12. Ongoing support for 3,00 child refugees
Not mentioned: several million of South Asians and blacks that, unlike 10 out of the 12 points mentioned (Jews and Poles being an exception), really did radically change Britain.
I wonder how long China and India will take?
In the article Shabi lists the ethnic groups that have contributed to the make-up of the British population as “Romans, Vikings, Celts, Normans, Jews, Indians, Chinese, Africans and more”.
Somehow the Anglo-Saxons – the group that gave England its name, its language and the core of its cultural identity – are not even named, and are only included as an unstated afterthought in the “more”.
It is both arrogant and ignorant for a foreigner who has been given the privilege of admittance to a nation-state to claim to be as much one of them as someone with roots in the country going back a millennium or more. To use that privilege to denounce the native population for wanting to maintain some semblance of national cohesion is beneath contempt.
Her gaylord book is all about how Mizrahi Jews would be living peaceful lives in prosperous Arab edens if teh Zionism hadn't come and turned them into a low IQ population, then brainwashed them into voting Likud, or something.
I'm surprised she doesn't have a blog on Unz to be honest.
https://ukmediawatch.org/2012/06/07/the-stunning-moral-failure-of-the-anti-zionist-left-rachel-shabi-compares-israel-to-european-fascists/Replies: @Opinionator, @IHTG, @Bettega, @Big Bill, @ogunsiron, @Lot
Mizrahi Jews would be living peaceful lives in prosperous Arab countries if Zionism hadn’t come
That much is true.
> That much is true.
i'll relay your opinion, the next time i visit a Yazidi mass grave
Anyone whose game plan depends upon the Hebrew people volunteering to go into refugee-dom, needs a new game plan. We'll take you to hell with us if you try to push it.
Guys like Opinionator can't even talk their own daughters out of getting knocked up by Sudanese "migrants". It's unlikely that we'll be taking advice from the likes of him.....Replies: @Opinionator
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/11/muslim-population-england-wales-nearly-doubles-10-years
Her gaylord book is all about how Mizrahi Jews would be living peaceful lives in prosperous Arab edens if teh Zionism hadn't come and turned them into a low IQ population, then brainwashed them into voting Likud, or something.
I'm surprised she doesn't have a blog on Unz to be honest.
https://ukmediawatch.org/2012/06/07/the-stunning-moral-failure-of-the-anti-zionist-left-rachel-shabi-compares-israel-to-european-fascists/Replies: @Opinionator, @IHTG, @Bettega, @Big Bill, @ogunsiron, @Lot
The irony is that if there’s anybody who has been brainwashed by Western ideologies, it’s members of the Iraqi Jewish leftist intelligentsia like Rachel Shabi. They’re a pitiable bunch, generals without an army.
Exactly. The Normans brought in a huge amount of cultural change to England but very little demographic change.
Most Normans stayed in Normandy!
I suspect part of the reason their genetic impact seems so low in Britain is that they're hard to clearly distinguish from Anglo-Saxons and Vikings- all three peoples were more-or-less the same in their ultimate origins.Replies: @ogunsiron
Exactly. This is the typical dishonesty of the radical left, falsely equating two fundamentally dissimilar things on the basis that the are able to be linked by a word, as with the smear terms “antisemite”, “racist”, “homophobe” etc.
In this case the linkage is equally dishonest, but goes in the opposite direction. Where the aforementioned smear terms create a false equation of those expressing moderate opinions with the advocates of extreme and violent measures, here the intention is to create a false equation of mass immigration with ordinary low level immigration in order to try to normalise and justify the former.
The numbers entering Britain in the C20th and especially since the floodgates were deliberately opened by the leftist Blair government in order to “rub the right’s noses in diversity” (and subsequently kept open by the leftist Cameron government) in 1997 are literally unprecedented, both in raw immigration numbers and in terms of “net migration”:
Long-term Migration into and out of the United Kingdom, 1964-2014
Before 1997 the annual number of immigrants was never above 330,000 and usually around or below 200,000. After 1997 the numbers climbed rapidly to 500,000 and never fell back.
For comparison, here is what Wikipedia says about the Huguenot immigration in the early C18th:
Both before and after the 1708 passage of the Foreign Protestants Naturalization Act, an estimated 50,000 Protestant Walloons and Huguenots fled to England, with many moving on to Ireland and elsewhere. In relative terms, this was one of the largest waves of immigration ever of a single ethnic community to Britain.
The population of the UK at the time was somewhere between five and ten million, so proportionately that would be equivalent to around half a million Huguenots in total coming today – ie one year’s immigration at today’s rate.
Not all that different than Americans absorbing white Canadian immigrants....
Look like the enemy? So she sees the Arabs as the enemy? Another ethnic nationalist preaching universalism for others but tribalism for her own people.
It all reminds me of other great immigrants’ nation-building; remember when:
• The Macedonians immgrated to Persia?
• The Mongolians immigrated to China, India, and eastern Europe?
• The Arabs immigrated into Asia Minor, the Maghreb, and Andalusia?
• The Turks immigrated to the Balkan peninsula?
• The Normans immigrated to Britain?
• The Europeans immigrated to America?
And who can forget more modern examples:
• The Japanese immigration to China, the Philippines, and the U.S.A.?
• The Russian immigration to Hungary?
• The German immigration to France, Poland, Russia, and the Low Countries?
Ah! So much immigration to celebrate!
Wait; I hear someone jimmying the door open. It must be an immigrant to my home; I’d better go let him in. His journey is completely indistinguishable from the one I undertook when I immigrated here by paying the land’s owner money….
The Dutch, immigrating to North America and South Africa, as well as them thar "Indies".
• The Mongolians immigrated to China, India, and eastern Europe?
• The Arabs immigrated into Asia Minor, the Maghreb, and Andalusia?
• The Turks immigrated to the Balkan peninsula?
• The Normans immigrated to Britain?
• The Europeans immigrated to America?And who can forget more modern examples:
• The Japanese immigration to China, the Philippines, and the U.S.A.?
• The Russian immigration to Hungary?
• The German immigration to France, Poland, Russia, and the Low Countries?Ah! So much immigration to celebrate!
Wait; I hear someone jimmying the door open. It must be an immigrant to my home; I'd better go let him in. His journey is completely indistinguishable from the one I undertook when I immigrated here by paying the land's owner money....Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Expletive Deleted
Don’t forget the English immigrating to Ireland in the late 1100s. That definitely enriched and vibrantized Irish culture.
And their grandsons may have accompanied the De Clare/de Lacy Cambro-Norman extension of the conquest of (Anglo-Danish) England, then Wales, then Scotland (Edward Bruce/ de Brus invaded Ireland separately) all the way back to Eire. They got about a fair bit, them Northmen, you know.
The Flemings/Burgundians always get written out of the script a bit, for some reason. There were loads of them.
Why would it be counterintuitive? There weren’t that many of them.
—-
this kind of propaganda has been going on a long time. in the 50s/60s the anglican church was making pamphlets claiming that Britian had always been a multiracial society because it comprised of ‘angles, saxons, jutes, flamboyant kelts, normans’, etc
Compare the number of Anglo Saxon or Norman arrivals to England with the numbers of immigrants since 1997.
Just look at the numbers.
I remember when my doctor noticed that I had a slight case of Dupuytren’s contracture, “That means you are of Viking descent”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305903/
All white nations are Nations of Immigrants. But never the dark nations. Never.
Dark nations exist for the sole purpose of turning the white nations dark. Soon the Global Plantation will be as One.
2. Huguenots - textile industry and potato fries (echoes of Cowen's cheap chalupas)
3. Nannies brought from India in 19th century (so much of a change!)
4. Irish fleeing the Potato Famine (as much as 600,000)
5. 150,000 European Jews by 1914
6. 10,000 Jewish children by 1931
7. Caribbean and South Asian workers "rebuilding post WWII England" (numbers unspecified)
8. 30,000 Indians expelled from Uganda by Amin
9. 15,500 Vietnamese by 1988
10. 8,000 Bosnians and Kosovars (totally changed Britain!)
11. Unspecified number of Poles since 2004, thanks to EU
12. Ongoing support for 3,00 child refugeesNot mentioned: several million of South Asians and blacks that, unlike 10 out of the 12 points mentioned (Jews and Poles being an exception), really did radically change Britain.Replies: @anon, @snorlax, @peterike, @dearieme
So, from around 1880 it only took them 100 years or so to destroy a relatively open society like Britain – although maybe longer without the advantage of TV.
I wonder how long China and India will take?
Apparently, more immigrants now come to the UK in any single year than in the entirety of the 884 year long period of 1066 to 1950.
Her gaylord book is all about how Mizrahi Jews would be living peaceful lives in prosperous Arab edens if teh Zionism hadn't come and turned them into a low IQ population, then brainwashed them into voting Likud, or something.
I'm surprised she doesn't have a blog on Unz to be honest.
https://ukmediawatch.org/2012/06/07/the-stunning-moral-failure-of-the-anti-zionist-left-rachel-shabi-compares-israel-to-european-fascists/Replies: @Opinionator, @IHTG, @Bettega, @Big Bill, @ogunsiron, @Lot
Mizrahi Jewish activists are trying their hardest to make an alliance with Arabs based on their common heritage. Until now, there has been little enthusiasm from most Mizrahi Jews about this, but I think in a few decades they will realize that this is the only way to survive the coming collapse of Israel.
Ashkenazi Jews will go back to Europe and North America, Russian Jews will go back to Russia, but where will the Mizrahi go?
Steve,
Have you read Cuddihy’s “the ordeal of civility”? It concerns the problems of Jewish assimilation in the West, with a focus on the US. The book has been written before Kevin MacDonald’s “Culture of critique”, but it is understood much better, when you’ve read CoC first. The “ordeal of civility” is much more sympathetic and understanding of Jews (and thus more fair and even-handed), and sees the Jewish struggle with modernity as some sort of civilizational puberty.
Whenever I read about Jews being blatantly hypocritical, I’m no longer annoyed or offended, but mildly amused by the display of arrested development. It’s better to explain Jewish ideologies as modernity coping mechanisms, not malign criticisms of gentile culture. These critiques are intended to not have to confront damaged Jewish chauvinism; it was a painful realization for Jews to accept the gentiles surpassed them centuries earlier, this despite their best efforts to be as pious as possible. Orthodoxy, shtetls, apartness, ghettos, rabbis, etc. failed them.
So, when you see a Jewish writer arguing Britain to be an “immigration nation”, Jews actually want to convince *themselves* ALL peoples used to be nomads and migrants. The Jews were just unlucky victims. The reality is, of course, that to persist being a diaspora people was a bad idea; it led to needless suffering and frustration. It would also imply the gentiles right were right about the course of history, and the Jews wrong — the cognitive dissonance was just too much. Static peasant peoples morphed into citizens of ethno-nationalist states. This model prepared them much better for modernity than the diaspora Jews.
I once met a red-blond Sicilian lady. She said her coloring came from the Normans. One thing, William’s army was small, even including supporting infantry, and Catholic. So the probability of a Ghengis Khan contribution was small.
The Norman bloodline from my Sicilian grandfather's side of the family asserts itself very other generation, usually the in the first born. Every ginger child is treated like a special gift from on high. Sicily's hilly interior provided an optimal location for Norman Fortresses, and these allowed homogeneous populations of Northern Europeans to predominate prior 2oth Century encroachment from and intermarriage with the coastal phenotype.
An odd recent phenomenon has been putting black characters, only ever blacks rather than Asians etc, in historical dramas or documentaries. Apparently William the Conqueror’s right hand man was black. Mixed race couples in adverts remain the standard. Hitler wouldn’t have subjected us to such a propaganda onslaught.
I expect to hear more about how "1/3rd of the roman government was black!" based on the roman senate having been 1/3rd African at some point, which does not even remotely imply an origin south of the Sahara. it's with astonishment that I see this nonsense rising and rising.
I used to laugh at the retrofitting but not anymore. it's serious politico-cultural warfare.Replies: @Expletive Deleted, @dfordoom
As I said.
That is because the Norman invasion was really a Breton restoration . The Norman = Viking meme was invented by nordicist cuckolds.
Trying to convince a leftist that words have actual definitions and don’t mean whatever the leftist wants them to mean is like talking to the wall. Invasion or immigration, it is all flexible to them as long as diversity is being promoted.
Her gaylord book is all about how Mizrahi Jews would be living peaceful lives in prosperous Arab edens if teh Zionism hadn't come and turned them into a low IQ population, then brainwashed them into voting Likud, or something.
I'm surprised she doesn't have a blog on Unz to be honest.
https://ukmediawatch.org/2012/06/07/the-stunning-moral-failure-of-the-anti-zionist-left-rachel-shabi-compares-israel-to-european-fascists/Replies: @Opinionator, @IHTG, @Bettega, @Big Bill, @ogunsiron, @Lot
Iranian Jews seem to get along with Muslims pretty well. Don’t they regularly fly back and forth between LAX and Iran? I seem to remember Steve describing the Jews lined up at LAX several years ago. Do I misremember, Steve?
I remember being very surprised. Why would any Jew travel to Iran for ANY reason when Iran was full of exterminationist Muslims?
But I was also surprised that poor Cuban “refugees” in the US regularly flew back and forth to Cuba … passing through Mexico to avoid the US government ban on travel to Cuba.
As the man said, “It’s complicated.”
That and all the post-Roman groups in Britain including the Normans were originally from Denmark or northern Germany, so their genes are probably difficult to reliably tell apart, especially 1000+ years later.
This, to a great degree. A person who moves in from a hundred miles away is seldom considered an immigrant. The population movements within Northwest European were, genetically speaking, largely unremarkable. That kind of "immigration" is not nearly the same as the people immigrating from thousands of miles away coming from completely foreign cultures.
2. Huguenots - textile industry and potato fries (echoes of Cowen's cheap chalupas)
3. Nannies brought from India in 19th century (so much of a change!)
4. Irish fleeing the Potato Famine (as much as 600,000)
5. 150,000 European Jews by 1914
6. 10,000 Jewish children by 1931
7. Caribbean and South Asian workers "rebuilding post WWII England" (numbers unspecified)
8. 30,000 Indians expelled from Uganda by Amin
9. 15,500 Vietnamese by 1988
10. 8,000 Bosnians and Kosovars (totally changed Britain!)
11. Unspecified number of Poles since 2004, thanks to EU
12. Ongoing support for 3,00 child refugeesNot mentioned: several million of South Asians and blacks that, unlike 10 out of the 12 points mentioned (Jews and Poles being an exception), really did radically change Britain.Replies: @anon, @snorlax, @peterike, @dearieme
From the list, the Irish also changed Britain a fair amount.
This a meme which certain sectors of there media and academia have been pushing in England for a few years now. Goodthinkers repeat it, and if asked to explain they’ll point to the Angles, Saxons, Irish, Scots, Vikings, Normans, Huguenots, Dutch etc etc without quite grasping that those groups are all the same race.
And the BBC will delight in pointing out that 1800 years ago, a Roman legion raised in Carthage was stationed along Hadrian’s wall for a year or two, or one of Henry VIII’s servants was from Malta or something, then will pan across to a grinning pitch-black negro saying “So my people have always been a part of Britain!”
Reminds me of the joke in the Office: “I’m English, Irish, Scottish and German. A virtual united nations..”
Look at this Roman painting (from Pompeii) of Queen Dido of Carthage. As should be obvious, she's the spitting image of Diane Abbott. Also pictured is Aeneas, the founder of Rome, and as we can see he's even darker, resembling Idris Elba. So blacks not only built the pyramids and the White House, but also the Colosseum!
Point taken, but there were quite a few Norman Anglo-Irish families (often termed the “Old English” to distinguish them from later arrivals) who became thoroughly Celticized in the Middle Ages. Not coincidentally, English rule in Ireland was mostly nominal until Tudor times. I remember seeing a memorial in County Limerick to some hero of the IRA who died defending a bridge against the British in 1916: the plaque went out of its way to mention that the Irish patriot in question was of Old English descent.
“maybe the goal is to effect the goal of population replacement in the West.”
What would it take for you to accept that this is so? I appreciate your putting in a word of support around here for a genuine refugee policy. Refugees who aren’t scammers deserve our compassion.
You can see the Norman influence in the upper classes. I wonder if anyone has done composite photos of each UK class like these:
http://www.businessinsider.com/faces-of-tomorrow-2011-2?op=1&IR=T/#tiro-station-in-buenos-aires-9
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372919/Social-mobility-slower-medieval-England.html
This is a common habit of modern Progressives. They like to time travel back to some point where they can claim the world was as they wish, thus claiming authority on the subject. “If we go back fa enough, all humans were the same.” With immigration, the formula is “If we go back to X period, our ancestors were immigrants!”
What looks like a non sequitur is actually an appeal to authority. Rabbi Shabi is claiming that the natural order is for people to move around regardless of borders. Therefore, attempts to stop people from migrating around is against nature and therefore wrong. More important, it cuts off debate. There’s no debating a policy that is immoral.
2. Huguenots - textile industry and potato fries (echoes of Cowen's cheap chalupas)
3. Nannies brought from India in 19th century (so much of a change!)
4. Irish fleeing the Potato Famine (as much as 600,000)
5. 150,000 European Jews by 1914
6. 10,000 Jewish children by 1931
7. Caribbean and South Asian workers "rebuilding post WWII England" (numbers unspecified)
8. 30,000 Indians expelled from Uganda by Amin
9. 15,500 Vietnamese by 1988
10. 8,000 Bosnians and Kosovars (totally changed Britain!)
11. Unspecified number of Poles since 2004, thanks to EU
12. Ongoing support for 3,00 child refugeesNot mentioned: several million of South Asians and blacks that, unlike 10 out of the 12 points mentioned (Jews and Poles being an exception), really did radically change Britain.Replies: @anon, @snorlax, @peterike, @dearieme
150,000 Jews by 1914? Huh. And then what happened?
Most Normans stayed in Normandy!Replies: @Rapparee, @dearieme
The Normans had huge cultural influence everywhere. You almost can’t read a history book about any country between Ireland and Arabia during the 11th-14th centuries without tripping over a few Normans at some point. Apart from conquering Sicily (director Martin Scorsese reports that his Y-chromosome tested as a typically Scandinavian lineage), they rampaged around the Balkans, helped recapture Lisbon, and furnished much of the leadership for the Crusader states.
I suspect part of the reason their genetic impact seems so low in Britain is that they’re hard to clearly distinguish from Anglo-Saxons and Vikings- all three peoples were more-or-less the same in their ultimate origins.
Not that I really have a dog in this fight but her book is in line with her article.
A lot of people here are under the mistaken impression that most open borders Jewish writers are likudniks. That is occassionally the case but more often not. And this author is an example of the latter.
(((Rachel Shabi)))
Every. Single. Time.
Lol and the Irish are still so ungrateful about it!
Actually, Britain has traditionally been an Emigrant Nation, with Brits settling large swathes of the world
Actually, Britain has traditionally been an Invader Nation, with Brits invading large swathes of the world.
This just goes to show that vibrant, multiracial, immigrant nations produce enslaving, racist, xenophobic cultures.
But if being an immigrant nation is how it has always been who would get in the way of tradition? It’s always best to be conservative and stick with the tried and true.
I think the British have changed Ireland more than the Irish have changed Britain.
Are the enemy, dear; not “look like”. Are the enemy.
Look like the enemy? You are the enemy darls.Replies: @Ragno
Apologies, sir…..I suspect that was a light bulb that popped on in many heads this morning.
“Just before World War II, Britain took in some 10,000 mostly Jewish children through the Kindertransport rescue program. Last year, one of those children, Alf Dubs, a Labour member of the House of Lords, won popular support for his campaign to bring 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees into the country.”
IOW: ‘We have to have immigrants because otherwise who will advocate for bringing in more immigrants? And when those immigrant children grow up, we’ll need them to advocate for letting in more immigrants. That’s why we need immigrants!’
Alfred Dubs is famous for recently saying that Prime Minister May has no legal right to end the program he fought for, even though that program had no numerical requirements for the number of “refugee” children Britain has to admit. The program could have satisifed it’s legal requirements by admitting only one unaccompanied minor. Thank God for immigrants who fight against enacting the will of the British people, who have made it clear time and again that they want immigration reduced.
Ridiculous nonsense and you know it.
Why would the fate of Jews in Arab countries be any better than the fate of other religious and ethnic minorities in those countries has been? Arab Muslims have massacred and spurred mass emigration of the Assyrians, Yezidis, Mandeans, Copts, etc., but somehow the Jews would have been just fine?
Imagine that. Somebody named Rachel Shabi telling the British what it is to be British. These kind of essays make my blood boil, and I have come to completely despise those who write them. Like when Fareed Zakaria, some jumped up little indian poppinjay who looks like the Grinch that stole Christmas, presumes to lecture me on what it “means” to be American.
F**k these people.
To be American is to go to mosque and pray five times a day. To be American is to open the doors to this great country for my family and clan back in the other great country. To be American is to hate racists, sexists, homophobes, and xenophobes. To be American is to put your own people first and take over what the white people built but make them pay for it. To be American is great, until something greater comes along.
• The Mongolians immigrated to China, India, and eastern Europe?
• The Arabs immigrated into Asia Minor, the Maghreb, and Andalusia?
• The Turks immigrated to the Balkan peninsula?
• The Normans immigrated to Britain?
• The Europeans immigrated to America?And who can forget more modern examples:
• The Japanese immigration to China, the Philippines, and the U.S.A.?
• The Russian immigration to Hungary?
• The German immigration to France, Poland, Russia, and the Low Countries?Ah! So much immigration to celebrate!
Wait; I hear someone jimmying the door open. It must be an immigrant to my home; I'd better go let him in. His journey is completely indistinguishable from the one I undertook when I immigrated here by paying the land's owner money....Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Expletive Deleted
And the Spanish and Portuguese immigrating to Central and South America. That was a low-key, stress-free event for the locals, obviously. As well as to “The Indies”.
The Dutch, immigrating to North America and South Africa, as well as them thar “Indies”.
UK started this by allowing people from former Commonwealth nations to immigrate, to plop themselves down in England. After ww2 the Commonwealth tsunami started. After WW2 the Brits felt guilty about their Empire and colonialism. Post WW2 there was a wave of anti-colonialism in the third world. So the guilt tripped Brits changed policy to allow all former colonials to immigrate to (becoming) wealthy England should it tickle their fancy. Once a large beachhead of Jamaicans was created, the immigration of Jamaicans accelerated. Same for other ex-colonials.
Correct any details I have wrong.
More restrictions on immigration were imposed by Thatcher.
None of these were enough, of course, but there was a slow but sure tightening up. As late as the 1990s, leftie papers like the Guardian, and quisling journals like the Economist, were howling that Britain was being mean by not allowing immigration on the scale of Canada, the US and Australia.
Then along came Tony Blair...
The ideology underpinning the start of the great replacement was explicitly pro-empire and pro-commonwealth. The imperial guilt thing is a post facto invention of the (likewise largely imported) Marxist academics to disguise what their Plutocratic co-ethnics were actually getting up to.
Same general outline in most western nations in the second half of the last century, now that I think about it.
And the newly-minted Pakistanis and so on were onshored with the express intention of "saving the British textile industry, Minister!" There was so much work about at better rates that my grandma chucked in t'mill (silkspinner, 12 frames) to do driving, school lunch lady, all sorts, for a physically easier (healthier), better remunerated life.
We had a shedload of Hungarians rock up at the same time. Heard no more about 'em, although I run across their fully integrated descendants now and then. No trouble at all. Of course they didn't do a whole lot of scabbing, and had little patience with socialism. Generally, solid independent crafts/tradesmen and farm workers. Or professors, if we were unlucky.
Brits are mentally colonized or mentally cleansed by people like shabby shabi.
Brits should tell themselves… Israel is an immigrant nation… and look what happened to the Palestinians. Do Brits want to be Palestinianized?
Mass immigration of a very different people is invasion pure and simple.
Then they generously gave them another rogering in the 17th Century
I think it says a lot that the only people who disagree with demographic change and the end of white male supremacy are white guys like you people
That tells you something right there
Neither look white to me....
“Whatever else can be read into the referendum vote to leave the European Union, it was characterized by hostility about the flow of people to Britain and campaigning that played heavily on fears of immigration.”
When the open borders cabal isn’t telling us we have no reason to fear immigration, they’re telling us we better be afraid of immigration – that the days of whites as an American/British majority are numbered, and that soon these new arrivals will displace us and overpower us, politically (and, more ominously, in other ways).
“Indeed, Brexit follows years of pandering to fears over immigration, cast as legitimate concerns, with polling consistently placing the issue at the top of the public’s list of concerns.”
Oh well how bloody awful. The nerve of politicians pandering to the concerns of voters by addressing them. How dare politicians in a democracy do such a thing? It would probably be better if we went back to feudalism, where a handful of powerful, corrupt, and unelected elites tell the people how it is.
“As in the United States and much of mainland Europe, Britain — or more accurately, England — is going through a period of resurgent nativism.”
Well of course. Why the nativist violence in the streets of Tallahassee and Boise is unbearable! Millions of minorities being rounded up and sent to the ovens! You can barely sleep at night for all the noise.
“A sharp division is drawn between the left-behind and a cosmopolitan elite, a too-fast influx of young, flexible workers versus rooted, traditional families trying to get by.”
Flexible workers, meaning workers willing to accept pitiful pay and horrific working conditions. Remember the days when the Left used to pretend to give a shit about the welfare of workers, and about couples trying to raise families?
“In a speech to Conservatives last year, the prime minister, their party leader Theresa May, proclaimed, ‘If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere.’”
In what way was Theresa May incorrect? What is this “citizen of the world” exactly, and what legal rights in any country on earth does such a citizen have due to his “citizen of the world” status?
“Even as the national mood sours toward able newcomers taking British jobs, there is widespread support for the immigrant workers who keep the National Health Service running. “
The government employs vast numbers of immigrants in the NHS because they cost less than natives. Because of that, the government has no need to emphasize training of British workers. The British people are not a low IQ population. They have more than enough talent to staff the NHS with their own.
It’s notable that the NYT has both deactivated comments for this opinion piece and has also failed to acknowledge Shabi’s own conflict of interest – that she and her family are immigrants from a Middle Eastern nation.
In fact it seems to be the only thing she has said that people actually recall.
Probably because it's the only sensible thing she has said.
“That and all the post-Roman groups in Britain including the Normans were originally from Denmark or northern Germany, so their genes are probably difficult to reliably tell apart, especially 1000+ years later.”
This, to a great degree. A person who moves in from a hundred miles away is seldom considered an immigrant. The population movements within Northwest European were, genetically speaking, largely unremarkable. That kind of “immigration” is not nearly the same as the people immigrating from thousands of miles away coming from completely foreign cultures.
Nice bimodal distribution of review ratings at Amazon. That book (and the associated reviews) seems like support for Steve’s golf club theory, but I’m sure Gabriel M will chime in to say that could not possibly be so.
Your mention of Uganda reminded me of another policy to reverse immigrant invasions that very effectively achieved its primary goal, the removal of Indians from Africa. This policy was, of course, the “encouragement” Idi Amin gave Indians resident in Uganda to return to their ancestral homeland and similar policies adopted by other African despots in other African nations. Similar policies are now being used to remove other immigrant populations from other African nations, e.g., Whites from Zimbabwe and South Africa. Isn’t it about time Europeans adopted similar policies?
Plenty of the Vikings and later Normans were from Norway as well- the term “Dane” was pretty inclusive. Of course, that doesn’t negate your point.
About half of the invading Normans were Britons (Bretons) who were returning home after fleeing the Saxons a few hundred years before. William the Conqueror himself was part Breton. His paternal grandmother was the daughter of Conan I, Duke of Brittany.
No, absent Zionism Mizrahi Jews (or however you spell it, I’m an American not a foreigner dammit) would not have lived prosperous safe lives. Any more than Egyptians, Pakistanis, Turks, Iranians, and Indians live that way. Because the Third World is a failure. The path to power, real power, not “magic” is through technology, which requires male cooperation, high trust, limiting clan power, a strong and relatively non corrupt state, in short either Japan or Western European peoples up to say, 1985. At best Mizrahi Jews would have been like Copts in Egypt and worse, Yazidis in Iraq. That’s a reflection of the failure of Muslim peoples as a whole — no people are more bankrupt and failure prone than Muslims.
You can make a case for taking High IQ Jews. Trujillo WANTED them during the Voyage of the Damned but he lived in … the Dominican Republic. [The smart move would have been to take the offer and then move in ten years, conserving that most precious of gifts, LIFE.] Or Einstein, Billy Wilder, etc. A bunch of illiterate goat herders from Syria does not fit the bill, much less even lower IQ Africans. What we will get out of it is a million Tamerlane Tsarnaev types, swaggering track suited low IQ thugs who cut a wide swath through our female population while adding nothing but constant violence turning the West and its men from Fred Terman into John Wesley Hardin within a generation. [Oh that’s coming.] But in the meantime the FEELZ of status mongering upper class White women has to be pandered to.
Speaking of which, Lana Del Rey wants you to know that she’s planning more witchcraft spells to drive Trump from office, and Depeche Mode is shocked that the Alt-Right likes them, saying that the could understand how Communists would like them given their working class background, but not the Alt-Right. Dept of cluelessness … Commies require a trust fund. Working class people are Alt-Right.
Not really. Jews want to flood America and Europe with blacks, Muslims and other Third World populations.
Unlike some politically ambiguous metal bands (AC/DC, perhaps), all New Wave bands were very left-wing. Rock and pop musicians have been poisoning the minds of impressionable young people with liberal propaganda since forever.Replies: @Autochthon
2. Huguenots - textile industry and potato fries (echoes of Cowen's cheap chalupas)
3. Nannies brought from India in 19th century (so much of a change!)
4. Irish fleeing the Potato Famine (as much as 600,000)
5. 150,000 European Jews by 1914
6. 10,000 Jewish children by 1931
7. Caribbean and South Asian workers "rebuilding post WWII England" (numbers unspecified)
8. 30,000 Indians expelled from Uganda by Amin
9. 15,500 Vietnamese by 1988
10. 8,000 Bosnians and Kosovars (totally changed Britain!)
11. Unspecified number of Poles since 2004, thanks to EU
12. Ongoing support for 3,00 child refugeesNot mentioned: several million of South Asians and blacks that, unlike 10 out of the 12 points mentioned (Jews and Poles being an exception), really did radically change Britain.Replies: @anon, @snorlax, @peterike, @dearieme
“4. Irish fleeing the Potato Famine (as much as 600,000)”. It’s a remarkable fact of history that the large numbers of Irish who emigrated before the famine have left no descendants wherever they settled. Ditto for the large number who emigrated after the famine. Only those who emigrated during the famine had descendants. This leads one to conclude that the famine emigrants must have been healthier than the others. Either that or … well, people are spouting bollocks as is customary on any topic to do with Ireland – as my Irish grandfather delighted in pointing out.
To this day, the family's arms remain per bend sinister vert (a slice of watermelon gules, passant) and argent (a leg of fried chicken tenné, rampant); only after the famine was added a roundle argent containing potato or).
http://observer.com/2017/03/kkk-william-schenk-first-amendment-freedom-of-speech/
Most Normans stayed in Normandy!Replies: @Rapparee, @dearieme
A mixture of Norseman with Gaul and Frank, yer Normans; genetically very similar to the British anyway, wouldn’t you think? Especially since many of the “Normans” who came over were actually Bretons and Flemings.
And of course we shouldn’t neglect all the Irish colonists who infested Dark Ages Britain.
By her definition all nations are “immigrant” nations. Yet her glossing over invasions and such as immigration ignores the great amount of blood and treasure expended over the years by people resisting invasions, and thus resisting immigration.
Untold millions have died as peoples carved out nations that consisted primarily of peoples of similar ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural heritage. Even today where this process has not yet finished, you still have tensions and animosity and more clamor for further divisions to get to that desired state of similarity so many seek.
Yet these nation-wrecking globalists have stacked the kindling necessary for future conflict by reshuffling the deck of population patterns across the globe, or to be more precise across the European part of it. Like Lisa Simpson whose antics you showed in that dolphin video, we are being condemned to repeat the great sortings that have already been paid for so dearly. Thanks to them more such conflict is in store.
all they've done is reset the clock - forcing us to go through the clan vs clan, tribe vs tribe stage all over again
The intent is to make Britain’s current core identity one of non-white immigrants. History can be used as a means to the end, but ultimately history is irrelevant. People want what they want in the present.
Lampley. Beezer. Barbados. Pownall. Pennsylvania. Paxson. Hartwell. Blackwell. Givens. Inman. Virginia. South Carolina. Jordan. Jones. Andes. Rader. Reinhard. Owings…etc.
I think, on my father’s side, I got all of David Hackett Fischer’s “Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America” covered. Plus German, French, Irish, Scottish and more. Everything but the East Anglians in New England. But I got a Peach in my ancestry and there are Peaches in Massachusetts. And the delightful fact that the British Empire had a Pownall as a colonial governor in East Anglian New England and Pownall is a Norman name.
When did Lindsey Graham’s people get to South Carolina? I think my people got there before Graham’s. The stuff on the internet could be nonsense, though.
President Trump got the Sail people and the Steam people and he won. Trump got the Southern Anglo-Celts and the WOMP(Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania) Germans and he won. The WOMP Germans and the Anglo-Celtic Southerners need to be kept — at peace — together. The rats in the GOP and the Democrats will try to split them again.
The non-Europeans who advocate for open borders mass immigration are using mass immigration as a demographic weapon to destroy European Christian nation-states.
OT OT OT
Wikileaks’ “Vault 7” Revelations Prove That We Are Already In Orwell’s 1984
The CIA can now realistically fake a Russian cyber attack, making last year’s allegations about the Kremlin hacking the US election look doubtful at best — http://bit.ly/2lLsBwG
Just like iraqi/syrian xtians and yazidis?
In this case the linkage is equally dishonest, but goes in the opposite direction. Where the aforementioned smear terms create a false equation of those expressing moderate opinions with the advocates of extreme and violent measures, here the intention is to create a false equation of mass immigration with ordinary low level immigration in order to try to normalise and justify the former.
The numbers entering Britain in the C20th and especially since the floodgates were deliberately opened by the leftist Blair government in order to "rub the right's noses in diversity" (and subsequently kept open by the leftist Cameron government) in 1997 are literally unprecedented, both in raw immigration numbers and in terms of "net migration":
Long-term Migration into and out of the United Kingdom, 1964-2014
Before 1997 the annual number of immigrants was never above 330,000 and usually around or below 200,000. After 1997 the numbers climbed rapidly to 500,000 and never fell back.
For comparison, here is what Wikipedia says about the Huguenot immigration in the early C18th:
Both before and after the 1708 passage of the Foreign Protestants Naturalization Act, an estimated 50,000 Protestant Walloons and Huguenots fled to England, with many moving on to Ireland and elsewhere. In relative terms, this was one of the largest waves of immigration ever of a single ethnic community to Britain.
The population of the UK at the time was somewhere between five and ten million, so proportionately that would be equivalent to around half a million Huguenots in total coming today - ie one year's immigration at today's rate.Replies: @reiner Tor, @celt darnell
And they were of related racial stock – probably as close or closer genetically than maybe Poles are. Now a lot of the immigrants are Pakistanis or Nigerians.
Trump exaggerates the size of his inauguration crowds- it’s a month-long scandal. Progressives make up stories about the number of Muslims on the Santa Maria and Mayflower, as well as Chinese and Africans stowed on Danish longboats, and it by-and-by gets written into the high school history books.
OT, BUT- the whole broad-a$$ Marine sexy-selfie sharing scandal has metastasized to inclue the other 3 services. Who would have thought that, after the mainstreaming of all that sexy librarian and naughty Catholic schoolgirl porn in the 90’s, that you’d put women in a new type of uniform, and all the males around them would go out of their minds trying to see them slowly take it off. No amount of disruption, demoralization, and weakening of the armed forces of the most powerful country on Earth is too much price to bear in order to root out such sexism, as any good cuck will agree. But if it were to impact the Bowl prospects of their favorite college football program, well… maybe there’s some accomodation we can work out to keep things hush-hush.
We live in clown-world now, POZ-o edition.
They repay the British people for having rescued them by turning around and trying to destroy the British people.
Correct. They, too.
Not sure you understand mate. She is saying Jewish Middle Easterners look like other Middle Easterners and therefore look like ‘the enemy.’ She is talking about herself…
Your patronising tone makes you look especially stupid now.
These are scandalous photos of girls taking off their Marine uniforms? Good, like Margaret Thatcher told of scandalous behavior involving members of her government, I was worried there for awhile.
I know race is central for you, but I think it’s worth adding that Huguenots also were relatively close to Britain by culture and religion. They were fellow Protestants and given their background could be expected to be loyal in wars against Britain’s archenemy France. Obviously the situation with e.g. Pakistanis is totally different…they’re not just racially alien, they are adherents of a hostile religion without historic roots in Britain. Maybe it should be pointed out to pc immigrationists that the closest analogue to Huguenots aren’t Muslim Pakistanis, Somalis etc. but Mideastern Christians fleeing Islamic persecution.
I am so sick and tired of NYT. I can't whether or not to let the subscription go. After all, one needs to watch the enemy.Replies: @snorlax
A couple of real nuggets in the comments:
Yes, Shabi is leading with her chin. Globalists are TPTB, and they live in echo chambers, so they do that a lot (making real rightists effectively southpaws). This one is a golden opportunity to deliver a knockout punch.
This is really good. Globalists are fine with our economy being outsourced, but outsourcing our supposed and imposed moral obligations is unthinkable.
That tells you something right thereReplies: @RadicalCenter, @celt darnell, @Joe Walker
Unless you are Mexican, Tiny Pinga, you won’t fare well under the coming Reconquista either.
It’s like saying a girl likes it rough, so it’s okay that a gang of Muslims raped her.
Or that Jews survived the Holocaust, so they should be okay with another one.
Yeah, Big Media makes a point of disclosing financial conflicts of interest. But money is a legitimate concern, while (non-Jewish) patriotism is not.
what YouTube posts of British documentaries which included genetic research tells me is as you go west to east across great Britain, you have a greater Germanic admixture. That west Britons (Cornwall, wales, the north) are 90% the folk who built Stonehenge and are indistinguishable with Irish, who are also 90% old stock and 10% Germanic. as you go east the mix increases, but even in east Anglia and areas like York or the Scottish lowlands, you’re still 50-60 % old stock, the folk who settled the island during the stone age.
What that says is the Cultures overturned many times, stone age to Celts, Celts to roman, roman to Anglo, Anglo to viking, viking to Norman and the languages and religions changed but only in the Anglo Saxon one and only on the east side of the isle did even half the people turn over, and i bet a lot of that was settlement of vacant land after the roman collapse. We only have written records of the last, and we know that it took 200 -300 years for a hybrid language to emerge among coreligionists after the Normans. The issue that there isn’t as much of a genetic record as you’d think with all the cultural turnovers was due to the fact that the country was so much healthier than towns until very recently. and there was always a reservoir of the old peoples in the country to move into the towns and blend out over generations. But the population explosions of 1700-1900 spread that reservoir over three continents instead of 2 islands. Case in point me, all ancestors from the British isles, but all left over 200 years ago and were in the Appalachians or Ozarks for most of that
So the most recent growth periods of 1950-70 and 95-2015 instead of pulling from that reservoir let aliens in who have mostly just settled into the big towns. Look at the Brexit vote. the big city user class and their out land clients voted against, the towns and small cities , who are not being erased by over seas people like so much of London but are having to compete with Poles for Plumbing jobs to raise their next generation voted for. Ditto Trump the coasts where the users and migrants have allied voted HRC the core where where they see it coming but it hasn’t hit as hard yet went DJT.
Getting back to the Question at hand there has always been a steam of migrants into the British isles, but they haven’t overturned the native population anywhere in 1500 years and what the tv tells me is that the population as a whole is still 75% descended from the stone age builders of the great henges.
Will the population of the year 2929 speak a English-polish-urdu hybrid and worship Jesus as a avatar of of a Hindu god, but still be descended from those same people? It’s possible because that was how it played out before, but it is is doubtful because now the population imbalances goes the other way. The reservoirs of people are in the cities now, and they will either colonize the rest of the land or the cities will be drained and refilled. I wish that wasn’t a prediction of war, but it is hard not to see it as one.
Britain has had far more invaders than immigrants. Not even close. That’s why the article’s accompanying photo presentation “12 times immigration changed Britain”, starts mostly in the 16th century, ignoring the previous 1500 years. They do start with the Romans, though…who were what? Immigrants? No, invaders.
Saw this story and one of the first things I noticed was they weren’t allowing comments.
The NY Times knew the historical illiteracy of the piece would be exposed in seconds.
What I also found particularly interesting though was the claim that the Ancient Romans were “immigrants.”
It’s not dissimilar to the claim the settlers in Virginia and New England were “immigrants” or even “illegal immigrants.”
You wonder if these people even think this stuff through…
Have you read Cuddihy’s “the ordeal of civility”? It concerns the problems of Jewish assimilation in the West, with a focus on the US. The book has been written before Kevin MacDonald’s “Culture of critique”, but it is understood much better, when you’ve read CoC first. The “ordeal of civility” is much more sympathetic and understanding of Jews (and thus more fair and even-handed), and sees the Jewish struggle with modernity as some sort of civilizational puberty.
Whenever I read about Jews being blatantly hypocritical, I’m no longer annoyed or offended, but mildly amused by the display of arrested development. It’s better to explain Jewish ideologies as modernity coping mechanisms, not malign criticisms of gentile culture. These critiques are intended to not have to confront damaged Jewish chauvinism; it was a painful realization for Jews to accept the gentiles surpassed them centuries earlier, this despite their best efforts to be as pious as possible. Orthodoxy, shtetls, apartness, ghettos, rabbis, etc. failed them.
So, when you see a Jewish writer arguing Britain to be an “immigration nation”, Jews actually want to convince *themselves* ALL peoples used to be nomads and migrants. The Jews were just unlucky victims. The reality is, of course, that to persist being a diaspora people was a bad idea; it led to needless suffering and frustration. It would also imply the gentiles right were right about the course of history, and the Jews wrong -- the cognitive dissonance was just too much. Static peasant peoples morphed into citizens of ethno-nationalist states. This model prepared them much better for modernity than the diaspora Jews.Replies: @Anon
I suppose you deserve some credit for merely mentioning the Culture of Critique, but this “Jewish subversion as group struggle to adapt to modernity” narrative sounds like little more than a cop-out. No, it’s an ethnic strategy, and one they’ve been pulling for as long as recorded history. MacDonald had it right.
In this case the linkage is equally dishonest, but goes in the opposite direction. Where the aforementioned smear terms create a false equation of those expressing moderate opinions with the advocates of extreme and violent measures, here the intention is to create a false equation of mass immigration with ordinary low level immigration in order to try to normalise and justify the former.
The numbers entering Britain in the C20th and especially since the floodgates were deliberately opened by the leftist Blair government in order to "rub the right's noses in diversity" (and subsequently kept open by the leftist Cameron government) in 1997 are literally unprecedented, both in raw immigration numbers and in terms of "net migration":
Long-term Migration into and out of the United Kingdom, 1964-2014
Before 1997 the annual number of immigrants was never above 330,000 and usually around or below 200,000. After 1997 the numbers climbed rapidly to 500,000 and never fell back.
For comparison, here is what Wikipedia says about the Huguenot immigration in the early C18th:
Both before and after the 1708 passage of the Foreign Protestants Naturalization Act, an estimated 50,000 Protestant Walloons and Huguenots fled to England, with many moving on to Ireland and elsewhere. In relative terms, this was one of the largest waves of immigration ever of a single ethnic community to Britain.
The population of the UK at the time was somewhere between five and ten million, so proportionately that would be equivalent to around half a million Huguenots in total coming today - ie one year's immigration at today's rate.Replies: @reiner Tor, @celt darnell
The Huguenots were also a lot more culturally — never mind genetically — akin to the English than Africans, Asians and whatnot too.
Not all that different than Americans absorbing white Canadian immigrants….
Correct any details I have wrong.Replies: @celt darnell, @Richard S, @Expletive Deleted
You’re mostly correct, except that restrictions on “Commonwealth” immigration were imposed — particularly after Enoch Powell’s so-called “rivers of blood” speech.
More restrictions on immigration were imposed by Thatcher.
None of these were enough, of course, but there was a slow but sure tightening up. As late as the 1990s, leftie papers like the Guardian, and quisling journals like the Economist, were howling that Britain was being mean by not allowing immigration on the scale of Canada, the US and Australia.
Then along came Tony Blair…
That tells you something right thereReplies: @RadicalCenter, @celt darnell, @Joe Walker
Oh come on now, fake troll, you’ve forgotten the Japanese and the South Koreans, neither of whom are willing to accept demographic change in their nations.
Neither look white to me….
When the open borders cabal isn't telling us we have no reason to fear immigration, they're telling us we better be afraid of immigration - that the days of whites as an American/British majority are numbered, and that soon these new arrivals will displace us and overpower us, politically (and, more ominously, in other ways).
"Indeed, Brexit follows years of pandering to fears over immigration, cast as legitimate concerns, with polling consistently placing the issue at the top of the public’s list of concerns."
Oh well how bloody awful. The nerve of politicians pandering to the concerns of voters by addressing them. How dare politicians in a democracy do such a thing? It would probably be better if we went back to feudalism, where a handful of powerful, corrupt, and unelected elites tell the people how it is.
"As in the United States and much of mainland Europe, Britain — or more accurately, England — is going through a period of resurgent nativism."
Well of course. Why the nativist violence in the streets of Tallahassee and Boise is unbearable! Millions of minorities being rounded up and sent to the ovens! You can barely sleep at night for all the noise.
"A sharp division is drawn between the left-behind and a cosmopolitan elite, a too-fast influx of young, flexible workers versus rooted, traditional families trying to get by."
Flexible workers, meaning workers willing to accept pitiful pay and horrific working conditions. Remember the days when the Left used to pretend to give a shit about the welfare of workers, and about couples trying to raise families?
"In a speech to Conservatives last year, the prime minister, their party leader Theresa May, proclaimed, 'If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere.'"
In what way was Theresa May incorrect? What is this "citizen of the world" exactly, and what legal rights in any country on earth does such a citizen have due to his "citizen of the world" status?
"Even as the national mood sours toward able newcomers taking British jobs, there is widespread support for the immigrant workers who keep the National Health Service running. "
The government employs vast numbers of immigrants in the NHS because they cost less than natives. Because of that, the government has no need to emphasize training of British workers. The British people are not a low IQ population. They have more than enough talent to staff the NHS with their own.
It's notable that the NYT has both deactivated comments for this opinion piece and has also failed to acknowledge Shabi's own conflict of interest - that she and her family are immigrants from a Middle Eastern nation.Replies: @celt darnell
That comment by Theresa May, “If you believe you are a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere,” has been angrily repeated more often than anything else that woman has ever said.
In fact it seems to be the only thing she has said that people actually recall.
Probably because it’s the only sensible thing she has said.
Correct any details I have wrong.Replies: @celt darnell, @Richard S, @Expletive Deleted
Nothing to do with guilt and everything to do with Big Capital seeking to undercut the heavily unionised labour force with unskilled migrant workers. A conscious attack on the working class that was recognised as such at the time by One Nation Tories like Powell and his supporters among the low-paid indigenous Brits.
The ideology underpinning the start of the great replacement was explicitly pro-empire and pro-commonwealth. The imperial guilt thing is a post facto invention of the (likewise largely imported) Marxist academics to disguise what their Plutocratic co-ethnics were actually getting up to.
Same general outline in most western nations in the second half of the last century, now that I think about it.
Saying diversity is justified now because it existed before is no different than saying murder is justified now because it happened before.
There were periods of Chinese history when the country was more diverse, with barbarians and Turks living in the borders. They were either assimilated or expelled, otherwise known as social progress. Why the left looks back fondly on the darkest parts of history is beyond me.
Timothy,
The same or even more so holds true for Ireland. Until very recent times the bulk of the Irish population can trace their origins to prehistoric times. In this regard, the Celts were relatively recent interlopers who changed the culture but did not significantly affect the underlying gene pool.
Of course things may now be changing, since the most recent Irish census found that about 10% of current residents were born outside Ireland.
My ancestors (Ulster Scots; or, following the American usage, Scots-Irish) emigrated to North America in the early eighteenth century. Of course, it’s well known – and I’ve mentioned it elsewhere on Steve’s site – we were treated exactly like Negroes (we were indistinguishable!). Only much later were we accepted as Being of European stock and allowed to eat next to the other white folk at Woolworth’s. At that time, we were acknowledged as immigrants who fled the famine, and, not wanting to upset the apple-cart, we just agreed to the whole thing.
To this day, the family’s arms remain per bend sinister vert (a slice of watermelon gules, passant) and argent (a leg of fried chicken tenné, rampant); only after the famine was added a roundle argent containing potato or).
So, now it looks more like an ICE conspiracy to give the grandstanding criminal bull dyke free press:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/argentine-woman-facing-deportation-protest-freed-175550595.html
***
Meaning, she’s doing well, considering how she took her status as a criminal as an opportunity to grandstand and get up on a soap box, got arrested for her crime, and spent time in detention for it.
I think “she’s doing pretty well given everything she’s put herself through” would be how most people who aren’t her attorney would put it.
In other words, her parents completely screwed her, by gambling that American law would never be enforced.
The zeitgeist is thick with people blaming the parents for everything, but blaming criminal immigrant parents for being scofflaws at their own children’s expense would be unthinkable.
Democrats are fine with fedgov shaking Dreamers down for $250 a year. Extorting hardworking families!
She is still deportable and should be, but I see no evidence she is a criminal.
The Indians are back in uganda in full force btw..
The European elites are committed to one absolute limit on policy: That the migrants must be treated at least as well and preferably better than the natives. You won’t be changing their minds on that one.
Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Angloworld
by James Belichhttps://www.amazon.com/Replenishing-Earth-Settler-Revolution-Angloworld/dp/0199604541Replies: @syonredux, @utu
What about the early settlers that consisted of white slaves? British empire managed to cover up this part of history and for some reasons the descendants of those who were brought to the New World as enslaved British subjects to not like to think of themselves as descendants of slaves.
They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America
Among other things this explains why the stories of Arthur and the Grail replaced Scandinavian folklore such as Beowulf in English popular esteem. The Normans identified with the native Britons and saw the Anglo-Saxons as the real invaders. The stories of Arthur and his wars with the Saxons naturally resonated with them.
I will summarize for those that dont have time to read through the left wing commie slop:
Another Jewish writer (among many others) is stating how white nations are not really white nations and that there is no such thing as white history. We are all immigrants.AND whites have no rights in their own countries.
BUT those rules dont apply to Jews and Israel.
One question as always – who does this benefit by stating this?
“I once met a red-blond Sicilian lady. She said her coloring came from the Normans.”
The Norman bloodline from my Sicilian grandfather’s side of the family asserts itself very other generation, usually the in the first born. Every ginger child is treated like a special gift from on high. Sicily’s hilly interior provided an optimal location for Norman Fortresses, and these allowed homogeneous populations of Northern Europeans to predominate prior 2oth Century encroachment from and intermarriage with the coastal phenotype.
Rigid ignorant sluggards seem to be a suspiciously large proportion of the country, if it really was such an immigrant built one. If she is right, implicit in what Sabri is saying is that any people who inhabit Britain become useless. OK, but they won’t stay quietly in their room forever.
Requiem for the elite: the left-behind slept until noon, but there was still time for them to vote. And there were a lot of them.
Indeed. The closer the cultural and racial similarities the lower the impact.
Her gaylord book is all about how Mizrahi Jews would be living peaceful lives in prosperous Arab edens if teh Zionism hadn't come and turned them into a low IQ population, then brainwashed them into voting Likud, or something.
I'm surprised she doesn't have a blog on Unz to be honest.
https://ukmediawatch.org/2012/06/07/the-stunning-moral-failure-of-the-anti-zionist-left-rachel-shabi-compares-israel-to-european-fascists/Replies: @Opinionator, @IHTG, @Bettega, @Big Bill, @ogunsiron, @Lot
She must be of the max blumenthal school of thought. That is the “borders and countries as homelands are something morally bankrupt goyim care about and us jews should be waaaay above that!” school of thought
Untold millions have died as peoples carved out nations that consisted primarily of peoples of similar ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural heritage. Even today where this process has not yet finished, you still have tensions and animosity and more clamor for further divisions to get to that desired state of similarity so many seek.
Yet these nation-wrecking globalists have stacked the kindling necessary for future conflict by reshuffling the deck of population patterns across the globe, or to be more precise across the European part of it. Like Lisa Simpson whose antics you showed in that dolphin video, we are being condemned to repeat the great sortings that have already been paid for so dearly. Thanks to them more such conflict is in store.Replies: @anon
yes. some of them believe (or rationalize) that by destroying nations they will reduce future conflict
all they’ve done is reset the clock – forcing us to go through the clan vs clan, tribe vs tribe stage all over again
Could that genetic impact be somewhat difficult to measure ? Normans would have been a mix of mostly northern French (say Franks) and Scandinavians. Maybe not the easiest mix to tease out of an English population largely made up of lowland Germanics and Danes ? But maybe it would be easily teased out.
The goal of this retrofitting is to convince the nonwhites and the Whites that the diverse have “always” been in Europe in very large numbers.
I expect to hear more about how “1/3rd of the roman government was black!” based on the roman senate having been 1/3rd African at some point, which does not even remotely imply an origin south of the Sahara. it’s with astonishment that I see this nonsense rising and rising.
I used to laugh at the retrofitting but not anymore. it’s serious politico-cultural warfare.
And the BBC will delight in pointing out that 1800 years ago, a Roman legion raised in Carthage was stationed along Hadrian's wall for a year or two, or one of Henry VIII's servants was from Malta or something, then will pan across to a grinning pitch-black negro saying "So my people have always been a part of Britain!"
Reminds me of the joke in the Office: "I'm English, Irish, Scottish and German. A virtual united nations.."Replies: @snorlax
Therefore, St. Augustine (of Carthage) was black. We Wuz Saintz!
Look at this Roman painting (from Pompeii) of Queen Dido of Carthage. As should be obvious, she’s the spitting image of Diane Abbott. Also pictured is Aeneas, the founder of Rome, and as we can see he’s even darker, resembling Idris Elba. So blacks not only built the pyramids and the White House, but also the Colosseum!
I suspect part of the reason their genetic impact seems so low in Britain is that they're hard to clearly distinguish from Anglo-Saxons and Vikings- all three peoples were more-or-less the same in their ultimate origins.Replies: @ogunsiron
Normans would also have belonged to that military aristocratic class whose lineages were less reproductively sucessful than that of the middle class, as per Greg Clark
One reason for this is they were so spread out and small in number. I would bet that less than 3% of the English population was 50% or more Norman by 1200, and well under 1% by 1500.
Duh, but nevertheless things like this or this would seem bizarre (in terms of location) to early-Victorian-era Britons.
Blacks are definitely over-represented on British TV. There seem to be three main reasons for this:
-political correctness
-urban privilege (a high percentage of blacks live in big cities like London, where most TV companies are located)
-a lack of interest in the arts by Asians (blacks often take roles in historical dramas that are supposed to be played by Arabs and South Asians).
23andme is able to distinguish British Isles, Germany/France, and Scandinavia as separate groups. We also have Danelaw admixture maps of GB. So we can tell such peoples’ genes apart, though I agree they are closely related.
Her gaylord book is all about how Mizrahi Jews would be living peaceful lives in prosperous Arab edens if teh Zionism hadn't come and turned them into a low IQ population, then brainwashed them into voting Likud, or something.
I'm surprised she doesn't have a blog on Unz to be honest.
https://ukmediawatch.org/2012/06/07/the-stunning-moral-failure-of-the-anti-zionist-left-rachel-shabi-compares-israel-to-european-fascists/Replies: @Opinionator, @IHTG, @Bettega, @Big Bill, @ogunsiron, @Lot
Jews are over represented by about 5x in the antisemitic and anti-Zionist intellectual spheres.
A high percentage of diaspora Jews are open borders liberals, but I’m getting tired of this far right claim that most Jews want Israel to stay Jewish and the West to be flooded with non-white immigrants. Diaspora and non-diaspora Jews have different political views. Talking heads in Israel don’t think the West should lets in lots of non-white immigrants:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/European-meltdown-threatens-Jews-476004
http://conservative-headlines.com/2016/08/jerusalem-post-lays-out-soros-plan-for-global-chaos/
Educated, urban whites and urban diaspora Jews support open immigration. Israeli’s and suburban-rural whites don’t. That’s about the size of it.
It was Trump that made it public, forcing the CCP (Counter-Cultural Progressives) to be explicit with their feeble claim about border controls (or even enforcing immigration law) being "Racist", and it probably lost them the election.
Good point- all on account of how often they used to kill each other in battle. I guess between the Hundred Years’ War and the Wars of the Roses, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised at how few descendants they left.
Ashkenazi Jews will go back to Europe and North America, Russian Jews will go back to Russia, but where will the Mizrahi go?Replies: @Romanian
You think the West will not take them in? You think the Sephardis were let in because their ancestors were in Spain or Portugal 400 years prior?
Just looking where they were in France initially (the Southwest), Huguenots were probably disproportionately Celtic and closer to the oldest population of GB than the more Germanic/Belgic median Frenchman.
Please elaborate.
Most of the “Irish” people who left Ireland before the famine were actually British Protestants who were known erroneously as the “Scots-Irish” or “Scotch-Irish”.
This is what Jewish activist Rachel Shabi wishes were true. In reality Great Britain has been free of (successful) armed invasions for almost 1000 years, and is an amalgam of Old British (Welsh), Saxons (Germans), Celts (Irish), Danes (Scandinavians) and Normans (French).
New arrivals are mostly from India and the West Indies (ex Empire) and Poland (EEC) with Eastern European Jews forming a very small minority and historically refusing to integrate.
They operate traditional racial patronage to gain power and retain a Jewish identity, the same as in the U.S. Basically they are resisting integration into Great Britain, although paradoxically for them, they are already genetically more European than Semitic (Ashkenazis about 55% European and 45% Semitic-Arab) and Mizrahis are irrelevant.
The result is the same mess as the US with GB Ashkenazis pushing for mass immigration to challenge “Anglo” power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_England_(1326)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_RevolutionReplies: @Autochthon
You can make a case for taking High IQ Jews. Trujillo WANTED them during the Voyage of the Damned but he lived in ... the Dominican Republic. [The smart move would have been to take the offer and then move in ten years, conserving that most precious of gifts, LIFE.] Or Einstein, Billy Wilder, etc. A bunch of illiterate goat herders from Syria does not fit the bill, much less even lower IQ Africans. What we will get out of it is a million Tamerlane Tsarnaev types, swaggering track suited low IQ thugs who cut a wide swath through our female population while adding nothing but constant violence turning the West and its men from Fred Terman into John Wesley Hardin within a generation. [Oh that's coming.] But in the meantime the FEELZ of status mongering upper class White women has to be pandered to.
Speaking of which, Lana Del Rey wants you to know that she's planning more witchcraft spells to drive Trump from office, and Depeche Mode is shocked that the Alt-Right likes them, saying that the could understand how Communists would like them given their working class background, but not the Alt-Right. Dept of cluelessness ... Commies require a trust fund. Working class people are Alt-Right.Replies: @Joe Walker, @BB753
You can make a case for taking High IQ Jews
Not really. Jews want to flood America and Europe with blacks, Muslims and other Third World populations.
Normans had already blended into the older English population by the time Clarke’s high fertility gentry started outbreeding the nobility and replacing the masses through downward mobility.
One reason for this is they were so spread out and small in number. I would bet that less than 3% of the English population was 50% or more Norman by 1200, and well under 1% by 1500.
That tells you something right thereReplies: @RadicalCenter, @celt darnell, @Joe Walker
Yes, it tells you that we are sensible people who want to preserve the civilization that Europeans have managed to create.
Tricky use of the term IMMIGRATION.
Britain was made by INVASIONS. All lands all over the world were invaded. Japan was once inhabited by Ainu and others. But then, Mongoloid East Asian types took over.
Africa was constantly invaded and re-invaded by various black tribes, mostly Bantu.
Near East was invaded forever back and forth.
Same in Europe. Britain was invaded by so many European tribes, clans, kingdoms, armies, marauders, barbarians, and etc. Germans tried to invade in WWII.
Russia invaded so much and even Poland and Finland were once part of ‘Russia’.
So, what Shabby Shabi means by ‘immigration’ is really invasion. Calling every movement of peoples in the past ‘immigration’ is anachronistic. Invasions were always violent, always unwelcome and resisted. Sometimes, resistance succeeded, sometimes not. Part of Europe was spared from Ottoman or Mongol invasion. Other parts came under domination. In some parts, the invaders soon left or were repelled with revolts and uprisings. In other parts, the invaders became the new majority. In some parts, the natives and invaders became mixed to the point were identity became confused, as in Central Asia(Eurasia), North Africa, much of ‘Latin America’, and India.
Modern immigration is less violent, but it too is a form of invasion if in sufficiently large numbers. A few immigrants add spice and flavor. Too many leads to fundamental change in character of culture and race and nation. The effect of too much immigration, even if peaceful, is the drastic change in national character. It leads to natives being displaced by different people.
According to retroactive use of the term ‘immigration’, one might say the Japanese invasion of China was ‘immigration’. And German invasion of Russia was ‘immigration’. After all, you have massive movements of peoples. The Turkic invasion of Greece was ‘immigration’. The lebensraum thing.
Also, what do we mean by ‘Britain’? It came into existence over a long time. We must not confuse the territory of what is now called Britain with Britain as civilization and culture… just like we mustn’t confuse the land mass ‘America’ before the rise of American Civilization.
There was a time when the people of ‘Britain’ were a bunch of bloody buggers into clan, tribe, and barbarian behavior. They didn’t know what their island looked like. They knew very little except the immediate world around them. As such, there was no Britain in the civilizational sense. As Britain was run amok by barbarians, other peoples invaded it. Some were civilized, like the Romans. Some were other European barbarians. The whole process was bloody as hell. But the invaders also brought new ideas, and some settled.
Over time, this non-stop process of movements and invasions led to the rise of something like pre-Britain, dawn of stable native civilization. Tribes turned into kingdoms, and small kingdoms were forged into bigger kingdoms until, finally, there was a united Britain. And once this united and stable entity was created, it became nativist. It could now defend itself from new would-be-invaders or ‘armed immigrants’, or ‘armigrants’.
When Britain had been dominated by bloody buggers or weak tinpot kingdoms, people such as Danes and Vikings could come invading and mess things up real good. Word got around that ANYONE can invade Britain and have a good time looting and raping.
But once Britain became united, stable, and relatively powerful, it could defend itself. It could go into full nativist mode, and word got around that Britain isn’t to be invaded no more. “You get licked real good if you try, so don’t even try.” And it was under this stability, unity, and continuity — whereupon Britain could defend itself from future would-be invaders — that Britain grew into a great power. If a nation cannot defend itself, how can it form into something great and powerful? For a civilization to grow, it must first become secure and stable. Of course, what developed into Britain resulted from a land mass that had been invaded by various peoples. But while the invasions continued, no stable civilization was possible. Only when there was sufficient power for Britain to defend itself and keep out future invaders did it grow and grow.
It’s like molten stuff becomes solid metal. Sure, in the process of metallurgy, various elements are gooey, lava-like, and liquidy and fluid and they flow and meld together. But once the molten stuff solidifies into shield or sword, it is firm and stable. It remains hard and resists new elements.
If you take molten iron and molten copper and molten zinc and other stuff, they will all mix together. But once it cools and solidifies, it will not meld with new stuff. If you put a piece of lead on top of cooled metal, they will not merge.
Barbarian ‘Britain’ was in molten form. It was unstable and melded with new elements that came invading, like asteroids hitting ‘primordial’ Earth. But once it solidified into a stable state, it could defend itself. It could decide which newcomers could come(and be obedient to the ruling system) and which ones were to be left out.
It’s like the solar system. At one time, all the planets were clouds of dust just coming into being. So much was unstable. And the solar system was filled with tons of flying rocks and stuff. But over time, the dust turned into blobs of gas that turned into mass that hardened into solid planets. And most of the big rocks flying around the solar system eventually crashed into forming planets and became part of the planets. And sometimes, a rock that hit the earth was so big that a chunk of earth was blown out and became the moon. So, it is true that Earth was created through ‘mass immigration’ of space objects that came crashing. But eventually, the big rocks were reduced in number in the solar system. And there was more stability. And as Earth developed atmosphere, it served as shield to all the little rocks that entered it. They burned up into shooting stars, and most didn’t hit the planet. So, earth became more protected and it was within such stability that life could form and evolve.
So, the initial ‘molten’ and ‘chaotic’ processes were important, they were violent and crazy, like the opening of EXCALIBUR when everyone is bashing everyone. For there to be an Order, there has to be stability and defense and security. And that means crushing the enemies and invaders and sending a message “Stay away from this land or you’ll be sorry.”
The MOLTEN stage of Britain.
The SOLIDIFIED state of pre-Britain coming into being.
In the solidified state of Britain, the kings understood ‘You and the land are one’. Kings, noblemen, and peasants were of different classes but still of one people. A solid bond. Kings fought to defend the land for the people, and people served the kings.
And if later UK became an emigrationist and invasive nation of other territories, it was because it succeeded as nativist state. No longer having to worry about defending its own territory, it could devise plans to gain new territories. And so, British Empire spread all over the world. Eventually, many native non-whites gained national consciousness, learned to unite and fight, and drove out the British invasivists in the name of nativist independence and sovereignty.
And the world was finally in balance, and things were good. Each people had their own nations. All the world traded, learned from another, and traveled to other nations with respect. Europeans no longer went to non-West and said “We are your master, kiss my boot.” They came as travelers, scholars, or businessmen with respect for national sovereignty and culture. And non-whites came to the West with respect either as traveler, student, of businessmen(or temp workers). But then, globalism said BROKEN BORDERS IS GOOD. Break the dams and let the whole whole world be flooded with foreignness… with the exception of Israel as a special Ark that stays afloat of Global Swarming.
Globalists began to take over the world. They came to see nationalism as the solidifying force of nations that stood in the way of Soro-cery. Of course, nationalism was fine for Israel, favorite nation of globalists. But when gentiles had nationalism, it meant their tough hardened shield was hard to crack. Gentile elites and masses thought in terms of ‘You and the land(people) are one’. So, the Glob figured on turning elites into collaborators of globalist elites with carrots and sticks. Carrots would be increased profits if they go along. Free trade and broken borders sure made lots of corporations rich as hell. And look how rich the Clintons and Bushes got. But there is also the stick of PC. As globalists came to dominate the new narrative and sanctimony, ‘diversity’ became an article of faith. So, if any national elite rejects it — like Orban did — , he is a bad bad person to be collectively shunned and targeted.
To weaken and destroy gentile nationalism, the globalists seek to meld the world. They want the world to be turned into a lava flow, with the exception of Israel that gets ‘passover’ privilege. As for UK and US, turn them into Molten Pots so that the bonds between white elites and white masses could be loosened. So that the bond between white males and white females will be loosened, whereupon white wombs will be colonized by others. So that the bond between white adults and white children will be weakened, whereupon you have the tragic case like in the movie AMERICAN PASTORAL, where a Jewish guy who goes quasi-wasp and suffers the fate of gentiles in radical America. It’s almost like cosmic punishment for going ‘quasi-gentile’. (Not a great movie, but one of the true nightmare visions, like THE COUNSELOR).
America is beyond the stage of Melting Pot, which implies things are being melted within the solid pot. What America is now is Molten Pot where the pot itself is unstable and coming apart. When the pot itself melts, what it holds can no longer be held. The pot and what’s inside become interchangeable and turns into a big ugly mass of crap metal.
It’s like the crazy backyard steel furnace during the Great Leap Forward. With excessive zeal that anyone can make steel, everyone threw in all sorts of metal and other stuff just to produce ‘steel’. None of it made any sense. These people had perfectly good pans, tools, spoons, plows, knives, and etc. But they collected all of them — of various metals — and threw them into furnace. But why melt perfectly good metal utensils and stuff? Because they were made to believe in the Magic Steel of Maoism. So, maybe if they made this new ‘steel’ by melting whatever metal they could find, the new stuff they made of the material would produce great products. So, what happened? New pans made from this magic steel began to crack and break.
US and EU, the backyard people furnaces of the world.
White Europe and White America were perfectly fine. They produced the best societies and most powerful nations on Earth. Even after WWI and WWII, they rebounded fast. Even after Civil War, US had rebounded in few yrs because the fundamentals of race, culture, and values were intact. They had the right genes, cultures, and values to do whatever was possible. They had made of fine elements of human metal.
But globalism told them that white human metal is all wrong. It must be melded and mixed with other human metals of blacks, browns, yellows, and etc. to make SUPERIOR METAL(like in mixed up Puerto Rico). And the new human metal made of massive mixing of elements would lead to superior new man. But based on what? If diversity is so great, why did Latin America lag behind whiter American nations like US and Canada?
If mixed-races are so great, why did North Africa and Central Asia do less than Europe?
But PC metallurgy told whites that white metal MUST mix with other elements. So, there must be something wrong with Swedish-American in Minnesota. Why, it lacks diversity! Since southern blacks are criminal, why not bring in tons of Somali blacks. Maybe they will be different, and maybe Scandy-Americans will become racially improved by backyard-furnacing with Somalis. Yeah, sure.
White race needs to melding with other races. And Europe must be hard shield and sword.
White race needs racial viagra. It needs to listen to Beavis. Flaccid whiteness is nowhere.
Also, who/whom matters. Even if Britain was invaded by various folks in the past, they were all fellow Europeans, so they could easily become One People. Humans are not like dogs. Dogs judge much by smell. Humans identify by sight. It’s the way we are made. So, when peoples look different, there is less identification and more of us-vs-them mentality.
Suppose US had brought 300,000 white slaves. Upon emancipation, many would have merged with free whites. Japan used to have lots of slaves too, like in SANSHO THE BAILIFF. But once the old system ended, all Japanese became one people cuz they ‘looked alike’.
But free or slave, people who look different don’t really come together well.
Also, the Africans have aggressive anti-civilization genes. Spread it far and wide, and it’s spreads traits of uninhibitedness, yabbityness, egomania, and conscience-less.
North Africa is only part-black, but even that had a degrading effect.
As for Pakistanis, those first-cousin-humping people need to stick to their own kind. Besides, the Indo-Paks told the white man to GO HOME. Okay, the whites went home. Pakkers need to stay in their own home. Besides, Pakistan is much bigger than little Britain. They can do much with it. And India is even bigger. It is 2/3 the size of US. So much can be done with that counry if Indots learn not to shi* all over outdoors and into rivers and act like louts in SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, which I could stomach for only 10 minutes.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/argentine-woman-facing-deportation-protest-freed-175550595.html***Meaning, she's doing well, considering how she took her status as a criminal as an opportunity to grandstand and get up on a soap box, got arrested for her crime, and spent time in detention for it.
I think "she's doing pretty well given everything she's put herself through" would be how most people who aren't her attorney would put it.In other words, her parents completely screwed her, by gambling that American law would never be enforced.
The zeitgeist is thick with people blaming the parents for everything, but blaming criminal immigrant parents for being scofflaws at their own children's expense would be unthinkable.Democrats are fine with fedgov shaking Dreamers down for $250 a year. Extorting hardworking families!Replies: @Lot
I am not aware of any crime a child who overstays a visa while in the custody of his parents commits. If this woman worked illegally in the USA that is a crime, but she may have either been a student or working under a Dreamer or other work permit, which Trump has continued to issue despite the fact that DACA is illegal.
She is still deportable and should be, but I see no evidence she is a criminal.
Somehow the Anglo-Saxons - the group that gave England its name, its language and the core of its cultural identity - are not even named, and are only included as an unstated afterthought in the "more".
It is both arrogant and ignorant for a foreigner who has been given the privilege of admittance to a nation-state to claim to be as much one of them as someone with roots in the country going back a millennium or more. To use that privilege to denounce the native population for wanting to maintain some semblance of national cohesion is beneath contempt.Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
They’re a very gracious people.
Do you ever think that if the British had not spent centuries trying to steal Ireland from the native Irish, then fewer Irish immigrants would have moved to Britain? The British love to create problems in other people’s countries and are then shocked when the natives of those countries want to move to Britain to escape the problems that Britain has created.
Before that they were invading The Big Island for fun, and conquering it (eventually (as in, 100s of years) permanently, in the case of Scotland, I don't know what happened in Cornwall, the Welsh chucked them out eventually, and their brief supremacy in the Northern Isles was ruthlessly and completely abrogated, in the usual, enthusiastically slashy, burny, stabby and choppy manner, by Vikings. Oh dear how sad never mind).Replies: @Anonymous
Just like the British are so ungrateful about the IRA.
Ah the only ones who should be grateful for Irish defensive countermeasures against the British terrorists are the widows and cripples, who owe their large pensions to the Irish fighting back :)
Our Englander chums would have had more to be grateful for if Thatcher had been whacked in Brighton, though ;)
Correct any details I have wrong.Replies: @celt darnell, @Richard S, @Expletive Deleted
It’s probably best classed as a ‘folk memory’ rather than ‘history’ these days, but my old man maintains the West Indians were initially encouraged in by the then Tory government to (-ahem-) blackleg against the unions and help break various transport strikes, mainly the London bus strikes. Leading indirectly to the Notting Hill riots. Despite all that “Jamaican airmen, Empire Windrush” propaganda, there weren’t a whole lot before that, just a few pockets of Somalis and Lascars down the docks.
And the newly-minted Pakistanis and so on were onshored with the express intention of “saving the British textile industry, Minister!” There was so much work about at better rates that my grandma chucked in t’mill (silkspinner, 12 frames) to do driving, school lunch lady, all sorts, for a physically easier (healthier), better remunerated life.
We had a shedload of Hungarians rock up at the same time. Heard no more about ’em, although I run across their fully integrated descendants now and then. No trouble at all. Of course they didn’t do a whole lot of scabbing, and had little patience with socialism. Generally, solid independent crafts/tradesmen and farm workers. Or professors, if we were unlucky.
“British” is a nebulous term in this context. Try telling an Irishman his island is part of Britain (just geographcially, not politically!), or even the British Isles, and stand by.
We Ulster Scots were Scots Presbyterians, not to be confused with English Anglicans (both groups, of course, were British Protestants). It’s true we are no more loved in the Republic to this day than the English colonisers, but we were nevertheless Celts (Celts never were a people known to be amiable among themselves; like the Amerindians, eastern Indians, and Africans, half our trouble was not being able to stop fighting among ourselves for five minutes to repel the English…uh…immigrants.)
When we came to America it was off to the hills to fight ornery Indians, whilst the English farmed the fertile coastal plains and the piedmont. We’re like Jews but with less effective public relations.
i'll trade you a few hundred pints of premium-grade PR, for a few hundred celtic-music instrumentalists to come settle here. The Samaria hills are fairly similar to your Highlands..
i don't mind gays or pot-heads, those have just been legalized here. I just need top-notch instrumentalists with which to staff the Third Temple
Deal?
Sounds remarkably like a certain other country that has also risen to become a globe-bestriding empire, and in fact took over from Britain in that role……
The Black Death to some extent bottlenecked the various semi-related Continental groups who’d made it across previously. The Real Normans (TM) were very fastidious about only marrying within their own social ranks. Not racism, but definitely apartheid-lite. An unwedded daughter would be dumped in a convent rather than “marry down”, and for the landless younger sons, well, the joys of medieval campaign life, seeking their fortune somewhere preferably as far away as possible. With lots of diseases.
I expect to hear more about how "1/3rd of the roman government was black!" based on the roman senate having been 1/3rd African at some point, which does not even remotely imply an origin south of the Sahara. it's with astonishment that I see this nonsense rising and rising.
I used to laugh at the retrofitting but not anymore. it's serious politico-cultural warfare.Replies: @Expletive Deleted, @dfordoom
Well obviously they set off north on a massive trek from their ancient capital, Pretoria. In ox-wagons.
Remember before the enlightened, modern, progressive integration of women into the military when these scandals were even worse? Thank goodness we are moving to make them a thing of the past by bringing more and more females into the armed forces so that the socially constructed tendencies of young, virile men and fertile women in close quarters and filled with raging hormones can have a chance to be stamped out by the natural tendency of all persons to behave like asexual monks at all times.
Globalism is Ugly-Americanization of the world or Uglobalism… without the charm that Ugly Americans had. Uglobalism is dead serious. When Ugly Americans went to France and acted like it’s their home and expected the French to answer them in English, that was sort of amusing but not necessarily ill-intentioned. Also, the world developed a love-hate thing with the Ugly American. Sure, he could be uncouth and vulgar but there was something endearing and direct about this globe-trotting ‘cowboy’ or ‘hillbilly’: the American tourist in Hawaiian T-shirt in Paris taking in some ‘culture’. At the very least, the Ugly American wasn’t trying to destroy other nations and cultures. He just moved around the world like a big dog in a world full of cats.
Uglobalism, in contrast, has a radical agenda behind it. And it is not bumbling and clueless but aggressive, viral, and domineering. It is Soro-sistic.
It’s not about someone who is essentially well-meaning without table manners but someone who is trying to break down the doors of the house and destroying its security from trespassers.
Ugly Americanism is like Joseph Cotton in THIRD MAN. Uglobalism is like Harry Lime, who will do ANYTHING to gain wealth and control. It isn’t accidental but agenda-driven.
There was a time when the following scenario was natural. Consider Hungary and Iran.
If an Hungarian went to Iran as traveler, scholar, or businessman(or worker), he went with respect for Iran as a nation of sovereignty, culture, history, and ethnos. He understood he was a guest in a foreign land. Iran should ideally treat him with civility, but he should also show good manners as a guest. He would know he is a stranger in another land. It wouldn’t occur to him to say, “Listen up, Iranians, I have every right to be here as you do. And if any number of Hungarians wanna come and settle here, you better let them. And stop with this ‘Iranian’ history as something unique. Make room for ‘New Iranians’ And minorities should be favored over the majority because majority rule is ‘populism’, a bad thing. And if anything in Iran offends us Hungarian-Iranians, it must be removed. And if any Iranian says we shouldn’t be allowed to come in huge numbers, he must be fined and jailed for ‘hate speech’.”
Or the reverse would have been unthinkable too. Imagine an Iranian in Hungary saying, “Listen up, Hungarians, I am just as ‘Hungarian’ as you because Hungary is a nation of immigrants because various peoples invaded since ancient times. You Hungarians must acknowledge me as ‘new hungarian’ who is no less hungarian than a Hungarian with deep historical roots in Hungary. Hungarianiness is not an inheritance but a mere option for anyone who wants to be ‘hungarian’, that is until he gets bored with it and wants to go to Sweden to be ‘new Swede’. And if I want to bring over all relatives in Iran to settle in Hungary, you better let me because you’d be ‘exclusive’ and ‘xenophobic’ if you say no.”
There was a time when such attitude would have been seen as RUDE, CONTEMPTUOUS, NASTY, VILE, ARROGANT, and OBNOXIOUS. But such is the New Progressivism as promoted by Uglobalism. Every nation must roll out the mat and welcome you as its New Citizen if you feel like it.. indeed even if you arrived illegally without permission.
It is no wonder we have such lack of respect and obnoxious behavior among non-whites who come to the West and act like they have some ‘right’ to be there as native peoples. There don’t come with respect. No manners. No decency. These are barbarian gate-crashers. (But then, in the name of ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy’, the post-cold-war America thinks it has some globalist license to bomb, invade, and destroy any nation.)
But while these gate-crashers are encouraged to be boorish and ill-mannered, white civilians of white nations are expected to be on their best manners and hold up ‘welcome signs’ and be so civil.
No, the proper thing to do is kick out the ill-mannered louts. And no more pity. It’s like Jack should have punched the no-good punk.
Uglobalism has so many people acting like “Jack’s Navy Pal”. Hit him.
That’s too sensible. You’ll never see it on a site like NYT.
I am so sick and tired of NYT. I can’t whether or not to let the subscription go. After all, one needs to watch the enemy.
The Irish had only just got rid of the Dublin Vikings (and Cork and the like). A lot of them fled to Cheshire (now partly Lancs.) Wales, Isle of Man, Galloway and various islands off Scotland. How many sought gainful employment as extra muscle for their ambitious countrymen and rivals in Normandy (e.g. knocking over the Celtic/Alan dukedom of Brittany) is unknown.
And their grandsons may have accompanied the De Clare/de Lacy Cambro-Norman extension of the conquest of (Anglo-Danish) England, then Wales, then Scotland (Edward Bruce/ de Brus invaded Ireland separately) all the way back to Eire. They got about a fair bit, them Northmen, you know.
The Flemings/Burgundians always get written out of the script a bit, for some reason. There were loads of them.
You can make a case for taking High IQ Jews. Trujillo WANTED them during the Voyage of the Damned but he lived in ... the Dominican Republic. [The smart move would have been to take the offer and then move in ten years, conserving that most precious of gifts, LIFE.] Or Einstein, Billy Wilder, etc. A bunch of illiterate goat herders from Syria does not fit the bill, much less even lower IQ Africans. What we will get out of it is a million Tamerlane Tsarnaev types, swaggering track suited low IQ thugs who cut a wide swath through our female population while adding nothing but constant violence turning the West and its men from Fred Terman into John Wesley Hardin within a generation. [Oh that's coming.] But in the meantime the FEELZ of status mongering upper class White women has to be pandered to.
Speaking of which, Lana Del Rey wants you to know that she's planning more witchcraft spells to drive Trump from office, and Depeche Mode is shocked that the Alt-Right likes them, saying that the could understand how Communists would like them given their working class background, but not the Alt-Right. Dept of cluelessness ... Commies require a trust fund. Working class people are Alt-Right.Replies: @Joe Walker, @BB753
Well, I’m also shocked that the alt-right likes Depeche Mode! What gives?
Unlike some politically ambiguous metal bands (AC/DC, perhaps), all New Wave bands were very left-wing. Rock and pop musicians have been poisoning the minds of impressionable young people with liberal propaganda since forever.
I agree, though; the vast majority of popular musicians are evil leftist whack-jobs. I no longer buy art (music, movies, etc.) I may genuinely enjoy, because I cannot subsidise persons fixated on destroying me and my people.
Even ostensibly heartland-rock types like John Mellencamp and Bruce Springsteen hate America. Looking back, Elvis – perhaps the most revolutionary and shocking ever – may have been one of the last who, for all his faults, sincerely loved Jesus, his mama, and the U.S.A. Some of the other most traditional and patriotic sorts are to be found among heavy metal acts who are, again, ironically held to be the most controversial by the mainstream (who advocate the respectable hatred of Americans, but not unseemly and genuinely dangerous things like loud guitars, long hair, and weird clothes...).Replies: @BB753, @Anonymous
It’s their own silly fault. They stole a Romano-Brit called Patricius or the like, possibly from around the Carlisle area, or further along the Wall, who infected them with Christianity.
Before that they were invading The Big Island for fun, and conquering it (eventually (as in, 100s of years) permanently, in the case of Scotland, I don’t know what happened in Cornwall, the Welsh chucked them out eventually, and their brief supremacy in the Northern Isles was ruthlessly and completely abrogated, in the usual, enthusiastically slashy, burny, stabby and choppy manner, by Vikings. Oh dear how sad never mind).
Too many responses to trawl through, so apologies if any of my comments restate earlier ones.
1. France is visible from parts of SE England. It’s not really the greatest leap of imagination that in ancient times the coast of Britain was visible and visited and colonised from mainland Eurasia.
2. Ireland has the story of the Fir Bolg, implying several waves of immigrants.
3. Normal trading relations with nearby countries produced such “British ” names as Fleming (for Flemish), Gallagher (for descendants of foreign workers), Blackie and Moore (often from Blackamoor) and others – I recommend Basil Cottle’s “Penguin Dictionary of British Surnames ” and his sublime ” Names”.
4. “Lascars” were known in port cities when I was a young guy in the 1960s, and beyond that there were families such as the Jolly family of SW Scotland known to be from African stock originally.
5. The most commercially successful family on the Isle of Lewis (from which the mother of the POTUS emigrated) is probably descended from young people from South Asia. Oblique reference to them is made in Finlay J. MacDonald”s memoir of growing up in the 1920s “Crowdie and Cream” turned into a short BBC series. That’s when the POTUS’s mother was deciding to leave for NYC.
Undoubtedly the population of the British Isles was overwhelmingly white until recently, but immigration has been the norm.
Another analogous line is the Gandy (spelled allways) family. Again, Lord (I think) Auchinleck's 18th century serving lad, fresh from West Africa. When slavery was abolished, the poor soul became an embarrassment to his erstwhile owner, and ended up down the Laird's primitive coalpits along with the white folks. I doubt he was thrilled by his newfound freedom. Still some of the name about, in places like Cumnock and Drongan, and according to local lore it derives from the place of origin (poss. a river??) of the African progenitor.
Moore is more generally derived either from some Irish Gaelic name, or more certainly from the area at the back of Liverpool, a (turf fuel) moor with an eponymous landholding family, del More or de Mora. Like Sir Thomas, who had that woopsie with Big Henry and the axe.
http://www.liverpolitan.im/main/fh/fh_moore.htm
https://williamgray101.wordpress.com/2015/11/12/moore-omore/
… Zing?
Ah the only ones who should be grateful for Irish defensive countermeasures against the British terrorists are the widows and cripples, who owe their large pensions to the Irish fighting back 🙂
Our Englander chums would have had more to be grateful for if Thatcher had been whacked in Brighton, though 😉
They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America
https://www.amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTfjv_wFBWs&t=712sReplies: @syonredux
You mean indentured servants?
These two were pretty successful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_England_(1326)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution
Britain was made by INVASIONS. All lands all over the world were invaded. Japan was once inhabited by Ainu and others. But then, Mongoloid East Asian types took over.
Africa was constantly invaded and re-invaded by various black tribes, mostly Bantu.
Near East was invaded forever back and forth.
Same in Europe. Britain was invaded by so many European tribes, clans, kingdoms, armies, marauders, barbarians, and etc. Germans tried to invade in WWII.
Russia invaded so much and even Poland and Finland were once part of 'Russia'.
So, what Shabby Shabi means by 'immigration' is really invasion. Calling every movement of peoples in the past 'immigration' is anachronistic. Invasions were always violent, always unwelcome and resisted. Sometimes, resistance succeeded, sometimes not. Part of Europe was spared from Ottoman or Mongol invasion. Other parts came under domination. In some parts, the invaders soon left or were repelled with revolts and uprisings. In other parts, the invaders became the new majority. In some parts, the natives and invaders became mixed to the point were identity became confused, as in Central Asia(Eurasia), North Africa, much of 'Latin America', and India.
Modern immigration is less violent, but it too is a form of invasion if in sufficiently large numbers. A few immigrants add spice and flavor. Too many leads to fundamental change in character of culture and race and nation. The effect of too much immigration, even if peaceful, is the drastic change in national character. It leads to natives being displaced by different people.
According to retroactive use of the term 'immigration', one might say the Japanese invasion of China was 'immigration'. And German invasion of Russia was 'immigration'. After all, you have massive movements of peoples. The Turkic invasion of Greece was 'immigration'. The lebensraum thing.
Also, what do we mean by 'Britain'? It came into existence over a long time. We must not confuse the territory of what is now called Britain with Britain as civilization and culture... just like we mustn't confuse the land mass 'America' before the rise of American Civilization.
There was a time when the people of 'Britain' were a bunch of bloody buggers into clan, tribe, and barbarian behavior. They didn't know what their island looked like. They knew very little except the immediate world around them. As such, there was no Britain in the civilizational sense. As Britain was run amok by barbarians, other peoples invaded it. Some were civilized, like the Romans. Some were other European barbarians. The whole process was bloody as hell. But the invaders also brought new ideas, and some settled.
Over time, this non-stop process of movements and invasions led to the rise of something like pre-Britain, dawn of stable native civilization. Tribes turned into kingdoms, and small kingdoms were forged into bigger kingdoms until, finally, there was a united Britain. And once this united and stable entity was created, it became nativist. It could now defend itself from new would-be-invaders or 'armed immigrants', or 'armigrants'.
When Britain had been dominated by bloody buggers or weak tinpot kingdoms, people such as Danes and Vikings could come invading and mess things up real good. Word got around that ANYONE can invade Britain and have a good time looting and raping.
But once Britain became united, stable, and relatively powerful, it could defend itself. It could go into full nativist mode, and word got around that Britain isn't to be invaded no more. "You get licked real good if you try, so don't even try." And it was under this stability, unity, and continuity --- whereupon Britain could defend itself from future would-be invaders --- that Britain grew into a great power. If a nation cannot defend itself, how can it form into something great and powerful? For a civilization to grow, it must first become secure and stable. Of course, what developed into Britain resulted from a land mass that had been invaded by various peoples. But while the invasions continued, no stable civilization was possible. Only when there was sufficient power for Britain to defend itself and keep out future invaders did it grow and grow.
It's like molten stuff becomes solid metal. Sure, in the process of metallurgy, various elements are gooey, lava-like, and liquidy and fluid and they flow and meld together. But once the molten stuff solidifies into shield or sword, it is firm and stable. It remains hard and resists new elements.
If you take molten iron and molten copper and molten zinc and other stuff, they will all mix together. But once it cools and solidifies, it will not meld with new stuff. If you put a piece of lead on top of cooled metal, they will not merge.
Barbarian 'Britain' was in molten form. It was unstable and melded with new elements that came invading, like asteroids hitting 'primordial' Earth. But once it solidified into a stable state, it could defend itself. It could decide which newcomers could come(and be obedient to the ruling system) and which ones were to be left out.
It's like the solar system. At one time, all the planets were clouds of dust just coming into being. So much was unstable. And the solar system was filled with tons of flying rocks and stuff. But over time, the dust turned into blobs of gas that turned into mass that hardened into solid planets. And most of the big rocks flying around the solar system eventually crashed into forming planets and became part of the planets. And sometimes, a rock that hit the earth was so big that a chunk of earth was blown out and became the moon. So, it is true that Earth was created through 'mass immigration' of space objects that came crashing. But eventually, the big rocks were reduced in number in the solar system. And there was more stability. And as Earth developed atmosphere, it served as shield to all the little rocks that entered it. They burned up into shooting stars, and most didn't hit the planet. So, earth became more protected and it was within such stability that life could form and evolve.
So, the initial 'molten' and 'chaotic' processes were important, they were violent and crazy, like the opening of EXCALIBUR when everyone is bashing everyone. For there to be an Order, there has to be stability and defense and security. And that means crushing the enemies and invaders and sending a message "Stay away from this land or you'll be sorry."
The MOLTEN stage of Britain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxSeeN03Xfg
The SOLIDIFIED state of pre-Britain coming into being.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaDo9PyCeLQ
In the solidified state of Britain, the kings understood 'You and the land are one'. Kings, noblemen, and peasants were of different classes but still of one people. A solid bond. Kings fought to defend the land for the people, and people served the kings.
And if later UK became an emigrationist and invasive nation of other territories, it was because it succeeded as nativist state. No longer having to worry about defending its own territory, it could devise plans to gain new territories. And so, British Empire spread all over the world. Eventually, many native non-whites gained national consciousness, learned to unite and fight, and drove out the British invasivists in the name of nativist independence and sovereignty.
And the world was finally in balance, and things were good. Each people had their own nations. All the world traded, learned from another, and traveled to other nations with respect. Europeans no longer went to non-West and said "We are your master, kiss my boot." They came as travelers, scholars, or businessmen with respect for national sovereignty and culture. And non-whites came to the West with respect either as traveler, student, of businessmen(or temp workers). But then, globalism said BROKEN BORDERS IS GOOD. Break the dams and let the whole whole world be flooded with foreignness... with the exception of Israel as a special Ark that stays afloat of Global Swarming.
Globalists began to take over the world. They came to see nationalism as the solidifying force of nations that stood in the way of Soro-cery. Of course, nationalism was fine for Israel, favorite nation of globalists. But when gentiles had nationalism, it meant their tough hardened shield was hard to crack. Gentile elites and masses thought in terms of 'You and the land(people) are one'. So, the Glob figured on turning elites into collaborators of globalist elites with carrots and sticks. Carrots would be increased profits if they go along. Free trade and broken borders sure made lots of corporations rich as hell. And look how rich the Clintons and Bushes got. But there is also the stick of PC. As globalists came to dominate the new narrative and sanctimony, 'diversity' became an article of faith. So, if any national elite rejects it --- like Orban did --- , he is a bad bad person to be collectively shunned and targeted.
To weaken and destroy gentile nationalism, the globalists seek to meld the world. They want the world to be turned into a lava flow, with the exception of Israel that gets 'passover' privilege. As for UK and US, turn them into Molten Pots so that the bonds between white elites and white masses could be loosened. So that the bond between white males and white females will be loosened, whereupon white wombs will be colonized by others. So that the bond between white adults and white children will be weakened, whereupon you have the tragic case like in the movie AMERICAN PASTORAL, where a Jewish guy who goes quasi-wasp and suffers the fate of gentiles in radical America. It's almost like cosmic punishment for going 'quasi-gentile'. (Not a great movie, but one of the true nightmare visions, like THE COUNSELOR).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO9I4GnXHwo
America is beyond the stage of Melting Pot, which implies things are being melted within the solid pot. What America is now is Molten Pot where the pot itself is unstable and coming apart. When the pot itself melts, what it holds can no longer be held. The pot and what's inside become interchangeable and turns into a big ugly mass of crap metal.
It's like the crazy backyard steel furnace during the Great Leap Forward. With excessive zeal that anyone can make steel, everyone threw in all sorts of metal and other stuff just to produce 'steel'. None of it made any sense. These people had perfectly good pans, tools, spoons, plows, knives, and etc. But they collected all of them --- of various metals --- and threw them into furnace. But why melt perfectly good metal utensils and stuff? Because they were made to believe in the Magic Steel of Maoism. So, maybe if they made this new 'steel' by melting whatever metal they could find, the new stuff they made of the material would produce great products. So, what happened? New pans made from this magic steel began to crack and break.
US and EU, the backyard people furnaces of the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60_Q-kAZbXA
White Europe and White America were perfectly fine. They produced the best societies and most powerful nations on Earth. Even after WWI and WWII, they rebounded fast. Even after Civil War, US had rebounded in few yrs because the fundamentals of race, culture, and values were intact. They had the right genes, cultures, and values to do whatever was possible. They had made of fine elements of human metal.
But globalism told them that white human metal is all wrong. It must be melded and mixed with other human metals of blacks, browns, yellows, and etc. to make SUPERIOR METAL(like in mixed up Puerto Rico). And the new human metal made of massive mixing of elements would lead to superior new man. But based on what? If diversity is so great, why did Latin America lag behind whiter American nations like US and Canada?
If mixed-races are so great, why did North Africa and Central Asia do less than Europe?
But PC metallurgy told whites that white metal MUST mix with other elements. So, there must be something wrong with Swedish-American in Minnesota. Why, it lacks diversity! Since southern blacks are criminal, why not bring in tons of Somali blacks. Maybe they will be different, and maybe Scandy-Americans will become racially improved by backyard-furnacing with Somalis. Yeah, sure.
White race needs to melding with other races. And Europe must be hard shield and sword.
White race needs racial viagra. It needs to listen to Beavis. Flaccid whiteness is nowhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoS1MCF8AeI
Also, who/whom matters. Even if Britain was invaded by various folks in the past, they were all fellow Europeans, so they could easily become One People. Humans are not like dogs. Dogs judge much by smell. Humans identify by sight. It's the way we are made. So, when peoples look different, there is less identification and more of us-vs-them mentality.
Suppose US had brought 300,000 white slaves. Upon emancipation, many would have merged with free whites. Japan used to have lots of slaves too, like in SANSHO THE BAILIFF. But once the old system ended, all Japanese became one people cuz they 'looked alike'.
But free or slave, people who look different don't really come together well.
Also, the Africans have aggressive anti-civilization genes. Spread it far and wide, and it's spreads traits of uninhibitedness, yabbityness, egomania, and conscience-less.
North Africa is only part-black, but even that had a degrading effect.
As for Pakistanis, those first-cousin-humping people need to stick to their own kind. Besides, the Indo-Paks told the white man to GO HOME. Okay, the whites went home. Pakkers need to stay in their own home. Besides, Pakistan is much bigger than little Britain. They can do much with it. And India is even bigger. It is 2/3 the size of US. So much can be done with that counry if Indots learn not to shi* all over outdoors and into rivers and act like louts in SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE, which I could stomach for only 10 minutes.Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
Some good stuff in there. Voted.
I am so sick and tired of NYT. I can't whether or not to let the subscription go. After all, one needs to watch the enemy.Replies: @snorlax
Put the url of the article you want to read into archive.is and stop sending them money.
Early-victorian Irish would be very surprised to find that the Irish Language is now a dead language in Ireland.
1. France is visible from parts of SE England. It's not really the greatest leap of imagination that in ancient times the coast of Britain was visible and visited and colonised from mainland Eurasia.
2. Ireland has the story of the Fir Bolg, implying several waves of immigrants.
3. Normal trading relations with nearby countries produced such "British " names as Fleming (for Flemish), Gallagher (for descendants of foreign workers), Blackie and Moore (often from Blackamoor) and others - I recommend Basil Cottle's "Penguin Dictionary of British Surnames " and his sublime " Names".
4. "Lascars" were known in port cities when I was a young guy in the 1960s, and beyond that there were families such as the Jolly family of SW Scotland known to be from African stock originally.
5. The most commercially successful family on the Isle of Lewis (from which the mother of the POTUS emigrated) is probably descended from young people from South Asia. Oblique reference to them is made in Finlay J. MacDonald''s memoir of growing up in the 1920s "Crowdie and Cream" turned into a short BBC series. That's when the POTUS's mother was deciding to leave for NYC.
Undoubtedly the population of the British Isles was overwhelmingly white until recently, but immigration has been the norm.Replies: @Coemgen, @Expletive Deleted, @Expletive Deleted
Unfortunately for your “five points” we have 23andme et al. to confirm that Irish and British are as closely related to each other as our pasty white skins would suggest and, we are not so closely related to anyone else.
9 Opinionator >> ‘Mizrahi Jews would be living peaceful lives in prosperous Arab countries if Zionism hadn’t come’
> That much is true.
i’ll relay your opinion, the next time i visit a Yazidi mass grave
Anyone whose game plan depends upon the Hebrew people volunteering to go into refugee-dom, needs a new game plan. We’ll take you to hell with us if you try to push it.
Guys like Opinionator can’t even talk their own daughters out of getting knocked up by Sudanese “migrants”. It’s unlikely that we’ll be taking advice from the likes of him…..
159 Authochthon > We’re like Jews but with less effective public relations.
i’ll trade you a few hundred pints of premium-grade PR, for a few hundred celtic-music instrumentalists to come settle here. The Samaria hills are fairly similar to your Highlands..
i don’t mind gays or pot-heads, those have just been legalized here. I just need top-notch instrumentalists with which to staff the Third Temple
Deal?
If we have a rigid surface of chauvinism how is that we are hosting a constantly increasing number of Asians, Africans & Muslims?
I strongly recommend this article, written in the immediate aftermath of Brexit. In the middle of the essay, it describes the incredible demographic stability is England from 1066 to 1950. Genetic tests of the population map on to maps of ancient kingdoms.
https://mereorthodoxy.com/political-social-earthquake-brexit-future-britain/
Oh, and the two groups are BFFs. And the diaspora Jews support Israel, and her closed borders. And Israeli Jews support diaspora Jewry, and are just fine with their “open borders for everyone but Israel” position.
It’s all very cozy.
1. France is visible from parts of SE England. It's not really the greatest leap of imagination that in ancient times the coast of Britain was visible and visited and colonised from mainland Eurasia.
2. Ireland has the story of the Fir Bolg, implying several waves of immigrants.
3. Normal trading relations with nearby countries produced such "British " names as Fleming (for Flemish), Gallagher (for descendants of foreign workers), Blackie and Moore (often from Blackamoor) and others - I recommend Basil Cottle's "Penguin Dictionary of British Surnames " and his sublime " Names".
4. "Lascars" were known in port cities when I was a young guy in the 1960s, and beyond that there were families such as the Jolly family of SW Scotland known to be from African stock originally.
5. The most commercially successful family on the Isle of Lewis (from which the mother of the POTUS emigrated) is probably descended from young people from South Asia. Oblique reference to them is made in Finlay J. MacDonald''s memoir of growing up in the 1920s "Crowdie and Cream" turned into a short BBC series. That's when the POTUS's mother was deciding to leave for NYC.
Undoubtedly the population of the British Isles was overwhelmingly white until recently, but immigration has been the norm.Replies: @Coemgen, @Expletive Deleted, @Expletive Deleted
Albion, the White Island or as the Gaels have it to this day “Alba”, is the old name. Although it’s been millennia since any Scot or Irishman could be found living within sight of the White Cliffs of Dover. And they wouldn’t have been Gaelic back then, if you see what I mean.
http://www.businessinsider.com/faces-of-tomorrow-2011-2?op=1&IR=T/#tiro-station-in-buenos-aires-9Replies: @Grace Jones
It’s been done with a study of Norman names: “Generation game: How the rich have kept their wealth in the family for 1,000 years”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372919/Social-mobility-slower-medieval-England.html
What view did the native Celts have of the new Viking “immigrants?”
1. France is visible from parts of SE England. It's not really the greatest leap of imagination that in ancient times the coast of Britain was visible and visited and colonised from mainland Eurasia.
2. Ireland has the story of the Fir Bolg, implying several waves of immigrants.
3. Normal trading relations with nearby countries produced such "British " names as Fleming (for Flemish), Gallagher (for descendants of foreign workers), Blackie and Moore (often from Blackamoor) and others - I recommend Basil Cottle's "Penguin Dictionary of British Surnames " and his sublime " Names".
4. "Lascars" were known in port cities when I was a young guy in the 1960s, and beyond that there were families such as the Jolly family of SW Scotland known to be from African stock originally.
5. The most commercially successful family on the Isle of Lewis (from which the mother of the POTUS emigrated) is probably descended from young people from South Asia. Oblique reference to them is made in Finlay J. MacDonald''s memoir of growing up in the 1920s "Crowdie and Cream" turned into a short BBC series. That's when the POTUS's mother was deciding to leave for NYC.
Undoubtedly the population of the British Isles was overwhelmingly white until recently, but immigration has been the norm.Replies: @Coemgen, @Expletive Deleted, @Expletive Deleted
The Jollys still occasionally have very curly (blond, in one case) hair. Most just look, well .. Irish. You can (or could) see their ancestor as a well-dressed African slave boy peeking over Lord Maxwell’s offside shoulder in a large painting, in (I think) the stairwell of Monreith House. He ran away with a dairymaid from Sorbie (of the celebrated cheeses). The locals, being calvinist dyke-levellers, near-jacobins and general insurrectionary sorts, disapproving fiercely of both slavery and aristocracy, sheltered them for a fair while until the authorities lost interest. Eventually they merged into the countryfolk.
Another analogous line is the Gandy (spelled allways) family. Again, Lord (I think) Auchinleck’s 18th century serving lad, fresh from West Africa. When slavery was abolished, the poor soul became an embarrassment to his erstwhile owner, and ended up down the Laird’s primitive coalpits along with the white folks. I doubt he was thrilled by his newfound freedom. Still some of the name about, in places like Cumnock and Drongan, and according to local lore it derives from the place of origin (poss. a river??) of the African progenitor.
Moore is more generally derived either from some Irish Gaelic name, or more certainly from the area at the back of Liverpool, a (turf fuel) moor with an eponymous landholding family, del More or de Mora. Like Sir Thomas, who had that woopsie with Big Henry and the axe.
http://www.liverpolitan.im/main/fh/fh_moore.htm
https://williamgray101.wordpress.com/2015/11/12/moore-omore/
> That much is true.
i'll relay your opinion, the next time i visit a Yazidi mass grave
Anyone whose game plan depends upon the Hebrew people volunteering to go into refugee-dom, needs a new game plan. We'll take you to hell with us if you try to push it.
Guys like Opinionator can't even talk their own daughters out of getting knocked up by Sudanese "migrants". It's unlikely that we'll be taking advice from the likes of him.....Replies: @Opinionator
Anyone whose game plan depends upon the Hebrew people volunteering to go into refugee-dom, needs a new game plan. We’ll take you to hell with us if you try to push it.
Ah, you are threatening us, with mass murder. If I do what? Please detail this threat. What game plan are you referring to?
Yes, they would have been fine. Most of the other hostilities you cite arose collaterally from the jewish conquest of Palestine and American and British violence levied in advancement of that terrible crime.
I read some deranged, unhinged shit on the internet, but nothing gets as deranged and unhinged as this Israel stuff.
I wish that there were cosmic justice and that you people who cuck and cover for Islamists will be the first to feel their wrath when they take over. Kind of like how I hope that the feminists who can't do enough to defend burqas and FGM will be the first to be put in those tents and have their clits cut out.
Unlike some politically ambiguous metal bands (AC/DC, perhaps), all New Wave bands were very left-wing. Rock and pop musicians have been poisoning the minds of impressionable young people with liberal propaganda since forever.Replies: @Autochthon
I dunno; The Jam & Gary Numan weren’t leftists, I’d say; certainly not Numan.
I agree, though; the vast majority of popular musicians are evil leftist whack-jobs. I no longer buy art (music, movies, etc.) I may genuinely enjoy, because I cannot subsidise persons fixated on destroying me and my people.
Even ostensibly heartland-rock types like John Mellencamp and Bruce Springsteen hate America. Looking back, Elvis – perhaps the most revolutionary and shocking ever – may have been one of the last who, for all his faults, sincerely loved Jesus, his mama, and the U.S.A. Some of the other most traditional and patriotic sorts are to be found among heavy metal acts who are, again, ironically held to be the most controversial by the mainstream (who advocate the respectable hatred of Americans, but not unseemly and genuinely dangerous things like loud guitars, long hair, and weird clothes…).
Some metal acts are hard to imagine as rabid lefties like Springsteen : ZZ Top, Motorhead, the above mentioned AC/DC, etc.. Even some Hair Rock bands from the eighties don't strike me as pinkos, except Bon Jovi.Replies: @Autochthon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_England_(1326)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_RevolutionReplies: @Autochthon
These were effectively internecine affairs, particularly the latter (it was not called the Bloodless Revolution for naught).
But in any event the point is that it's not accurate to say there hasn't been a successful invasion of England in 1000 years. There's a successful invasion of England about every 300-something years, which means we're due for one right about now. Hmm…
I expect to hear more about how "1/3rd of the roman government was black!" based on the roman senate having been 1/3rd African at some point, which does not even remotely imply an origin south of the Sahara. it's with astonishment that I see this nonsense rising and rising.
I used to laugh at the retrofitting but not anymore. it's serious politico-cultural warfare.Replies: @Expletive Deleted, @dfordoom
I suspect that the average Millennial already believes this.
Sadly there’s quite a bit of truth in that.
It is when they fell under the sway of Americans or Jews that the mischief really started:
Balfour Declaration, Poland guarantee, etc.
F**k these people.Replies: @Pericles
What it means to be American, by Fareed Zakaria.
To be American is to go to mosque and pray five times a day. To be American is to open the doors to this great country for my family and clan back in the other great country. To be American is to hate racists, sexists, homophobes, and xenophobes. To be American is to put your own people first and take over what the white people built but make them pay for it. To be American is great, until something greater comes along.
True, and until recently it was done quietly as an “off the table” issue and out of the news.
It was Trump that made it public, forcing the CCP (Counter-Cultural Progressives) to be explicit with their feeble claim about border controls (or even enforcing immigration law) being “Racist”, and it probably lost them the election.
https://mereorthodoxy.com/political-social-earthquake-brexit-future-britain/Replies: @Miro23
Part of the story is also the English Channel, bad weather and the British Navy, which usefully served to frustrate Philip II with his “Spanish Armada”, Napoleon’s invasion preparations and Hitler’s “Operation Sea Lion”.
“You mean indentured servants?” – You believe in the myth of indentured servants?
On the scale of simultaneous invasion/coups, they were somewhat more invasioney than the Anschluss or de Gaulle’s return, somewhat less than Bangladesh independence or the Soviets in Afghanistan.
But in any event the point is that it’s not accurate to say there hasn’t been a successful invasion of England in 1000 years. There’s a successful invasion of England about every 300-something years, which means we’re due for one right about now. Hmm…
It's all very cozy.Replies: @Gabriel M
Said in post about an article by a Jewess who has literally made an entire career out of attacking Israel. You’d think that a simple desire to stop looking like a plank would stop you repeating the same retarded non-point over and over again, but no.
I’m pretty sure that’s the impression that Sailer was trying to give. It happens to be 100% the opposite of the truth, but I’m guessing he figured that the i$$$teve commentariat were too dumb and lazy to actually google the book, or do minimal research beyond the extremely uninformative Wikipedia article he linked to.
I think there’s a lot of truth to the Steve’s golf club theory. There is also a lot of truth to the idea that Mizrahi Jews were mistreated in certain ways in the early period of the state, but it’s exaggerated beyond recognition, including by the Israeli Right who want to portray muh secular ashkenazi elite as responsible for ever regrettable fact of life, including Ethiopian Jews flunking algebra (not an exaggeration).
Nigel Farage is of Huguenot descent.
Funny, my point seemed simple enough for even you to follow. But do go on about how one Jewess negates the rest of reality, never mind how the digression off-topic was not mine…
Metallica has some decidedly rightist or at least libertardian songs (“Don’t Tread On Me,” “Holier Than Thou,” “The God That Failed”). Motorhead has a few right-sounding songs (“Talking Head,” “Traitor”), too. Guns N’ Roses had “One in a Million” and “Civil War.”
GNR did a great cover of “Live and Let Die,” too.
Only to you. Mate.
Before that they were invading The Big Island for fun, and conquering it (eventually (as in, 100s of years) permanently, in the case of Scotland, I don't know what happened in Cornwall, the Welsh chucked them out eventually, and their brief supremacy in the Northern Isles was ruthlessly and completely abrogated, in the usual, enthusiastically slashy, burny, stabby and choppy manner, by Vikings. Oh dear how sad never mind).Replies: @Anonymous
Post-Roman Britain came under attack from three directions: Germans from the east, Scots from the north, and Irish from the west. I remember an Irish nationalist who bluntly denied the latter point. He was insistent that his people had never been in the empire/colonialism game: that these were exclusively English sins.
I agree, though; the vast majority of popular musicians are evil leftist whack-jobs. I no longer buy art (music, movies, etc.) I may genuinely enjoy, because I cannot subsidise persons fixated on destroying me and my people.
Even ostensibly heartland-rock types like John Mellencamp and Bruce Springsteen hate America. Looking back, Elvis – perhaps the most revolutionary and shocking ever – may have been one of the last who, for all his faults, sincerely loved Jesus, his mama, and the U.S.A. Some of the other most traditional and patriotic sorts are to be found among heavy metal acts who are, again, ironically held to be the most controversial by the mainstream (who advocate the respectable hatred of Americans, but not unseemly and genuinely dangerous things like loud guitars, long hair, and weird clothes...).Replies: @BB753, @Anonymous
I don’t know about Gary Numan, but Paul Weller is your typical working class Labour voter. Being to the the right of Billy Bragg doesn’t count.
Some metal acts are hard to imagine as rabid lefties like Springsteen : ZZ Top, Motorhead, the above mentioned AC/DC, etc.. Even some Hair Rock bands from the eighties don’t strike me as pinkos, except Bon Jovi.
I agree, though; the vast majority of popular musicians are evil leftist whack-jobs. I no longer buy art (music, movies, etc.) I may genuinely enjoy, because I cannot subsidise persons fixated on destroying me and my people.
Even ostensibly heartland-rock types like John Mellencamp and Bruce Springsteen hate America. Looking back, Elvis – perhaps the most revolutionary and shocking ever – may have been one of the last who, for all his faults, sincerely loved Jesus, his mama, and the U.S.A. Some of the other most traditional and patriotic sorts are to be found among heavy metal acts who are, again, ironically held to be the most controversial by the mainstream (who advocate the respectable hatred of Americans, but not unseemly and genuinely dangerous things like loud guitars, long hair, and weird clothes...).Replies: @BB753, @Anonymous
Obviously, the music industry is run by people who hate those things and who abort the careers of artists who don’t.
Some metal acts are hard to imagine as rabid lefties like Springsteen : ZZ Top, Motorhead, the above mentioned AC/DC, etc.. Even some Hair Rock bands from the eighties don't strike me as pinkos, except Bon Jovi.Replies: @Autochthon
—Gary Numan
https://youtu.be/qg-M1gf0Ylk
Immigration invasion works both ways as Whites/SCOTUS seek to flood Guam, take away native privileges http://ballot-access.org/2017/03/09/u-s-district-court-strikes-down-guam-special-voter-registration-list-for-theoretical-future-vote-on-status-of-guam/.
They did quite well for other countries when they were sovereign. The United States, Canada, Australia, NZ, India, Hong Kong, Singapore, Kenya, Egypt.
It is when they fell under the sway of Americans or Jews that the mischief really started:
Balfour Declaration, Poland guarantee, etc.
Ok, I think he deserves this homage :
Got it – Iraqi and Syrian Arabs genocide Yezidis in 2016… because Israel.
I read some deranged, unhinged shit on the internet, but nothing gets as deranged and unhinged as this Israel stuff.
I wish that there were cosmic justice and that you people who cuck and cover for Islamists will be the first to feel their wrath when they take over. Kind of like how I hope that the feminists who can’t do enough to defend burqas and FGM will be the first to be put in those tents and have their clits cut out.