Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:31 | #

David Conway, author of the Civitas report, said:-

... the country may possibly have reached a tipping point beyond which it can no longer be said to contain a single nation.  Should that point have been reached, then, ironically in the course of Britain having become a nation of immigrants, it would have ceased to be a nation.

There’s nothing surprising about this.  What else do the internationalists of the global elite want?  Why would they pursue policies that maintain the integrity of the nation (ie, by preserving the people that own it)?

As for Davis, I am pretty sure he won’t “come round” any more when he is in government, say in 2009.  Until then, I can quite see him doing a Sarko ... talking the talk ... spinning the story ... stealing Griffin’s clothers.  But he will never join the ranks of the awake and the sincere.  That just isn’t David Davis.

Posted by James Bowery on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:40 | #

I defer to your ground truth intelligence, GW.

Posted by john rackell on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:45 | #

Mr. Davis is obviously pretty adept at using weasel words, telling the government to “put a cap on immigration.” I read it quickly, and it sounded like he’s recommending an immigration moratorium. But a cap, what’s that? It’s like a police cordon made from bungee cords. Meaningless. 

Not having read the civitas report, presumably Mr. Conway answers the question of whether we are, or aren’t, a nation of immigrants. But I find his tortured circumlocution rather funny: “in the course of Britain having become a nation of immigrants.”

He could just say whether we are, or aren’t. But he prances around the bush - quite comical. If we aren’t, and never were a nation of immigrants, but in the course of having become one - whatever that means - then it’s not “ironic” at all that the place is falling apart at all. It’s sort of expected. 

Where did this twaddle about being a nation of immigrants come from?

Posted by john rackell on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:11 | #

about us being a nation of immigrants thing. Oops. About us in the course of having become such…

doesn’t the government - really, the elites in toto - when it’s speaking out of the other side of its mouth say that there really aren’t as many foreigners in England as a percentage of the population as assorted racists and other n’er-do-wells like to make out. In fact, to claim such is just racist fear-mongering and a breach of the Race Relations Act. So how does England get to “having become” a nation of immigrants if there are no bloody foreigners here - just for taking in a few Huegenots, and Jews fleeing pogroms in the past?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:25 | #

From A Guardian thread on which I am currently embattled:-

The Anglo-Saxon tribes, and the British tribes that preceded them indeed form a core of Englishness, or indeed Britishness, as do the hodge-podge of nationalities the Romans brought with them. And so on, through the ages, down to the present day, Jewish immigrants, Russian immigrants, the European drift, Dravidian Romanies, Irish immigrants, West-Indian immigrants, Indian and Pakistani immigrants, Chinese and African immigrants, all combine their lineage with the rest, and hence form the modern ‘English’. And what you are saying is that this modern English own the place they live in? Certainly they do, some more than others, but all are entitled to live here and profess Englishness. Agreed?

This is the the argument of the Establishment, with its civic values of tolerance, decency and fairness.  This is the argument of the English self-haters and just plain conventional thinkers.  This is the argument of the invaders themselves.

It’s easy to dispose of when one encounters it.  But it grows everywhere like Jap bindweed.

Posted by john rackell on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 00:35 | #

GW, you are fighting the good fight, and in the lion’s den.  It’s nice to see your arguments getting expressed there, maybe there will be a few more ‘guardian apostates’. How you can keep it to a tone that doesn’t get you kicked off immediately, I don’t know.

I donated 100 quid to the BNP on Tuesday, so I guess it’s my acknowledgement that the divison of labor works, and just give it to Griffin’s 12% of hard core activists who effect real change (that “12%” is from a quote of Griffin’s he used once…).

Anyway, when I grew up in England there was never ever a notion of England being a nation of immigrants, not in school text books, or anywhere else I recall. Well obviously things have changed a lot, it goes without saying. I was just curious how the notion took hold that even intellectuals pay obeisance to it, and bemused at Conway’s seeming agony in pronouncing it.

Excuse the rambling.

Posted by Englander on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 13:32 | #

Not having read the civitas report, presumably Mr. Conway answers the question of whether we are, or aren’t, a nation of immigrants.

Saturday’s Mail had a piece on this question.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=449826&in_page_id=1770

The conclusion being, of course, that we are not a nation of immigrants.

Posted by Amalek on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:00 | #

The phrase Big Lie refers to a propaganda technique developed by Adolf Hitler (sic), and documented in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf which consists of telling a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe anyone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”. In that book Hitler wrote that people came to believe that Germany lost World War I in the field due to a propaganda technique used by Jews who were influential in the German press. The first documented use of the phrase “big lie” is in the corresponding passage: “in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility”. (Wikipedia)

Note who is credited with giving the Fuhrer the idea, though it does not make it adequately plain that he was criticising the technique, not admiring it or claiming credit for inventing it.

The Biggest Lie of Boasian Britain is that we are ‘a nation of immigrants’. A fat Eurofederastic sex pervert and alleged comedian called Eddie Izzard has been particularly assiduous in putting this terminological inexactitude about. There is an excellent piece in today’s Sun. Tel. by the Civitas gent shooting this ahistorical nonsense down. Shame he, or anyone, wasn’t coming out with guns blazing 30 years ago—but such is life:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=P21IPL0UZAHGDQFIQMGCFGGAVCBQUIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/04/22/do2207.xml

Let us hope that the blowback from this particular Big Lie fans the widespread delusion that a quarter of more of Britain’s inhabitants are already immigrants. Together with a simple ‘full up’ case to appease the colour-blind and Green, sociological evidence that Muslims are indigestible troublemakers and the Englishman’s visceral, righteous dislike of bloody foreigners, panic about the demographics will help our objective. We aim to prune the fraction, the absolute numbers and above all those of childbearing age to manageable amounts by fomenting a nationwide demand among Britons for extensive assisted repatriation of Africans and Asiatics.

As the boltholes for white flight become closed, the cornered indigenes must cultivate a mentality of ‘assimilate or scram, preferably the latter’.

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:07 | #

GW, I have read your exchanges with several of the other contributors. I found it significant that PresidentGas admitted to being in a mixed marriage. He’s part of the problem. I was amused (and annoyed) by the incessant demands made upon you to define English ethnicity. A task that doesn’t seem to be especially onerous, even for imbeciles. I salute your patience and effort. My days of writing long essays on race and ethnic genetic interests and the like for the amusement of race-deniers, left-liberals and related fauna and flora are behind me. I just can’t regurgitate the same information and arguments again and again and again…the information is out there for all those seriously interested in knowing the truth; and scientific progress is going in our direction. Therefore, all those genuinely curious and open-minded must come around to our worldview sooner or later and those who are politically motivated out of self-interest or malice will never admit that white is white and black is black anyway.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:05 | #

John, Friedrich,

Thanks.  Yes, I too doubt the worth of this sort of thing is.  But the Gongstar suggested on the Griffin/Times thread that the Guardian was a freer environment for renegades like you and me, and I thought I’d give it a whirl.

I’ve seen one or two race-realists argue pretty successfully there in the past, and Steven Palesi has got himself published.  So the boundary of taste is pretty broad.  Gongstar is right.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:41 | #

Meaningful parts of the Conway article to which Amalek links:-

Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, noted last week that the mass influx of immigrants in recent years has left the country “deeply unsettled” and created problems for public services such as health and education.

... Labour remains committed to the view that immigration is good for the country, and the more there is, the better it will be. What is the evidence for that remarkable proposition? If you ask most ministers, they will tell you “Britain has always been a nation of immigrants”. That claim is false. The evidence which refutes it is not very complicated: it consists simply in looking at the numbers.

Between 1066 and 1945 Britain actually had very few waves of immigration. By far the largest was the Irish during the 19th century and, technically, they were not immigrants, since Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, Irish “immigrants” never amounted to more than 3 per cent of the British population.

Numerically, the next largest group is the Jews. Official statistics record that 155,811 Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe arrived over 25 years from 1880. Their contribution to the intellectual, political and economic life of Britain has of course been enormous. But even adding the 70,000 who fled to Britain from Nazi Germany, the number of Jewish arrivals was, compared to the 50 million Britons already resident here, minute. They are certainly not enough to make Britain “a nation of immigrants”.

Almost all immigrant groups never managed to reach 1 per cent of the population. The Normans, though they seized land and power, were a tiny elite. The Dutch who arrived in the 16th century were, in proportion to the whole population, a much smaller group. Even the 50,000 Huguenots from France only ever amounted to a hundredth of Britain’s total population. And they arrived over a period of 50 years.

... Labour, for reasons it has never fully articulated, decided in 1997 to dismantle practically all controls on immigration. The amount of immigration we have seen over the past decade has no parallel in British history. International migration into Britain now contributes around 80 per cent of Britain’s annual population increase, and has done so since 1999.

... What will the effects of the unprecedented levels of immigration be? The Government hasn’t the faintest idea. But there is plenty of evidence that those effects are not automatically benign, as the Government and its camp-followers try to make you think. Social cohesion, the willingness of one part of the community to trust and make sacrifices for another, depends on all of us having common values. Many of the immigrant communities are isolated islands of their own: they show no signs of integrating into British society.

He finishes by commending assimilation.  That’s no good.  This is a genetic invasion.  Repatriation is the necessary response.

His final sentence is “It cannot augur well for the future of the tolerant, trusting liberalism we have taken for granted in Britain.”  This might only be a sop to received opinion by someone who doesn’t want to be excluded from the company of “decent men”.  Or it might just be that Conway doesn’t grasp that advanced liberalism is the greater part of our problem (not all of it., of course, Friedrich).

Posted by Bodkin (An Engishman) on Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:25 | #

Guessedworker

Your performance on CIF was inspiring.  Don’t ever doubt the worth of this.

This is from the comments section of the kleinverzet blog on ‘Belgiums Grief’:

http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/

Ariel,

My personal observation is not that the people consciously turn away from news they do not want to hear, for fear of their comfortable, state supported lives.

Rather, it is a function of the very narrow bandwidth of the political spectrum the MSM in Europe operates in. In the US you have the Washington Times and the New York Sun on one end and the WaPo and NYT on the other.

In Europe the vast majority operate where WaPo and NYT operate and there are none (that I know of) that hold opinions approximating those of the Washington Times or New York Sun.

The people do not react because the people do not know. Very few people get their news from the internet and the ones that do not venture beyond MSM sites.

In the MSM this stuff is not reported, or, if it is, at such a time that it is a fait accompli. The MSM press is not independent because the share power with the elite. Thus they cooperate with the elite for fear of losing that power.

Unfortunately, in Europe both MSM and the “intellectual” are firmly entrenched in socialism. Thus anything that might get in the way of turning Europe into one big socialist utopia is not reported. Hence the silence. It is not denial. It is ignorance, cultivated by those that can’t give up the socialist dream.
Klein Verzet | Homepage | Sat 21.Apr.2007 - 9:09 | #