Immigration of the sort we’ve had since the war is simply unprecedented. Part of the propaganda pumped out by the establishment is that Britain is a nation of immigrants. But, as Calwell writes: “Aside from the invasions of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes that started in the fourth century AD - and which brought, at the very most, 250,000 new settlers over a period of several centuries - British ’stock’ has changed little. Only about 10,000 people arrived with the Norman Conquest. Tens of thousands more Huguenots came after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. But, all told, three-quarters of the ancestors of contemporary Britons and Irish were already present in the British Isles 7,500 years ago. DNA from people who arrived after that makes up only 12 per cent of the Irish gene pool.”
In fact before 1945 there had only been one example of such immigration in Europe’s history and that was, ironically, produced by Nazi Germany.
“Europe’s path to mass immigration owes something to the intellectual habits of the statesmen and magnates who ran Europe’s economy in World War II - on both the Allied and Axis sides. In scale, today’s massive in-migration of ‘temporary’ labour has only one precedent, and it is a recent one.”
Nazi Germany is the key to all of this, the reason why we are unable to balance our Christian disdain for racism and our willingness to allow minority communities to live here with common sense. No society in history would ever have dreamed of doing what Europe did after 1945, inviting vastly different people over in such numbers, for the simple reason that no other society was so wracked with guilt and self-loathing for its “two historic misdeeds, colonialism and Nazism”.
This, combined with pressure from big business, which wanted cheap labour to run heavy industry (most of which was on its last legs anyway), and a welfare state that discouraged natives from taking menial jobs, caused Europe’s leaders to invite people in such large numbers as to make future ethnic conflict inevitable.
Caldwell continues: “If one abandons the idea that Western Europeans are rapacious and exploitative by nature, and that Africans, Asians, and other would-be immigrants are inevitably their victims, then the fundamental differences between colonisation and labour migration cease to be obvious.” And what we have in the suburbs of France and the inner cities of Holland and England is, whatever that word’s pejorative meaning, colonisation.
The reason Enoch Powell was wrong in predicting rivers of blood was that Powell, who loved the British Empire, did not understand the widespread feelings of liberal guilt among the middle class, nor that this would be transmitted to the nation as a whole (even though the poor had no reason to feel guilty about anything, and indeed would feel the worst effects of immigration).
And yet Powell’s population forecasts were spot on. He shocked his Rotary Club audience in 1968 by suggesting Britain’s non-white population would be 4.5 million in 2002 (in 2001 it was 4,635,296). Then in 1970 he told voters in Wolverhampton that between a fifth and a quarter of their city, as well as that of Birmingham and Inner London, would be non-white one day. According to the 2001 census the figures were 22.2 per cent, 29.6 per cent and 34.4 per cent respectively, and rising.
The subtitle asks: “Can Europe be the same with different people in it?” The answer, quite clearly, is no.
NO
Nope.
I think the problem is more multi-cultural than multi-racial. But when it's a rapidly changing demographic driven by swarms of immigrants from other cultures who haven't the slightest intention or desire to assimilate, it's hard to separate the two. And also much harder for the small percentage of the immigrants who actually DO want to assimilate to do so successfully -- when 95% of the ethnic Arab immigrants are uncivilized non-assimilating Muslims, if you're one of the 5% who is fundamentally civilized and eager to assimilate, you're pretty much screwed because everybody's wary of people who look like you on account of the activities and attitudes of the 95%.
File it under “The Suicide of the West.”
bump
(and the answer is NO!)
Here’s something that doesn’t often receive any attention. Remember “The Population Bomb” by Paul Ehrlich? A hysterical, breathless screed written in 1968 exhorting us all to strive to attain “zero population growth”, to reproduce only ourselves. That, birth control, and the pursuit of prosperity led to the stereotypical middle-class American family with 2.7 children. All the while, other demographic groups multiplied like rabbits, funded by the Great Society and its socialist democratic counterparts in Europe.
“We” attained “zero population growth”.
“They” sang “We Shall Overwhelm”.
Get used to it. The grasshoppers shall rule. Shut up and pay your taxes.
“The immigration revolution: can Europe be the same with different people in it?”
No. Only a liberal asks this question.
If any leftist ever sneers at your “anti-scientific” belief in a Creator, and states that there is no place for irrational faith on the Left, ask him to prove scientifically that diversity is a good thing. Meltdown city. He’ll pop a gasket at the very insolence of the question, but he won’t be able to give you anything other than blind faith as to why it’s so wrong.
A resounding “no.”