Tuesday, 6 April 2010

A conversation about immigration

Following on from my previous post where I argue liberty can only be found by balancing equality with justice it is important to discuss the issue of immigration.

I said:
"there needs to be a wider acknowledgement of the pluralistic values inherent to a secular state, that positive discrimination and the unfair promotion of minority interests can be equally threatening as negative discrimination and the unjust suppression of majority concerns."
In many ways unfair promotion or unjust suppression of interests and concerns can equally relate to both sides of the argument, whether it is from a majority or minority perspective.

I think this is important for its relevance to how we understand social relationships can be constructed in a positive and creative way, rather than used to scapegoat certain sections of society.

In a recent discussion over on Left Outside with BNP supporter 'Dan Dare', he contends that 'indiginous groups' are being harmed by the subordination of their majority rights to the concerns of minorities, that immigration needs to stopped to prevent harming this country and that immigration needs to be justified because it is currently unmandated and is not supported by the 'overwhelming majority' of people in this country.

I disagree strongly with this claim, stating
"immigration is a process. As a process it has a variety of certain, specific, uncertain and inspecific effects, the balance of which can be either positive or negative depending on how they are handled."
The consequence of this is that many people can easily be lead to believe from a selective interpretation of the current circumstance where government policy is suffering from a range of failings that immigration is the problem - rather than the way it is being handled.

It is a matter of perspective.

'Dan Dare' has challenged me to continue the discussion, and I'm more than happy to oblige by engaging with him on the basis that the real issues may be brought out into the open to foster greater understanding of the challenges the situation presents to enable a more rounded perspective on the actual state of affairs and what should be the course of action going forward.

So if readers wish to pipe up and join in with a constructive approach I think we'd all benefit from a frank exchange of views.


Note: I recognise this is a highly contentious issue which can get heated, so be warned that I am prepared to moderate comments on this particular thread if passions get too heated or are designed to provoke rather than inform.

And while I'm at it I think I'll post this video as a good piece of advice worth following.


Dan Dare said...

First of all, thanks are due to Oranjepan for providing a venue for a continuation of this conversation, and I certainly hope that he is able to follow through on the intention to moderate injudicious comments, and especially those which resort to name-calling, sloganeering and [i]ad hominem[/i].

I’d like to start off by explaining, once again, that my objections to immigration are not to what is described as the process [i]per se[/i], but rather to the actual form that it has taken in Europe in general and Britain in particular over the course of the previous couple of generations. I commented earlier that some aspects of immigration are beneficial, although in a sense it is a misnomer to characterise what I refer to – a limited exchange of highly-skilled human resources between amongst highly-developed countries – as immigration, at least in the sense in which the term is generally used.

Such migration, which is most often of limited duration and imposes little if any social costs on the (temporary) host society is of course an entirely animal from the mass immigration of people from countries in the third world with very low HDI levels and minimal transferable skills that are of value in an advanced, post-industrial service- and information-based economy like Britain.

And apart from the exceptionally dubious nature of the benefits that are claimed to ensue from the admittance of the second migrant stream, there is a far more important consideration than the strictly economic. This is the demographic transformation which has been underway since the 1950s. When Churchill returned to Downing Street in 1951 the non-European population in Britain was less than 30,000. Sixty years later, a mere two generations, the 2011 census is likely to confirm that total has climbed to 8 million, amounting to 12% of the population. In 1951, if a national school census had been been conducted, the number of non-European children in Britain’s schools would have been too small to register. In 2009, the annual DCFS Schools Census confirmed that 23% of pupils in primary schools were of black or ethnic minority (ie third world) origin or ancestry. In 1951, there would have been little point in monitoring births to BME mothers, the numbers were statistically insignificant. Today, in contrast, recent ONS reports indicate that close to 25% of all births in England and Wales are to mothers of immigrant, thrid-world origin or ancestry, the figure rising to over half in London. And of course such demographic trends have long to go before they finally run their course.

With the foregoing in mind, I will close with a remark, a question really, that I posed earlier, but to which Oranjepan has not directly responded.

Given the scale of the demographic transformation now underway in Britain is it not incumbent upon the supporters and promoters of the process that is driving this transformation to explain not only why it is happening, but also why we should welcome it, rather than insisting that those who would rather it not occur justify their opposition?

Johnny Englander said...

If you wish supporters of the demographic transition to a more racially integrated society to justify their support for it, then by the terms of your own argument you must justify your opposition to it or there is nothing to respond to.

As it is, even if your statistics are to be believed, so what?

Dan Dare said...

My immediate response would be that the status quo was perfectly satisfactory for the great majority of the native population, so what is the rationale for changing it?

There has be some intrinsic benefit deriving from such an exercise in order to suppport or promote it, right? In other words, if it ain't broke why fix it?

The basic point being that, in a properly democratic society, it should always be incumbent upon those who wish to effect radical social change to explain why it is necessary to do so.

The so what? implies a relaxed attitude to the prospect of the native British becoming an ethnic minority in their homeland. Is that something that is appealing to you or are you merely apathetic about it?

Do you have a particular animus against the British that would cause you to assume such a worldview?

Irene said...

@ Dan Dare

It's all rather simple really.

You seem like someone who is keen on reading and understanding history, so I think in order to make your argument more concrete, it needs to less one sided.

I hate to say this but if you had to hand in your argument to a University proffessor, he/she would say to you but you have not touched in why immigration started at the first place and furthermore what kind of country an island like England is.

Those are huge factors to consider and I think when you look at history, you may start to point the finger more at the government, then say all those black people that seem to get all those great jobs as road sweepers, bus drivers, cleaners and tube attendants mainly in the London area. Lol, no one needs to do any reading they just need to open thier eyes to see this.

So how did immigration start? Forget Enoch Powell trying to get all those West Indians who also fought in the war because they were part of the commonwealth and till a British colony, no lets go back to say slavery, which the British started and Colonisation, which the Brits excelled at.

Now I'm no Einstein-who was a Jew!-but if you go into people's countries and either take them to use as slaves or just take over the country to increase the wealth of your country, is it a shock that they know about Britain?

Secondly for now, lets talk economics.

Now when England gave back the colonies to the countries, say only 50 years ago, have you asked youself why they still have the monopoly-now with the US-on the businesses in those countries?

Again, I'm not that bright but for example, everyone loves chocolate right? Well you can only grow cocoa to make chocolate from West Africa, mainly Ivory Coast & Ghana. Now, and you can google this, all the cocoa businesses are owned by Western multinationals and the World Bank which not that funnily enough is 80% American & British-not very worldly represented eh?-and very little by the actual countries that,erm,grow this. Hence the reason fair trade had to happen because of all those child slaves being used to pick those cocoa beans.

If you gave the actually country who owns this land, grows the cocoa and picks the cocoa, more rights so that they could feed their own country, do you think people would rush into this country to work on the London tubes?

Work around these ideas and I'll give you some answers to your questions.

Irene said...

Last bit, but who or what is a native British person?

The Royal Family certainly isn't.

Have you had your genes tested?

My friend who's husband is part of British aristocracy, the Macnaghtens, got her husbands gene tested out and found he had Indian blood. It came from when his grandparents fought in the War in India.

Since the Roman times Dan, ROMAN times, England has been colonised.

Anglo's are Germans for chrissakes.

The Moorish people-black as the night-even passed through back in the days.

Winston Churchill was half American Jewish. At the turn of the century, because the British aristocracy were running out of money, many married very wealthy American Jewish women.

Come on Dan Dare.

Know your history. Your pride and joy En-ger-land invented globalisation as we blimming know it!

Dan Dare said...

Irene, your remarks provide some insight into the 'push' side of the equation, and I certainly wouldn't criticise anyone for wishing to better their economic circumstances. It's simply human and rational to do so.

Your comments about international development are also germane, I certainly subscribe to the view that one way to ease migration pressure is to stimulate overseas development, especially in the third world.

But none of this relates to the 'pull' side of the equation, and you ask the right question in that regard: Why did immigration get started? The answer is contextual, in that it depends to a large degree on the relationship between the source and destination country.

In the specific case of Britain, which is all I am principally concerned about, mass immigration came about largely as a result of post-imperial delusion, complacency and cowardice. Nobody wanted it to happen, not even Clement Attlee, the architect of the British Nationality Act of 1948 which codified the right of abode in the United Kingdom for all 600-odd million British 'subjects'. Some people point to a conspiracy to ethnically displace the indigenous population with a nerer, more energetic and pliant workforce and electorate. But I don't buy into that. My view is that it has all been a giant cock-up which continues to this day and whose effects will reverberate for generations to come.

It's the Law of Unintended Consequences writ large.

Oranjepan said...

'if it ain't broke why fix it?' is a meaningless rhetorical device which avoids the argument - in politics some people always think society is broken, and others always think it's just fine as it is.

My position is that both sides are part-right and part-wrong.

It's important to recognise that any human society is organic and ever-changing as it responds to its outside environment.

People who think the status quo is desirable or even possible are simply reacting to prior events and doing so unrealistically. And on the opposite side they wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Things always can be improved, but the very act of trying to improve may also open up the risk of damage - so it is a matter of getting the balance right.

The 1948 cut-off date you identified is interesting - the changed financial situation of the country at that point meant there were particular problems (such as in the labour market) which had to be faced.

So if you claim there was a majority of a particular opinion at that stage you must also ask whether they were also prepared to accept the consequence of their decision - I would point to the change in the debate before the landing of the Windrush as an indicator that the apparent majority you refer to changed their minds and the social tensions which were stirred up afterwards were the result of a small minority.

Even if you look back ten years previously to that point the experience in the empire's reaches showed massive support for integration and the number of people who married out and took common law wives while abroad reached significant proportions (although it was also true that many simply abandoned their native families at the end of their tours).

You may choose to overlook the racial mix in even the indiginous British population as evidence of a continuous process by focussing on appearances at the expense of reality, but in doing so you are trying to break exactly that which you say is broken.

The only difference between the pre- and post-1948 line is that travel became much easier so global immigration flows increased with the possibility to travel further.

So a question I'd ask you is what you'd do about all the British emigrants who live around the world in places like Australia, SE Asia or southern and eastern Africa.

I'm sure you read about the confrontation that the death of Eugene Terreblanche has precipitated - would you repatriate all the whites according to the wishes of some of the black racists just as Mugabe is attempting in Zimbabwe?

Dan Dare said...

Actually Irene, the Romans were mere parvenus, johnny-come-latelys and merely one of a long procession of continental invaders.

In truth they don't seem to have left much a genetic footprint, some 75-80% of males in the Britsh Isles can trace their deep paternal ancestry back to the Neolithic, and their maternal farther back still.

Yeah I know it's one of the standard mantras of the Immigration Industry and its unwitting accomplices "We're all a nation of immigrants, so come one, come all", but unfortunately it just isn't true.

After the Neolithic 'Celts', the only newer waves of 'migrants' for any significant genetic evidence exists are the Anglo-Saxons and the Scandinavians, all of whom were closely related (genetically) to the Celts. Later rivulets including the Normans, Huguenots and various other western European entrants added little variation to the existing gene pool.

There was a minor blip in the late 19C with the appearance of Jews from the Russian Empire, but there has been nothing else in the last thousand that even closely resembles the Afro-Asian tsunami of the last two generations.

It is entirely unprecedented.

IAE said...

I can answer Irene’s question about “who or what is a native British person” - that is an indigenous Briton - or rather I will let science and the worlds leading expert on genetics answer it below.

The scientific truth about the homogeneity of the British people is as far removed from the usual ignorant and deliberately undermining PC nonsense as it could possibly be with it being traced all the way back to the Neolithic period and therefore the indigenous status of the British people is perfectly sound; especially when you consider the undisputed indigenous status of the Māori who have only been in NZ for around 700 years.

Even the EHRC concedes that the British people are indigenous and recently used it as an argument that the proposed BNP constitution ammendments indirectly discriminated against non-indigenous civic Britons.

Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford (and a Fellow of Wolfson College) Bryan Sykes, a world eminent scientist and expert proved through a systematic, ten-year DNA survey of more than 10,000 volunteers:

* The genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland is overwhelmingly what it has been since the Neolithic period, and to a very considerable extent since the Mesolithic period, especially in the female line.

* The contribution of the Celts of continental Europe to the genetic makeup of Britain and Ireland was minimal.

* The Picts were not a separate people: the genetic makeup of the formerly Pictish areas of Scotland shows no significant differences from the general profile of the rest of Britain.

* The Anglo-Saxons made a substantial contribution to the genetic makeup of England, but in Sykes’s opinion it was under 20 percent of the total, even in southern England.

* The Vikings (Danes and Norwegians) also made a substantial contribution, which is concentrated in central, northern, and eastern England - the territories of the ancient Danelaw. There is a very heavy Viking contribution in the Orkney and Shetland Islands, in the vicinity of 40 percent. Women as well as men contributed substantially in all these areas, showing that the Vikings engaged in large-scale settlement.

* The Norman contribution was extremely small, on the order of 2 percent.

* There are only sparse traces of the Roman occupation, almost all in southern England.

* In spite of all these later contributions, the genetic makeup of the British Isles remains overwhelmingly what it was in the Neolithic: a mixture of the first Mesolithic inhabitants with Neolithic settlers who came by sea from Iberia and ultimately from the eastern Mediterranean.



So I hope that clears it up for you Irene (and everyone else) and proves that your few examples bear no relation to the scientific reality of homogenous Britons and their long lineage.

IAE said...

And I’ll give my own answer to Oranjepans question about what to do with “all the British emigrants who live around the world in places like Australia, SE Asia or southern and eastern Africa.”

The simple is answer is nothing. It is not within our domain, it is none of our business.

It is entirely a matter for these foreign governments, but I doubt very much they would change their position as British workers and migrants aren’t flooding abroad enmasse as fruit pickers and box packers but highly skilled workers and professionals, and even then in relatively low numbers.

And the position in Australia, as with quite a few others of the more popular destinations is that it is kindred, indeed a ‘child’ country, of the British anyway.

In any case, unlike the Third World immigration into the west which has dramatic effects on crime and crime rates, welfare drain, unemployment and balkanisation, British immigrants have no tangible impact in these seriously negative areas.

Dan Dare said...

Oranjepan said...

The 1948 cut-off date you identified is interesting - the changed financial situation of the country at that point meant there were particular problems (such as in the labour market) which had to be faced.

The ‘labour shortage’ is a contemporary myth, British commerce and industry were still in the process of re-absorbing the millions of demobbed servicemen in 1948. Also, at that point the economy was grappling with the after-effects of a severe, crippling winter and the balance of payments crisis precipitated by the American cancellation of the Lend-Lease agreement. There was no clamour from industry or anyone else for an importation of colonial labour; such labur as might be required was readily available in Ireland.

So if you claim there was a majority of a particular opinion at that stage you must also ask whether they were also prepared to accept the consequence of their decision - I would point to the change in the debate before the landing of the Windrush as an indicator that the apparent majority you refer to changed their minds and the social tensions which were stirred up afterwards were the result of a small minority.

I’m uncertain which pre-Windrush debate you refer to, it certainly did not take place in Parliament. The unexpected arrival of the Windrush caused great consternation amongst the Labour government and a variety of administrative measures were taken in an effort to avoid a repetition.

I feel quite certain that if either the Tories or Labour had gone to the polls in 1951 including a proposal to increase the coloured population to over a million by 1960 they would have been soundly thrashed. The same for NuLabor; if it had included in its 1997 manifesto a promise to bring 3 million non-Europeans by 2008 they too would have been consigned to oblivion.

Now we are confronting another election. Even fairly sober demographic projections indication that, if the rate of net migration continues as it has under NuLabor, by mid-century the population will reach 75 million, including around 22 million non-whites. Are we being advised that this is a likely consequence of the immigration policy that is proposed by all three mainstream parties? (A rhetorical question of course)

Even if you look back ten years previously to that point the experience in the empire's reaches showed massive support for integration and the number of people who married out and took common law wives while abroad reached significant proportions (although it was also true that many simply abandoned their native families at the end of their tours).

This is surely a gross overstatement and a misreading of historical fact. The numbers of British administrators and others in colonial territories was extremely small (less than 150,000 at the height of the Raj, including military forces). The opportunities for ‘marrying out’ especially for the common soldier, who comprised the bulk of the ‘expats’, would have been very slim.

[Apparently I have exceeded a character count limit, so will continue in Part II]

Dan Dare said...

Part II of my response to Oranjepan

Oranjepan said:

You may choose to overlook the racial mix in even the indiginous British population as evidence of a continuous process by focussing on appearances at the expense of reality, but in doing so you are trying to break exactly that which you say is broken.

I don’t overlook such a racial mix, I reject that it even exists in any measurable sense. Successive genetic surveys (like the one cited above) consistently point to the extreme homogeneity of the indigenous British population, even when compared to almost everywhere else in Europe. Over 90% of British males share one of only two main paternal lineages (I1/2, R1a/b), which had been present since the Mesolithic and Neolithic, respectively. Successive waves (or rivulets) of incomers from the central European Celts to the Huguenots did not alter that genetic picture. The only two possible exceptions are the Jewish diaspora and the currently-ongoing Afro-Asian influx. But even now the extent of racial inter-mixing is insignificant; less than 1% of British whites have a non-white partner. Any claim to the contrary is simply blatant propaganda, of the type favoured by the EHRC.

…So a question I'd ask you is what you'd do about all the British emigrants who live around the world in places like Australia, SE Asia or southern and eastern Africa.

Venturing into the realm of thinking the unthinkable, I think we should be at least open to the possibility that many of them may need to be repatriated at some future point, especially from Africa but perhaps even also from N. America should that region slide into ethnic anarchy once the white majority becomes merely a historical footnote. All the more reason then not to populate the continent with Afro-Asians, as if any were really needed.

Oranjepan said...

I accept the analysis that there is remarkable genetic homogenity within the people of Britain, but it it to misrepresent the science to conclude that mixing has not taken place on a massive scale throughout the years or to promote the view that therefore it should not in future.

I also reject the view that supports whatever the man in the street says as a workable policy for the nation. That's government by kneejerks - a completely unreliable way of moving forward.

There was an argument in the pub this evening about the football. One guy said Manchester Utd should field 11 Englishmen and would be more likely to win as a result.

Another guy responded that it might mean the immature Brazilian defender wouldn't've been sent off, but it's more likely that they hadn't reached the quarter finals in the first place.

A third guy said there's no point in trying to restrict our teams as the Barcelonas will still gain an advantage by getting the Messi's of the world and the whole point is to play on a level playing field.

Then the drunk at the bar shouted to f*** the football, that they are all 'rich ponces' and anyone who likes the game is a commie.

I thought it was a fantastic analogy - on which side of the argument do you sit? Should we all just stop playing? Then what?

Oranjepan said...


If you take a view on a policy the implication is that there is a universal guiding principle behind it, so what decision you come to regarding your home area will also be your advice towards to other countries.

I agree that countries are sovereign to the extent their constitution decrees, but ideas and choices are either objectively sound or they aren't.

Similarly individuals. I can't force you to agree with me and vice versa, but between us logic will prevail - whatever opinions are offered.

It is simply perverse to claim opposing views are equally valid on a unilateral basis - it's like claiming water may both boil and freeze at the same temperature - it is a cocktail for undermining international relations.

Dan Dare said...

A nice diversionary tactic, Oranjepan. How did you guess I was an old Stretford-Ender? But don’t get me started on the footie, I have to watch the blood pressure these days. Suffice to to say having a couple of flamboyant and exotic foreigners in a squad is a bit like a little salt in the soup, but I think most proper fans also expect some significant local content. Watching Arsenal and Chelsea recently it was a bit like Senegal v Nigeria with a dash of Ivory Coast thrown in for extra colour.

As for the ‘knee jerk’ comment I have to say that is a most unexpected one from our brief acquaintance. I should have thought that a straightforward bloke like yourself would have been in favour of the democratic process and would agree that our political leaders ought to show some degree of integrity in presenting their political platforms.

As it happens the BBC has put up a nifty new website which allows a punter to compare and contrast the election manifestos of selected parties on key issues. Here’s what the LibLabCon coalition have to say about immigration and race relations:


Heady stuff, what? No mention though of the 75 million.

PS I tried to use the "a href=" tag for the URL but your blog s/w didn't like it. What tag is used to display a link? The blockquote doesn't seem to work either, is it turned off?

IAE said...


You argument that “It is simply perverse to claim opposing views are equally valid on a unilateral basis” is not really rooted in reality as each country does and always has had very unique and specific unilateral policies (although more so before the advent of ‘globalisation’)

Some countries still have the death penalty for instance, the main western one being the US and as close as we are to the US it doesn’t affect us in anyway. Some countries, like Saudi Arabia, still stone women to death, cut off hands and heads and beat women for being raped whereas some of it closest neighbours as well as benefactors do no such thing nor feel compelled to.

Israel has a very definite racial criteria in its citizenship policy based upon the ‘law of return’ which, although it has had some amendments made over the years, still rests solely on the primary factor of ethnicity whilst now allowing some non-Jewish peripherals come with the primary.

Indeed the original law of return was designed to allow anyone who would have been persecuted under the Nuremburg racial laws to be a citizen and so an entirely ethnic (and a Nazi composed definition to boot) criteria formed the very foundation of that country and quite rightly so. If Israel is to have any continued legitimacy for existence, it must retain its Jewish character, something its leading lights are fully aware.

Indeed quite recently we saw this:

“ The Israeli government has launched a television and Internet advertising campaign urging Israelis to inform on Jewish friends and relatives abroad who may be in danger of marrying non-Jews…

The campaign, which cost $800,000, was created in response to reports that half of all Jews outside Israel marry non-Jews. It is just one of several initiatives by the Israeli state and private organizations to try to increase the size of Israel's Jewish population….

According to the campaign's organizers, more than 200 Israelis rang a hot line to report names of Jews living abroad after the first TV advertisement was run on Wednesday. Callers left details of e-mail addresses and Facebook and Twitter accounts.”


And here is the advert itself:


This is the only country in the world that could “get away” with such blatant self-interest in its own genetic makeup and the survival of that genetic makeup – that is their own survival as a people – in this world today.

Real diversity demands diverse countries, that is each country is different and so are its people.

What we are getting is entire swathes of Europe replaced and effectively ghettoised with alien populations and an ingress and birth rate that guarantees the indigenous peoples supplanting and eventual destruction.

IAE said...

Sorry above ‘text’ should read ‘source.’

I will leave you with a couple of short MSM reports about two aspects of the effects of this supplanting on the indigenous peoples and on cohesion.

The first is a report on the implosion in swathes of Sweden that have been flooded with Third World immigration; watch the sheer contempt towards the police and ultimately Sweden by the aliens in the clip matched only by the exasperation of the officers:


My question is: Given that it costs Sweden lots of money to have these people here and there is no economic benefit whatsoever (proof can be produced if you want) what possible reason could the Swedish government have as a supposed representative of Sweden’s interests have for continuing this? What possible benefit can this be?

Especially after not only the massive fiscal impact and massive impact on social cohesion but also the massive impact on the crime rate, most especially rape and the rape of children? (again, plenty of proof for that if disputed)

The second is a short report from a Norwegian MSM about one poor little Norwegian boy growing up in an immigrant majority district of Oslo and the profound effect this had on him.

This poor kid has been beaten, told he is going to hell for being Norwegian, ostracised and left sad and friendless all because his idiotic parents wanted to buy into the multicult myth and impose it upon their child.

Eventually, even these soppy deluded fools realise the extreme unhappiness of their child, the unworkable situation of the multicult in reality and the damage they are inflicting on him and at last allowed him follow his nature and instinct and be amongst his own.

Needless to say, within pretty much the first minute of being amongst his own he was visibly happy.


My question is this: Why would this be different in any other majority alien area? And given the ingress and birth rate of the alien populations in the UK and Europe why do we not have every right to be extremely concerned about it and try to prevent it happening to our children?

I will depart and await your answers, and I leave you with this revelation today that conclusively blows the so-called ‘economic’ argument out of the water for the UK (and raises many other questions besides):

"Nearly every one of 1.67m jobs created since 1997 has gone to a foreigner…

an extraordinary 98.5 per cent of 1.67million new posts were taken by immigrants.

The Tories seized on the revelation as evidence that the Government has totally failed to deliver its pledge of 'British jobs for British workers'."


“…Brown loves to include pension-age people returning to work in his figures for job increase. Strip them out and Immigrants accounted for 1.64 m of the 1.67m jobs created since 1997 according to another set of unpublished official figures - a staggering 99 percent. Here's the maths:…”


Oranjepan said...

@Dan Dare
Not a diversion, not al all.

I mention it because football is a direct way in which the issue touches our lives.

It was put to me in the pub that the fans only tolerate the high prices of tickets because they are watching many of the best players in the world, but would attendances still be so high if they weren't?

I assure you the 'kneejerk' comment was not flippant. If you want to take extend the concept of vox populi then conduct it where you find more people willing to give their views - maybe in a pub on a saturday night... you won't get the most intelligent and nuanced picture.

A more democratic society would be welcome, but a pure democracy wouldn't.

I support the idea of a constitutional and proportional democracy - not mob rule. I don't want riots.

Oranjepan said...


there are two points to make.

First, we do have an interest in what happens on the other side of borders because international travel is a reality - and our government does argue against the death penalty where it exists both in efforts to convince other countries to reform their laws, or by appealing for clemency and encouraging greater application of international laws.

Britain and the USA are key signatories to various human rights conventions which are used as important bargaining points in negotiations of all sorts - especially regarding trade, where human rights are a condition of deals and sanctions.

The Saudi leaders are widely reputed to be far more tolerant than the people because of their exposure to outside ideas (through their western educations etc). Saudi Arabia has massively reduced its reliance on capital punishment as a social policy since the oil trade opened up (by as much as a factor of ten I understand), although this is excellent it is still unacceptable in my opinion.

Such charters are also the basis of the international agreements which allow policing the seas, preventing trafficking in slaves, illegal arms and other controlled goods such as drugs, toxic and radioactive waste.

So my view is that mutual self-interest will always trump pure selfishness except where ideological roots remain strong (which is understandable in the case of Israel).

Secondly, it is easy to be selective about the evidence you cite.

The recent Swedish experience of social trouble is not a simple result of immigration, but in the manner of which government policy has handled integration of immigrants.

The way media handles reporting is always subject to electoral and other political biases, so we should be cautioned against taking the analysis at face value.

Going back to the sporting example, Larsson and Ibrahimovic are examples of Swedish individuals who have been considered troublemakers in their time because not enough allowance was given for their particular personalities - so they were regularly excluded as youngsters from national play before they'd established their international reputations (which they had to go abroad to do). Now they are icons of the Swedish game.

Possibly you could attribute this to the over-reliance on the social market model adopted by the state (and supported by Dan Dare) for its exclusivity.

Individual cases will always crop up on the fringes, but it should never be forgotten that there are always a number of factors to be considered beyond the immediately recognisable cross-cultural clash.

Gangs of youths exist among all communities, whether in run-down inner city areas or posh prep schools. They are each subject to their own internal dynamics which reflect the individual backgrounds and pressures facing them.

So to identify one report or instance as an indicator of a widespread trend is unbalanced and unreliable, despite the factual accuracy it may have and the tragic circumstances of the case itself.

My point here is that expecting a single silver bullet to solve all social ills is not a realistic way of forming public policy and will likely leave you open to potentially harmful counterproductive responses for which you will be unprepared and incapable of mitigating.

IAE said...


Thanks for your response, however it was not an answer to my questions at all (and it is unclear if you have even bothered to watch those reports, which is important as you can see that it is indeed an immigrant issue.)

So hopefully you will watch those reports when you get a chance and answer my questions, but in the meantime I will address your points:

Beyond appealing for clemency and the statuary consular duties no country has the right to try and interfere with another countries policies on law and order, nor pretty much anything else come to that save it directly affects their interests. That is kind of the whole point of sovereignty. If you travel to a country that has the death penalty for certain offences then you are accepting that by entering their country.

I have to admit that I laughed out loud when I read:

“Britain and the USA are key signatories to various human rights conventions which are used as important bargaining points in negotiations of all sorts - especially regarding trade, where human rights are a condition of deals and sanctions.”

– this would be the same Britain and USA that lied to everyone in order to conduct an illegal war(s) of aggression that has killed (or murdered depending on your view of illegal wars) hundreds of thousands of people, produced concentration camps without normal legal recourse or habeas corpus in the overt form of Guantanamo bay and the covert form of hundreds of secret prison; practised ‘extraordinary’ rendition, effectively torture by proxy and sometimes directly; presided over such human rights centres such as Abu Ghraib and, well, I could go on and on about just the recent conduct abroad let alone domestic issues but I think my point is made.

The Saudi leaders clearly do not believe in their own propaganda as their conduct abroad shows (and most likely at home too) but very few rulers ever do. The idea is that its subjects do and I don’t really think that any ‘reduction of a factor of ten’ in head chopping, hand cutting, woman stoning and rape victim whipping will be of much comfort to those who suffer such fates, especially for crimes that are merely crimes against a medieval superstition and its dominance.

I notice you brushed over Israel very quickly but did assert their position is ‘understandable’ – that is the foundation and organisation of the state to be an ethnic homeland for their people. So perhaps you can tell me what is so terribly wrong or ‘evil’ with white people wanting to do the same in their own countries?

As I say, I hope you will answer the actual questions I presented before, but very briefly the problems in Sweden are very much due to immigration and the behaviour of the immigrants and not the ‘governments fault’ (another empty PC mantra) as the public, that is the ostensible reason for the bulk of the immigration was for so-called ‘humanitarian’ reasons and they imported them wholesale, but fed, clothed, watered, sheltered and remunerated these people from public funds and gave them access to share in a first world economy, education and health care system so I am not sure what else you think could possibly have been done for them.

IAE said...

All of this was to the great expense to the Swedes (and lets focus on the other Scandainvan countries as well to demonstrate this is not isolated) and all they had in return is a massive increase in crime, welfare drain, and balkanisation; crime wise especially as I mentioned rape has increased exponontionaly (and in Sweden the rape of children has risen six times in 20 years since this Third World influx) and here just a few facts about that:

In Denmark non-whites committed 68% of all rapes, and it was revealed that non-whites were over-represented in all crime by an average of 46% and in Copenhagen 47.5% of prisoners on remand for serious crimes were non-white. In Norway it was found that two out of three charged with rape in Oslo were non-white and that every case of aggravated sexual assault ending in rape over the past three years was committed by non-white immigrants, whilst in Sweden it as found that a rapist was four times more likely to have been born abroad – with Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominating the group of rape suspects and that non-whites were responsible for 25% of all crime in Sweden A survey in Australia found that in Melbourne magistrate’s courts, offenders from the horn of Africa and the Middle East were 20 times the representative proportion of their population…








Cached copy Norway Post:

And I could easily produce the equivalent for the UK, Australia, the US etc etc

Bear in mind these levels represent at the momemt only 5% of Third World settlement in these countries. What will happened when it reaches 10%, 20% or God forbid, a majority?

Once more, I do hope that you go back and answer the questions I asked in the previous comments (as well as comment on the fact that 98.5% of all jobs created under Labour have gone to foreigners) and if you actually watch
the reports you can see for yourself that there is no ‘bias’ or elaboration in the reporting.

Dan Dare said...


I won’t, if you don’t mind, be pusuing the football angle, apposite as this is to the general theme here, and even though there is an interestng symmetry about the displacement effect of mass migration on the labour market even at its uppermost (that is, best renumerated) level.

I was more interested in exploring the remark about the threat of ‘mob rule’, which in truth appears to be a strawman of your own design and construction, and one to which you are enjoying administering a sound kicking.

It’s not a matter of mob rule, or even that perpetual bête noire of the liberal left, the ‘tyranny of the majority’. The point being made, and being studiously ignored, is that we are now about to conduct the 18th general election since the war and on no single occasion has either the imcumbent party, or its principal challengers, ever provided an honest and open assessment of the likely consequences of the immigration policy that it intends to pursue. Above I provided a link which compares the policy platform of the LibLabCon faction in that regard, and it should be clear that there is no appreciable difference between them.

Each is essentially a continuation of the present laissez faire open-door approach which has resulted in the ethnic minority population exploding from effectively zero to 8 million in little more than two generations and which, if not reversed, is likely to result in another 14 million by mid-century. None of the major parties is inclined to mention this as a potential, indeed a likely consequence of the policy they are proposing.

This is not just dishonest it is criminal. You say don't want riots, in which case you should be voting for a party which promises to halt the immigration madness, and to reverse its effects. Otherwise your children and grandchildren and mine will be fated to be living in very interesting times indeed. I'm not sure they will be grateful to us for the legacy we are bequeathing to them.

IAE said...


Very hard questions to answer, are they not?

Especially when presented with such comprehensive evidence as above that this mass Third World immigration has massive negative aspects and zero positive aspects for the host countries ordinary people.

And that is the reality.

Have you any more to say on this issue or are we calling it a day?

Dan Dare said...

The truth of the matter IAE is that there is simply no rational basis on which mass immigration from the third world can be justified, without resorting to a morally-based narrative in which the interests of the host population become subordinate to the interests of the migrants.

The intention in creating such a narrative being to induce feelings of guilt (post-colonial in Britain's case) and to depict dissenters as morally deficient and, in the last resort, 'racist'.

Conversations like this one always result in such a denouement, in my experience.

IAE said...

Dan Dare,

Yes of course, you are right Dan, and I find it very interesting and revealing that decent people who do not resort to hysterical insults in lieu of substance (like our host and Irene) rarely come back to comment when their original contentions are taken apart by evidence.
I think the silence is an admission that the issue really is not what they thought it was and that cannot really begin to justify this influx in terms of any benefit whatsoever for the ordinary masses, especially when we can see from the evidence the massive negative impact it does have.
Oh well.
By the way, what did you make of that report above about “nearly every one of 1.67m jobs created since 1997 has gone to a foreigner…an extraordinary 98.5 per cent of 1.67million new posts were taken by immigrants.”?
Even I was shocked at that figure and I am a commited nationalist with his eyes wide open and quite a cynic to boot! If I had to guess I would have said around about 30% and that would have been outrageous but 98.5%? Demented.
What were your thoughts on this? Did this surprise you any?

IAE said...

Please excuse the poor formatting above.

Dan Dare said...


Re the employment story, I personally would not want to rely on what the Mail says without having a sight of the original statistics.

This is not a new story of course, it re-emerges every time the Labour Force Survey is updated. The data itself is somewhat flawed (at least it was the last time I looked at it) since it does it includes people who may subsequently have become British citizens among the foreign-born. This provides immigration enthusiasts with a lever with which to discredit the whole data-set.

I had this discussion on the Liberal Conspiracy website a couple of months with its Chief Immigration Champion. It gets very involved as these statistical 'debates' often do, but you can view it here including my comments.


Incidentally, I'm not sure if you have already passed by previously but I do most of my blogging on immigration and related matters at Majorityrights.com, including this recent effort on the 'Immigration Industry' which I recommended that Oranjepan read, although I don't believe he has.

Try us out, you might find it interesting.


IAE said...

Dan Dare,

Thanks, I will certainly take a look at that blog and article.

The closest I could find for figures behind that story are here:


Irene said...


The reason I have not commented is because a) I'm really busy and c) you're not saying anything that I don't already know in terms of how you think.

I'm sure me and Oranjepan have very different views about this issue, so no point lumping us all together because we both don't agree with you because it won't be right for me to speak for him and vice versa.

There's no point me debating with you because my concept still stands. It's not complicated and lol, it's all out there!

You don't go around stealing minerals, land etc from another indegenious-love that word- nation of people and then cry like a big spoilt baby when your past comes to haunt you.

Tough Sh*t. Wellcome to what we call now as globalisation! Something the English invented 'rule the waves' anyone?

Which is whay it doesn't matter how much you whine, you're left with your cards you dealt.

If you really want to stop mass immigration for the sake of the great, pure and wonderfully lovely English people, then you would use all the reading that you're doing and actually push for your government to stop over charging the third world nation, stop selling them arms, stop polluting their waters-see Somalie Pirate situation, take out ALL those multi-national companies that give nothing back to the country AND, and this is a big AND, stop putting in their corrupt buddies to govern those countries!

Mugabe studied in the UK and was put in by the English as a 'friend of England'...

Saddam Hussien was put in by the English and the Americans...

I could go on and guess what these people ended up doing? Starving their countries so they have to end seeking asylum here!

Can you not see a correlation?

It's not that complicated.

You're basically about protectionsim-to an extreme. Whatever, that's a human thing but you would be surprised how many alliances you could actually find in the immigrants that come here. You've taken from them, so they have nothing. You still take away from them by owning all the big companies in their country, so they still have nothing.

They have nothing and you have it all. Whilst they suffer with nothing but a shack, you lord it up with all the wealth that was accumulated from your country when it raped theirs of their resources.

Look into the Nigerian Freedom fighters who are trying to get the English and the Americans out of their land because they own all their oil.

Look at the Somali pirates and how they too want the English and Americans to stop polluting their sea.

These people are like you, they want you out of their land.

Except in thier case, they have nothing and well, at least you can get on the dole if you want.

Dan Dare said...

Irene - if we were to take your ''We were there so now they're here' rationale to its logical and ridiculous conclusion we could all be demanding villas in Tuscany as recompense for the exploitation and suffering that they caused us over here.

I mean, what have the Romans ever done for us?

But as for your general piunt, that British governments should stop meddling in the affairs of other countries, who could disagree with that? If it's something you feel really, really strongly about your best bet will be to vote BNP on May 6th. They're the only party, for example, which pledges an immediate withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan.

IAE said...


Your tone in your last comment seems to be slipping straight to the scenario described by Dan earlier on, I am afraid.

I didn’t actually ‘lump’ you together with anyone except to mention that you hadn’t commented after being shown just how erroneous your position is; we are all busy, but if you can find the time to comment in the first instance, don’t be too surprised if your silence after being dismantled is construed as contrition.

You say there is “no point me debating with you because my concept still stands” but that really is one giant cop out as your first concept that was no clear cut racial homogeneity in the UK and no indigenous people here was proven to be entirely wrong by science.

In fact, you couldn’t have been more wrong on that contention of yours so what makes you think you are right about anything else? What makes you now think that you are infallible?

I can feel your anger and contempt of the British people (white people in general I suspect) through your writing, probably a deeply ingrained self-loathing of the cultural Marxist flavour we now know as PC. Even when it has been proven by the world most eminent scientist and his team from the worlds most eminent university that the people of this country are indeed homogenous and that that stretches back to at least the stone age you still convey your contempt for the reality by saying you love the word “Indegenious” when you literally can’t even spell it, let alone understand that it is a proven reality.

Your argument thereafter is complete nonsense on many so levels too, the first one being that mass Third World immigration to the UK has NEVER been billed by ANY mainstream politician as some sort of revenge for the past; as we know, the politicians have never actually had any mandate to do it, not having put in their manifestos or called for a referendum, but in any case on the occasions they are called on to justify it, it is all about ‘economic benefit and humanitarian reasons’ never your idea of ‘swings and roundabouts’ or the ‘we deserve it’ theory – so perhaps you would care to substantiate and qualify your contention with some actual evidence that the official policy for Third World immigration in the UK has been carried out on the basis you claim.

‘Rule the waves’ and colonisation is not ‘globalisation’ by any means and you single out the English as if they were the most evil bastards on the planet carrying out these expansions unilaterally; as if the Africans and Asians themselves weren’t carrying out colonisation amongst themselves (and others) for millennia long before the English showed up as well practising slavery and all of the other unsavoury areas of guilt used, bizarrely, to exclusively beat the ‘white man’ with, contrary to the realities of history.

When you talk of the ‘English’ in this sense anyway lets be clear that you are referring to the aristocracy and middle classes in the main because the working class people have never benefited much from any actions of the government in this area; and so if you want the UK to stay out of countries affairs then Dan Dare is exactly right: You need to vote for the BNP as the BNP are the only party pledged to do just that.

But the erroneous premise of your contentions aside, what about those without a colonial past, say Norway; what reason should they have to take on massive Third World immigration in your book? Especially since I have proven that there is zero benefit for them to do so and massive reasons for them not to (massive increase in crime and rape for one.)

IAE said...

I will pick up a few other points here too:

Mugabe studying in England means nothings, millions do that every year and it not any endorsement of any kind; and ‘the English’ didn’t put Mugabe anywhere let alone in power: He was elected with a majority of 57 out of 80 seats; the election itself was a sham but that was nothing to do with ‘the English’ and everything to do with Mugabe.

People are starving in Zimbabwe now because of Mugabe and his policy of murdering and supplanting white farmers who once fed much of Africa, let alone Zimbabwe and it was know as the ‘Bread basket of Africa’ when white farmers plied their trade.

As for Saddam Hussein, again you are very naïve here as ‘the English’ had very little do with his rise to power, the American CIA were involved but at that point it was more to do with fighting communism then oil and even their role was peripheral to Iraqi machinations.

And Saddam Hussein actually united that country as Tito did with Yugoslavia; harsh by our standards but regionally the way necessary to maintain order, as we saw with tragic consequences upon his removal and will still see for generations to come.

Hussein didn’t starve his people either, the US did that with its sanctions, or more specifically (dual citizen) Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who when told half a million children had starved to death in Iraq because of her actions said “we think the price is worth it.”

As for Somali pirates really being poor old thwarted fisherman, ‘eco-warriors’ and not money hungry criminals, if that ludicrous notion floats your boat then you believe that, along with your Nigerian freedom fighters.

The truth for Nigeria (one of the most corrupt countries on earth) and its oil infrastructure is and has always been that when the whites have been removed from the equation in Africa, whatever it is that they built up, falls down.

But all in all you confuse companies, and multi-national companies at that with ‘the English’ people and it is not the same thing by a long chalk.

No, the truth is that this mass Third World immigration in Europe is ideologically motivated with some strong economic undertow (lower wages paid and lower work conditions for companies, not better economies for nations and its people) and it has been and is an unmitigated disaster for the indigenous peoples.

At levels of just 5% Third Worlder’s have already dominated a vastly increased crime rate (especially rape) in many areas of Europe as comprehensively proven above all whilst maintaining unemployment levels far above the indigenous rate (thus negating any ‘economic benefit’) and balkanising entire swathes of previously homogonous, harmonious, prosperous and peaceful regions of Europe.

This suicidal folly will end in more then just tears.

IAE said...

Irene must be busy again.

IAE said...

And Oranjepan must be very busy indeed!

Oranjepan said...

Consider yourself warned IAE - there's no need to be snide.

As it happens I've been away from a keyboard for most of the past few days, so you'll have to forgive me for neglecting this thread.

Let me say that I was encouraged to hear Dan Dare make a subtle but vital shift in his argument after conceding trade depends on the free movement of people.

He moved from saying there is 'no mandate' for immigration, to there is no mandate for the current levels of immigration and that in his view this requires a 'new mandate'.

This fundamentally debases the rationale behind any ideological opposition to immigration and it also undermines the confident assertion that any new mandate could not be won when the justification for it is put to the public in a more straightforward way.

While the BNPs reactionary stance may hold initial appeal to some this has been shown time and again not to hold nearly as much support when more people become familiar with all the issues at stake - as Dan's comments make all too apparent.

So I think it would help if people stopped confusing issues.

Anger at the complaints caused by insufficient resourcing compared to the level of immigration are not the same as either opposition to that level or opposition to immigration in general.

Dan Dare accepts there are grounds for justifying immigration, so the important question is now not whether these can be agreed upon, but how this can help form a balanced rationale for reforming the current policy.

In many ways the immigration debate mirrors the tax and spend debate - some people argue for higher taxes, others for reduced spending, but everyone agrees with the basic fact that an unbalanced approach will be harmful.

Clearly Dan and IAE are for reducing levels of foreign entrants, and although I think we are almost certain to disagree over the total figures I am open to the argument that the current economic situation means some adjustment is required.

So I'd like to ask: on what principles would you base such an adjustment of policy?

Currently the principle of reciprocity holds sway - would you reverse this? If so, what would you replace it with?

IAE said...


“Consider yourself warned IAE”

I am afraid I don’t react well at all to threats with all of their implicit assumptions of superiority and / or authority, and you haven’t addressed even a single point in our previous exchange anyway, so I think I’ll leave it here.

Thanks and no hard feelings.

Dan Dare said...

Oranjepan, I thought I'd made quite clear if not here then certainly in the preceding discussion that my support for immigration is very well-bounded. If not then here it is again.

I would support a very limited level of migration between states of broadly similar cultural background and similarly high level of HDI, where such migration can be economically justified and remains broadly in balance.

Such a scenario corresponds quite well to the intra-EU migration patterns which were the norm before the perturbations created by the admittance of the A8 countries in 2004. For Britain the effect of that event were magnified by the Labour governments doctrinaire adherence to free-market globalist dogma in not imposing a multi-year moratorium on worker migration from the East like the other major coutries in the EU. The result was all too predictable, although the best minds in Whitehall claimed not to see the impending deluge at the time (13,000 net was as I recall the official forecast). One can only assume they were either cynically lying or incompetent (perhaps both)

As far as extra-EU migration is concerned, there would be none whatsoever from the third world. Foreign multinationals with bona-fide operations in the UK (which would exclude Indian body-shops like Tata and Infosys) would be able to secure work permits for senior management and specialists on exactly the terms as existed before NuLabor relaxed controls on such permits in the late 90s.

In addition to a complete halt to other migration, the family reunion channel would be closed and Britain would withdraw fromn the UN refugee Convention (as even A. Blair threatened to do at one point), thereby closing off the 'asylum' channel as well.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Oranjepan said...

yes, and I feel you've also now made it clear why you would be wrong for you to support the BNP on those grounds.

I wonder what you mean by 'even' Blair threatened to withdraw from the UN Refugee convention.

If that's the case and he meant it then he's even more of a nutjob than the public gave him credit for - it's simply impossible not to be suspicious of any realism with which such 'threats' are treated and they are no grounds to make an argument: you might equally say 'even' Stalin was tolerant of same-sex relationships.

Frankly speaking, the unilateral withdrawl from international conventions you speak of are unrealistic and would be impossible to enact without being massively counterproductive to those exact same international relationships founded on our shared commitments which you have stated your support.

If you refuse to accept refugees then you are effectively committing and condoning the murder and persecution of those individuals yourself: you personally are playing judge, jury and executioner.

Of course the systems we have are imperfect, but the alternative is truly horrific.

Perhaps it is a widely unacknowledged fact too difficult for many to accept, so if you're going to ask the question expect the compassionate argument to resonate strongly when it is given consideration.

I can understand anger and bitterness at the expectations built up and dashed by the machine of government, but that's a consequence of your own political belief in authority. I keep a healthy scepticism of everything bureaucrats announce for the simple reason they are not neutral in the debate - either professionally or personally.

You can't trust politicians because you're not supposed to trust them - they exist to be held accountable.

If you wish to grow any opposition to immigration you will have to convince me not of exceptions to the rule where some individuals have unfairly manipulated the system for their benefit, but that the overall product of the system in its widest context is more harmful than helpful.

By contrast the narrow argument of 'indiginous' rights is utterly perverse. It creates competition between rights and subordinates the most fundamental and inalienable quality of humanity - that of life itself. It is wholly incoherent and against everything this country stands for.

if you read the original post you will have seen my warning about the potential for moderation, so don't view that comment as a threat - it's a promise. My gaff, my rules (though I've shown I'm amenable to persuasion).

But let me reassure you I am more than happy to address any relevant points you make, and I feel I did (with the exception of those areas where you've obviously contradicted yourself).

I accept it's easier to disengage from debate rather than accept mistakes in logic on one's own part, so by your actions I'll take it that you have conceded. Or, if you wish to be more specific, please be so and I will oblige you.

IAE said...

Well, like I said Oranjepan I have no hard feelings but a warning is a threat whichever way you look at it and for one to issue it there is quite obviously an inherent sense of authority over the subject, as well as notions of being in a superior position to the subject.

It is, as you say ‘your’ blog and quite obviously that is the source of the described dynamics but nonetheless, as I said, I don’t respond well to threats and so it is most likely best to leave it there.

I have fully engaged you and Irene and in granular detail and with much evidence and you haven not responded to any of my questions, nor this evidence or detail, nor have you seen fit to inform me where you feel I have ‘contradicted’ myself; on top of this the timeframe between responses is sporadic and moves further and further apart.

It is easier to claim ‘victory’ by way of a generic response that my logic has ‘mistakes’ and I have ‘contradicted’ myself rather then actually point to examples or answer my questions or indeed address any of the evidence presented, and if this is to be the course of your actions then I'll take it that you have conceded.

If you want to answer the questions I have asked at least twice now and address the evidence I have presented above then I will oblige you with a response to that also.

Oranjepan said...

I shall take that as an implicit apology for the malintended and destructive language you resorted to earlier. Thank you.

It's also worth an expression of disappointment that you are so ready to get distracted when it suits you, so let me return to the subject.

The genetic argument you cited earlier is a red herring, and any conclusions about immigration policy are not supported by any of the facts quoted. In fact it may be equally fair to draw the opposing conclusions than you seem to wish.

I must question your reliance on the ambiguous statement that any 'racial' mixing has been minimal and 'overwhelmingly' insignificant.

This is a massive generalisation and presupposes a preexisting homogeneity (which is unproven and cannot be assumed) as well as a static genetic population (which denies the facts of biological reproduction).

The 'evidence' is necessarily limited, self-selecting and therefore open to a wide range of interpretation. Whatever it tells us, it doesn't tell us the full picture.

It also ignores the cultural influences on society, and the consequent political and intellectual advances cross-cultural communication requires and drives.

Equally the comparison with Israel is a matter of oranges and lemons. Not relevant here.

If we look at the countries with the most closed borders and purest genetic make-up I'm not convinced a majority of the public wants to follow their model which you recommend.

Burma, North Korea and Lesotho are not exactly paragons of civic and social virtue, nor are the general standards of their life widely desired.

Nevertheless good luck with your dream of grey-land - compared to that even beige would sound positive!

I also reiterate my urge for caution in putting your argument as there is no example when it hasn't been used to justify spilling blood - the dream of grey quickly turns red.

From my reading of your position it seems clear you propose a 'grand' view of historical moments through which you assert your identity. A history of events, if you will.

In contrast I've been trying to emphasise the continuity within historical processes.

So, the geographical isolation of the British isles conversely both requires and forces greater integration of the population into the world than our neighbours in order to maintain our position in it.

While it may seem to make political sense to progressively close our borders and keep others out, this is wrong. Instead we must work to progressively open all borders to enable balanced flows of people - we must work to allow equalised levels of emigration as immigration.

This means ensuring equal and complementary 'right to leave' and 'right of return' for all peoples wherever we may go.

The BNP vision is flawed by the unilateralism whith which it is proposed.

Britain has worked hard to design and build a framework of international relations based on principles of equality and mutual trust, so to overturn this would seek to deny the real gains made in global security and prosperity.

But then the predictions of a holocaust were disbelieved when they were made each time and of course humanity is immune from repeating anything as grave as that, aren't we?

Dan Dare said...

Well anyway, Oranjepan I believe we've all enjoyed a free and frank exchange of views, with little of the usual rancour that usually accompanies these affairs, and can part company still agreeing to differ.

I'd be interested in taking up the footie theme again though, if you wish to kick it off, perhaps in a separate thread.

IAE said...


I agree with Dan, its been a free enough exchange of ideas without the usual recourse to expletive laden insults and the normal insults that being a nationalist and a PC dissenter equates to being mental / criminal / pederast / subnormal / Nazi or the entire lot.

I genuinely have no idea of what “malintended and destructive language” you assign, presumably to me, certainly that is not how I see it and consequently I made no apology as a result, either explicitly or implicitly; but like I said, I really do think that is best left where it is; it serves no purpose now.

To be perfectly I am not really sure who you have addressed your last comment to either as those were largely not my contentions or statements (eg “'racial' mixing has been minimal and 'overwhelmingly' insignificant”) and none of my questions were answered but no worries.

Thanks all the same and best of luck to you.

Anonymous said...

I believe we've all enjoyed a free and frank exchange of views...and can part company still agreeing to differ.

Brilliant, a pointless waste of time as utter intransigence wins the day.