Advertisement
Guest User

TBG

a guest
Nov 18th, 2018
139
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. (Repost due to the tiresome Durham Palatinate website)
  2.  
  3. We do hope that you are not reading history or philosophy.
  4.  
  5. Firstly we are only reminiscent of the BUF for those who don't know the history of conservatism or in fact of any political development or attachments in the UK. Look to the opinions on these matters of those who formed the Labour Party as well as the Conservatives to try to learn something or think outside of what you have been spoon-fed (or rather this is directed to those who may happen across this, I fear you are a lost case).
  6.  
  7. If I follow your hidden assumptions correctly, you appear to be suggesting that because of pre-historical and then historical layers of immigration to what became the United Kingdom, this requires us to ignore levels of immigration in the late 20th into the 21st Century Britain? Because Huguenots, therefore Pakistanis? Perhaps your thinking is in line with the chant of current leftist loons "no borders, no walls, no Britain at all"?
  8. The 'because immigration then: immigration now' position is deficient on many grounds, not least differences in i)kind and ii)degree iii)time iv)kinship:
  9.  
  10. i) Any statistically significant immigration to the UK was from very narrow sources (the furthest were the Jutes, from the Danish-German border region to Kent). All the peoples this period were from Germanic peoples, even the later Normans were from similar roots.
  11.  
  12. ii) Degree - the Anglos/Saxons/Jutes, comprised about 20% of the population and interbred with what were their close cousins. Later arrivals were much tinier. For instance the Huguenots comprised about 1% (5,500,000 vs 50k), the Normans addition that settled has been estimated at a quarter of one percent.
  13.  
  14. iii) Since that fateful invasion in 1066, no significant immigration to Britain occurred again until modern times i.e. for not far off of a thousand years.
  15.  
  16. iv) If the people of the UK share common ancestry to a high degree (see links at bottom) then mass immigration from sources that are outside of this extended family is a wilful act of self-harm that will have eternal repercussions.
  17.  
  18. Therefore there is no logical argument that can be made for us allowing mass immigration now based on earlier immigration then. Those who try to make the argument are either relying on the ignorance of their listeners, their own ignorance or perhaps their own political or other agenda in promoting it. Your curious surname here, did not escape notice.
  19.  
  20. For anyone interested, can I direct you to the following:
  21.  
  22. A Nation of Immigrants? A Brief Demographic History of Britain, David Conway https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/ANationOfImmigrants2007.pdf
  23.  
  24. The Costs and Benefits of Large-scale Immigration - Exploring the economic and demographic
  25. consequences for the UK Robert Rowthorn https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/largescaleimmigration-1.pdf
  26.  
  27. Is Britain An Immigrant Nation? Noah Carl, (genetics) https://medium.com/@NoahCarl/is-britain-an-immigrant-nation-e84f965528d2
  28.  
  29. Takeaway quote: native Britons living in one particular area of the country (e.g., Orkney) are not much more closely related to their immediate neighbours than to Britons living in a completely different area of the country (e.g., North Wales)."
  30.  
  31. UK's genetic structure revealed, Professor Peter Donnelly, director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Oxford: https://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2015/mar/20/genetics-solar-eclipse
  32.  
  33. Takeaway quote: (2.52) "the first thing to say is that people in the UK of European ancestry are extremely similar similar genetically, they are much more similar to each other than even to those from other European countries"
  34.  
  35. Final key consideration: Young British people need to ask themselves whether it is in their own direct interests and that of their descendant to intentionally become a minority in the land of their ancestors? Their roots go back at least 5k years to the Beaker folk from which almost all modern Britons are descended and also arguably much further back 10k+ years to the end of the last glacial retreat and whose inhabitants contribute at least 10% of modern Britons. Has the type of society that progressives are trying to construct now (as the idiotic dupes of globalist commercial tendencies) ever been successful in recorded history?
Advertisement
RAW Paste Data Copied
Advertisement