Immigration or Invasion?

The Mass immigration of aliens since 1948 is justified by deceitful arguments that they bring economic benefits. But only for the elites – the rest are pushed out of employment and their communities, their children disinherited. It is advanced behind utopian ideals and unrealistic plans for a one-world of one people but in practice, Global capitalists are importing cheap labour. Free trade has been promoted as a pancea since Richard Cobden's speech of 1846 as:“drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonism of race”, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace”. In practice it is a policy that allows completely open economic borders, whereby cheap foreign goods can flood into the country unchallenged and undercut the wages of our own people and decimate the economic livelihood of the nation. Of course there will be those that profit from cheap labour, cheap imports and the peddling of third world goods on an open market. This country is governed for business interests not the nation as a whole and they defend their interests against critics with the Trotskyite term"racist"! We get alarm stories of how the government has lost control of its borders but what is happening is what they want to happen. Opponents speak of it as an invasion or colonisation. But which is it? The replacement of a people is not painless but causes great misery and suffering and people who inflict misery and suffering on innocent people are evil and the distinction between an invasion or immigration, depends three factors: the strength or treason of the ruling elite plus numbers of the incomers and how they behave towards the hosts when they are in. These are present in most of my example. A precedent from history is the internal conquest of Rome in 376AD by Goths after weakEmporer Valens had allowed them to settle. This is how demography works: if there had not been so many with strength from numbers they would not have rebelled The Goths had been displaced by Huns and asked the Romans for asylum. The Romans allowed them in and when they were provoked by offensive Roman officials, revolted. Roman historian Ammianus explained the folly: “The affair caused more joy than fear and educated flatterers immoderately praised the good fortune of the Prince, which unexpectedly brought him so many young recruits from the ends of the earth...” Pat Buchanan gives pertinent examples in Death of the West. When Mexico got independence in 1821 when it had got independence and invited Americans to settle in Texas, its northern province. They applied two conditions: the Americans must swear allegiance to Mexico and convert to Catholicism, like our facile citizenship tests. But when the Americans were a sizable majority of ten to one they begun to think about independence as European Muslims are. The catalyst came under tyrant General Santa Anna - the Americans rebelled and took that part of Mexico for America. Now Mexicans are pouring into America and taking it back! (1) Bishop Ali Nazir has exposed how Muslims take over areas of our country and keep us out. (2) The same behaviour can be seen in Tamils in Sri Lanka, Tibet where China have invaded, in Hawaii where most of the original people have been displaced as also happened in South America and the West Indies. What happened to Native Americans is well documented as is the displacement of Aborigines and Maoris. This behaviour of invaders whether invited or not goes back as far as recorded history. Take our own country. Julius Caesar invaded Britain in 53AD with a small Roman force and realised the Britons were not easy so the Romans withdrew to Gaul. They needed more men for full-scale invasion. Caesar returned the next year bringing 30,000 soldiers. The Britons delayed by not fighting the Romans as they landed which allowed them to establish themselves. Then they fought British tribes one at a time. Caesar neglected Gaul and they rose up so Caesar had to withdraw to put down the rebellion. The Britons aidded their Celtic kinfolk in Gaul in their fight to defend their territory. Emperor Claudius decreed they should feel the might of Rome. The Romans invasion of AD 43 was to to take over the island. Emperor Claudius sent an army of 40,000 men. Many tribes realised the power of this army and soon made peace but some took on the might of the Roman army. These clashes lasted for many years in parts of Britain. Rivalry led to war and to the Romans war could only end with the submission or destruction of their foes. In Europe, whole tribes of Gauls, Britons and Germans were killed or enslaved. After the Gauls surrendered Caesar took 50,000 slaves with as many killed. The Gallic warlord Vercingetorix honorably surrendered but was kept in chains for six years before being ritually strangled in the arena. Caesar boasted of killing five million Gauls - an act of genocide. In Briton the Iceni tribe, an ally of the Romans, was driven to rebellion by the cruelty of the Roman governor. Their tribal lands were seized and people enslaved. Boudicca, their Queen, was publicly whipped and her daughters raped by Roman slaves. The Celts had coinage no written language, and were divided. The Romans had a developed culture, organisation and great self-belief.They came to conquer and take the people under their authority. It is in this sense that people speak of Liberty: Liberty from foreign yolk and the creative security of living amongst your own folk in your own culture. Compared to the Romans the Celts were disunited. They shared basic race with the Romans but were ethnically different and followed different religions which increases conflict as it does with the rival White and Muslim comminities now. An ethnicity is a group whose members belong together through a common heritage, usually a common language, a common culture which is a shared religion and sense of common ancestry and awareness of a group's distinctiveness from others. Patrick J.Buchanan describes it as a “blood and soil” nation.(3) Civilisation broke down after the Roman army left and to defend themselves from Vikings, the inhabitants brought in European mercenaries. These were Angles and Saxons from northern Germany. To begin the Anglo Saxons were allowed to bring their families and got paid with land which they could farm then when they were strong enough the Anglo Saxons took the territory. This is a parallel with how contemporary elites are allowing our territory to be taken and our children dispossessed. The Anglo Saxon invasion was the most thorough case of ethnic cleansing in this country until 1948. DNA evidence shows that in some parts of the country up to 90% of the inhabitants were displaced. The Anglo Saxons re-named roads and places which shows dominance. The Viking raids finally became a “Great Army” in 865 AD. It landed in East Anglia and Northumbria and Mercia had fallen by 875 with only Wessex left. The Vikings attack Wessex in 878. By 1016 the Vikings ruled under Cnute. Once again on Cnut's death the country broke down into competing Earldoms under weak king Edward the Confessor. When he died Harold became King. The Tower of London was built to emphasise the new rulers power and dominance. William had castles. The new landowners built magnificent castles that proclaimed their authority to be obeyed like Warwick and Windsor that survive. Now it is fabulous and dominant mosques and culture centres. The landed gentry were replaced by Normans who took the best land and any women they wanted: the Anglo Saxon people became their serfs. Only one Anglo-Saxon Bishop was left in office. We are not supposed to defend ourselves but Muslims are allowed to develop militant and terrorist networks against us. The enemy within, The Equalities and Human Rights Commission have made it illegal for an ethnic or racial nationalist political party to exist in Britain but allow other ethnic groups right of association. (4) The elites are oppressing us as conquerors do so immigrants replace us. Contemporary Politics is based on racism - the global Establishment pushes relentlessly to displace, dispossess, deracinate the peoples' of Europe THAT is racism. It treats us as not a real people, not worthy of consideration, subhuman.We must be proud of our "racialism" of defending ourselves against dispossession and of being determined to live! These are the instructions of Bedfordshire Police to officers on anti-terrorist courses: ''UK’s Bedfordshire Police’s rules regarding terrorists and dangerous criminals If they’re non-Muslim. Consider the most opportune time of day to be able to arrest suspects with minimum resistance. Apply all necessary force to enter the premises and arrest suspects accordingly. If they’re Muslim: Community leaders must be consulted before raids into Muslim houses. Officers must not search occupied bedrooms and bathrooms before dawn. Use of police dogs will be considered serious desecration of the premises. Cameras and camcorders should not be used in case of capturing women inappropriately dressed. If people are praying: home officers should stand aside and not disrupt, They should be allowed the opportunity to finish. Officers should take off their shoes before raiding a Muslim house. The reasons for pre-dawn raids on Muslim houses needs to be clear and transparent. Officers must not touch holy books or religious artefacts without permission. Muslim prisoners should be allowed to take additional clothing to the station.'' Our culture is being changed. Anjem Choudary has said that under sharia law in Britain people who commit adultery would be stoned to death, adding that “anyone who becomes intoxicated by alcohol would be given 40 lashes in public”. He described an Army homecoming parade a: “vile parade of brutal murderers”.(5) Meanwhile evil Harriet Harman brings in discriminatory laws and praises immigrants who exploit us by sending money to their own countries.(6) The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were part of a secret plan by ministers to change the population to "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. It was done behing our backs to "open up the UK to mass migration." They decieved people with false arguments that immigrants are bringing economic benefits. A Swedish government minister showed in a radio interview that they are allowing Muslims to take over their country. It's betraying the indigenous population especially the women: The utopian fantasy depends on not seeing Muslims as human like us and wanting revenge for historical reasons against their Christian rivals. “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.” Immigrants are consciousness of their strength and knowingly taking our territory and establishing their symbols of conquest like mosques and education centres. These are alien bulkheads in our civilisation and used to develop a new generation of street soldiers with the right mentality. The important point in assessing the true nature of immigration is how are the immigrants behaving: this is not to be seen as on a par with our people's criminal behaviour because the immigrants treat us as other and also have grudges against us for the way we treated them when we were conquerers. It is not the fault of poor whites but they are the only ones the immigrants can get as the elites are happily rich in safe places. The other way of assessing whether this is immigration or invasion is to consider their attitude to us. The widespread mass child-rapes of our young girls is guerilla warfare: fighting us by other means. In Pakistanis in Britain: The Second Generation Allison Shaw studied the Pakistani community in Oxford(1988) The third generation of British Pakistanis is now grown up and claiming our territory and taking young British women as booty. Shaw shows the relative loyalties to one's own kind of the Pakistanis and the English. The Pakistanis are extended families, the English atomised and anomic. From Alison Shaw, A Pakistani Community in Britain (Blackwell Ltd., Oxford, 1988): [p.157] […] These young men are westernized in that they are fluent in English, interested in western music and Sport, and comfortable in English company, where they move with a sophistication that their parents lack. What does this imply about their attitudes to their family and biradari? It is striking that young men such as these retain very strong social and financial links with their families; even those who live and work away from Oxford come home whenever they can and hope to get work locally when the opportunity arises. These young men tend to spend their leisure time with each other and their peers within the community rather than with English friends and also participate in family and community social events. A woman gave this account of the punishments for failing to follow rules: [p.171] The Prophet Mohammed was out walking one day when he saw a woman in torture, hanging by her hair, but still alive. A little further on, he saw a woman being hung by her breasts and then he saw a woman being put into a huge fire, screaming. Horrified, he asked Allah, ‘Why are these women being tortured like this? Please let them go free!’ But Allah replied, ‘The first woman used to tantalize men with her hair, the second used to reveal her breasts to strange men and the third slept with a man who was not her husband. That is why I cannot set them free.’ At the same time it is considered that women must be protected because they are the dependants of men. . The corollary of this is that a woman who is ‘outside’, among men, unprotected, is ‘free for anyone to take.’ Western women in particular appear to break all the rules of purdah. They are regarded as sexually promiscuous, moving freely from one man to another, behaving and dressing in order to provoke men. A woman out alone is in effect asking for sexual relations with a man. Rape, young and older men have insisted, is always the woman’s fault, because it is the natural result of a woman dressing provocatively and being out alone. In this view, western women are simultaneously exciting and despised for having no sense of shame and being ‘used by more than one man; like prostitutes’. ’ [p.173] One young man said: The point is, English girls don’t mind; there’s no restriction for them. In fact, they chase you and laugh at you if you don’t go with them. It was like that at school: the girls chasing men. I know I shouldn’t have, it’s against our religion, but how could I refuse? It’s natural for a man to feel like that; you can’t really avoid it. I blame the western system. Almost all of the unmarried men among the young adults surveyed above have had clandestine relationships with English girls, yet do not feel that this contradicts their acceptance of an arranged marriage or the Islamic moral code. It is tacitly accepted by most men and women that men will have girlfriends because ‘men are like that’ and because English girls are easily available ... I would like to thank the owner of the blog http://songlight-for-dawn.blogspot.com/ for introducing me to the books of Alison Shaw http://songlight-for-dawn.blogspot.com/ (1)Death of the West.Patrick J.Buchanan. http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/death_by_blackness_files/Deathofthewest.htm (2 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3176455.ece (3) State of Emergency.Patrick J.Buchanan (Thomas Dunne Books) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEO1yqJVXEU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npbpK4yQ4tg http://www.vdare.com/fulford/100513_fulford_file.htm (4) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12014807 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXjOd4A63Ak&feature=player_embedded http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337876/Harman-praises-hero-immigrants-send-welfare-handouts-home.html#ixzz17t6BLwTq http://fred.wheatonma.edu/wordpressmu/mdrout/category/battle-of-brunanburh/ http://www.bing.com/search?q=Sex+in+Rochdale&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2237940.ece