England facing extinction

An unpopular truth

[Reprinted from Issues & Views August 26, 2002]

In a remarkable article, "Britain Is Losing Britain," in the London Times (8/7/02), Anthony Browne tells the truth about what mass immigration is doing to England. His article is especially noteworthy because the strong positions taken by him on this subject are rarely allowed expression in mainstream publications in Western countries. Here are some excerpts:

About a quarter of a million people are coming to Britain from the Third World each year: a city the size of Cambridge every six months, an unprecedented and sustained wave of immigration to one of the world’s most densely crowded islands, utterly transforming the society in which we live against the wishes of the majority of the population, damaging quality of life and social cohesion, exacerbating the housing crisis and congestion, and with questionable economic benefits. . . .

Don’t be fooled by the immigration celebrationists telling you that this is just history as normal. It isn’t. Earlier waves of immigration, from the Huguenots to the Jews after the Second World War, to East African Asians in the 1970s, were one-off events that had an ending. The populations who came and did well for themselves were genuinely being forced out of whence they came. We were right to welcome them. . . .

Whole villages in Bangladesh have been transplanted to whole streets in some northern English towns: little Third World colonies in Britain. The Labour Government has relentlessly encouraged this by making it easier for recent immigrants to bring new immigrants over, and rapidly increasing many forms of supposedly temporary immigration, while introducing laws that ensure that virtually no one has to leave if they don’t want to.

Its abolition of the primary purpose rule, meaning that it is now OK to have an arranged marriage for the primary purpose of emigrating to Britain, made it possible to bring in boyfriends and girlfriends and scrapped passport exit controls. It actively encouraged universities to recruit tens of thousands of students from the Third World and dramatically increased temporary work visas in the full knowledge that many will stay. . . .

The boom in immigration has been matched only by the determination of immigration celebrationists to brainwash the British public into thinking that it is all for their own good. But almost every reason given to support this immigration is bogus. . . . The only reason for this net current immigration is not that Britain needs immigrants, but that immigrants want Britain. It is not even particularly good for the countries they come from. Stealing the most energetic, entrepreneurial or educated from the Third World is a very inefficient development policy.

The one thing it does do is change the face of Britain, rapidly. One child in eight is now from an ethnic minority, rising to one in three in London. So-called “ethnic minorities” together form a majority in boroughs such as Brent and Newham, and in whole neighbourhoods of cities in the North you can wander around for hours without seeing a white face, one monoculture having replaced another. Cities such as Coventry, Leicester and London are vying to see which can become the first white-minority city. . . .

But we are too polite to say anything about it, too worried about being called racist, just too embarrassed about being British or English or whatever it is, just wallowing too much in post-colonial white guilt.

If there are more people wanting to live in Britain than we can feasibly accept, then Britain has to tell people they cannot move here. We have to accept that people just do not have the right to live where they want in the world, and that the people of Britain have a right to decide who can move here. Wanting open borders is a noble aim, but not while there are such global imbalances in wealth that it causes destabilising population flows.

In a commentary on Anthony Browne's article above, American author Paul Craig Roberts, on VDARE.com offers these remarks:

Americans are losing their country, too, but Americans are not allowed to say so. Third World immigration to the United States is higher than to Britain. One in five of the U.S. population was born abroad or born of parents who were born abroad. This is a massive change from 1970, when new immigrants counted for only one in 20 U.S. births.

While the British worry about losing cities to Third World immigrants, the United States is losing entire states. Assimilation has broken down. In its place, Americans now endure Third World enclaves or colonies. As the United States becomes a polyglot, how can it have any foreign policy? How much longer will the United States be able to conduct a pro-Israeli foreign policy and plan invasions of Middle Eastern countries?

The outlines of U.S. domestic policy in the New Immigrationist State (NIS) are already apparent. The tax burdens on native-born whites will rise to meet the needs of the poor immigrants. The burden of the federal personal income tax rests on a narrow base of 35 million taxpayers who are, in effect, slaves of the state. The colonization of these taxpayers will intensify, as millions of needy new immigrants enter the United States each year.

The United States, like Britain, faces extinction as a nation-state. Both countries are becoming colonies for a plethora of Third World cultures.

Copyright © 2008 Issues & Views