Re: Can Europe be the same with different people in it?

On 9 July, 14:43, Occidental <Occiden...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ed West: "The immigration revolution: can Europe be the same with
different people in it?"http://tinyurl.com/kowf8u

Something explosive is about to hit the British political arena, a
book with ideas so shocking it will change the debate on the most
important issue in European politics.

For years, the European political class have told their peoples that
mass immigration was beneficial, inevitable and historically
precedented. It enriched our lives, it boosted our economy, it made us
better people morally and it was a continuation of our countries’
histories of immigration, and anyone who disagrees is a racist bigot.
The ruling class kitted the emperor out in his fancy new clothes and
if people could not see them then there was something wrong with their
eyes.

Well, the emperor is ***-naked and Financial Times journalist
Christopher Caldwell is the little boy. The publication of his book
Reflections on the Revolution in Europe is a pivotal moment in the
debate on immigration, and it heralds the start of a new era - an
acceptance by the political mainstream that our system isn’t working,
and that while a multi-racial society can work, the more multi-racial
it is the less well it functions.

Caldwell is a reasonable, moderate man who has studied Europe and
Islam for a decade, which makes his conclusions all the more
astonishing. He argues that mass immigration and the formation of
large ethnic bodies makes us unhappier as people, it damages rather
than helps the economy, and threatens the basic principles of freedom.
Most alarming of all, he shows just how deluded are those liberal
thinkers who believe large Muslim immigrant communities can be
assimilated into Europe, especially a hedonistic atheist Europe which
has recently adopted values at odds with the rest of humanity.

Immigration of the sort we’ve had since the war is simply
unprecedented. Part of the propaganda pumped out by the establishment
is that Britain is a nation of immigrants. But, as Calwell writes:
“Aside from the invasions of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes that started in
the fourth century AD - and which brought, at the very most, 250,000
new settlers over a period of several centuries - British ’stock’ has
changed little. Only about 10,000 people arrived with the Norman
Conquest. Tens of thousands more Huguenots came after the revocation
of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. But, all told, three-quarters of the
ancestors of contemporary Britons and Irish were already present in
the British Isles 7,500 years ago. DNA from people who arrived after
that makes up only 12 per cent of the Irish gene pool.”

In fact before 1945 there had only been one example of such
immigration in Europe’s history and that was, ironically, produced by
Nazi Germany.

“Europe’s path to mass immigration owes something to the intellectual
habits of the statesmen and magnates who ran Europe’s economy in World
War II - on both the Allied and Axis sides. In scale, today’s massive
in-migration of ‘temporary’ labour has only one precedent, and it is a
recent one.”

Nazi Germany is the key to all of this, the reason why we are unable
to balance our Christian disdain for racism and our willingness to
allow minority communities to live here with common sense. No society
in history would ever have dreamed of doing what Europe did after
1945, inviting vastly different people over in such numbers, for the
simple reason that no other society was so wracked with guilt and self-
loathing for its “two historic misdeeds, colonialism and Nazism”.

This, combined with pressure from big business, which wanted cheap
labour to run heavy industry (most of which was on its last legs
anyway), and a welfare state that discouraged natives from taking
menial jobs, caused Europe’s leaders to invite people in such large
numbers as to make future ethnic conflict inevitable.

Caldwell continues: “If one abandons the idea that Western Europeans
are rapacious and exploitative by nature, and that Africans, Asians,
and other would-be immigrants are inevitably their victims, then the
fundamental differences between colonisation and labour migration
cease to be obvious.” And what we have in the suburbs of France and
the inner cities of Holland and England is, whatever that word’s
pejorative meaning, colonisation.

The reason Enoch Powell was wrong in predicting rivers of blood was
that Powell, who loved the British Empire, did not understand the
widespread feelings of liberal guilt among the middle class, nor that
this would be transmitted to the nation as a whole (even though the
poor had no reason to feel guilty about anything, and indeed would
feel the worst effects of immigration).

And yet Powell’s population forecasts were spot on. He shocked his
Rotary Club audience in 1968 by suggesting Britain’s non-white
population would be 4.5 million in 2002 (in 2001 it was 4,635,296).
Then in 1970 he told voters in Wolverhampton that between a fifth and
a quarter of their city, as well as that of Birmingham and Inner
London, would be non-white one day. According to the 2001 census the
figures were 22.2 per cent, 29.6 per cent and 34.4 per cent
respectively, and rising.

The subtitle asks: “Can Europe be the same with different people in
it?” The answer, quite clearly, is no.

What has happened has been aptly described as Hitler's revenge.

But the penny is dropping now and the big parties are desperate to
leave it alone. No wonder they sound as shifty as the Tory on QT
tonight.
.

Loading