The Netherlands Loves the Status Quo

Last Thursday I received some distressing news from our Dutch correspondent H. Numan:

This morning I was shocked reading the news: Prof. Dr. van Frikschoten (the nick of the chap running The Amsterdam Post) died yesterday in a traffic accident. He was riding his bike and was hit by a lorry.

Sad news, it was one of the best conservative sites in The Netherlands.

In a later email he added this:

As far as I know it was a one-man operation, with some minor assistance. Since nothing as yet has appeared on the site, I am more than 99% certain the site will remain like it is now until expiration.

I was familiar with The Amsterdam Post — they covered the free speech rally in Amsterdam in October 2010, including translations of some of our reports. In the years since they have linked approvingly to Gates of Vienna and other Counterjihad sites, and have published more translated articles. They were on the same wavelength as we are — definitely “one of us”.

So this is sad news indeed. I looked at their website, and the final post seems to be on August 6th. One of their last articles was about Geert Wilders, and has been kindly translated for Gates of Vienna by El Rubio:

Wilders Says So, Therefore It’s Nonsense
By Ingezonden

Because the “improper” Geert Wilders says so, they can put it down as contamination and populism. Then a well known psychological phenomenon starts to work: the so-called cognitive dissociation. Because “proper” people don’t want to be associated with Wilders, they also do not want to be associated with his views. So thanks to this incredible smart political manipulation the status quo can continue — for example, the new theft of €40 billion for the ESM [European Stability Mechanism], which the majority of the Dutch population is violently opposed to (they lost that money down the drain). All criticism of the corruption and rot in the political system in Holland is silenced, and the dangerous Wilders must be snuffed out. 1984 in optimum form.

Wilders says many things which the majority of the Wilders-haters, the majority of the population, actually support. So the majority of the population, just like Wilders, would like to see city mayors elected, rather than appointed. They would like to see the political power of the Dutch royal house diminished, and a lot less influence from Brussels. The population also wants a reduction in government and foreign aid expenditures instead of what is happening right now: a big hike in taxes. Also most Dutch people think we have no business in Afghanistan. These are subjects that go against the established order, which enshrines the security of jobs at the United Nations, European Union or national government (city mayor).

And again, Geert Wilders does not hate Moslems; he just hates their ideology, just like any clear-thinking individual who is not too happy with an ideology that promotes hate, period. So I invite a Moslem into my house for coffee. But as soon as he starts spouting off about the need for Christians and Jews to get slaughtered, I’ll let him have it in the a** with my .45, not because of what he is, but because of what he says! And what are they talking about? Personally I think that neither God nor Allah exist. It is just too stupid too waste any words on.

You know, they had a social drink and said what they did was good for our fatherland. However, it was not the PVV [Partij voor de Vrijheid, Party for Freedom, Geert Wilders’ party] who robbed the treasurer, it was not the PVV who caused the shortages in the state pensions, and it was not the PVV who started the financial crisis. And they are not the ones who caused a steep rise in bankruptcies, unemployment and a stagnating housing market. No, these and other woes can be blamed on those who governed our country for the last sixty years and managed to waste the natural gas reserves, have sanitized and over-regulated what were once our industrial jewels, and prayed to the god named Brussels. All on the backs of the inhabitants of this country.

The murdered politician Fortuyn warned against this a long time ago, and since his passing a string of governing traditional parties have pushed us down deeper into the abyss. The CDA, VVD, PvdA and also D66 [other major political parties] screamed murder at the increasing popularity of the PVV, and in the same breath sold our country down the EU road like a bunch of slick snake-oil merchants. Go ahead, keep voting for the traditional parties, you know what you will get, don’t you? Everything will stay the same, and of course that is going to be blamed on Wilders if you listen to the mainstream media. Pavlov will be jealous of how the politicians have manipulated the population.

Holland has not had enough yet, according to the latest voting trends. There actually is a trend back to the traditional parties. As if Pim Fortuyn never existed.

I am under the cynical impression that Wilders and anyone who votes for him will be marginalized in the political and media arena and everything will remain status quo. This country has not had enough of the status quo yet. It is exactly what this country wants.

Holland…
Thinking about Holland
I see beautiful cities
flushed down the drain by immigration
Churches changed into mosques
I tear up
Thinking about Holland
I see wasted money in ridiculous projects
and a population that does not care.
Don’t care enough to stand up to tyranny
Thinking about Holland
I see gorgeous polders
the result of generations of hard work
given back to the sea
How it galls me!
Thinking about Holland
I see old people and sick ones
put away as if they were of no importance
They’d rather give their money to Greece.
That is not something I wish for my country.
Thinking about Holland
I see a government
who works to get rid of us.
Why would they do that with a population who pays their way?
A thinking population should get rid of them.
Thinking about Holland
I fear for the future
when it will be a mere European district
with its constitution replaced by sharia.
And then the only thing left
Thinking about Holland
I see a population who just will take any abuse
who will have forgotten our rich history
and are only concerned with personal gain.
Thinking about Holland
I see our beautiful country edging towards the abyss.
If that were to happen, Dutchmen should not complain;
after all, except for a million or so people,
they worked hard to make it happen! There you go!

Willemientje

25 thoughts on “The Netherlands Loves the Status Quo

  1. “I see a population who just will take any abuse who will have forgotten our rich history … ”

    (You) took the words right out of my mouth. That poem will describe every so-called “democracy” of the west: sacrificing their own people for the sake Islam. And what kills me the general population still go and vote those traitors into office of power to complete their scheme.

  2. He forgot to add that Holland, like England, is full to bursting and this is why the Dutch are choosing to leave for America and Australia. But now we have beaten you, England is even more densely populated than Holland and is the most densely populated country in Europe. None of it makes an ounce of sense except on the basis of some UN plan to let Europe be lebensraum for the overbreeding third world or, as Peter Sutherland of that organisation has said, to obliterate the homogeneous nations of Europe as a step towards European and ultimately one world government. It seems now that England is the place where anybody can come from non-white areas who wants to marry out. The English are being encouraged to intermarry as to preserve the old taboo would be considered to be racist. Those from India, black Africa, China or Japan or other non-white countries who would be ostracised for marrying out only have to find an errant Englishman or woman to achieve their objective. England is going to be a very funny place before the end of the century with everybody being half white and half something else. In essence it will not only have lost its European national identity it won’t have an identity at all. London is already heading that way; a nowhere land, something the countries of origin of those coming here to marry would never ever permit. They want to keep their national identities and why not? Nobody calls them racist.

    • As a proud Brit of English and Scottish descent , I take great exception to this post, which looks racist to me. I’ve had a couple of black girlfriends (one Grenadian, one American), and never imagined that they were a threat to British or Western culture. Indeed, although I love Western classical music, I value the contribution of people of afro-caribbean descent to other forms of music (and other arts); the world would be a poorer place without Bob Marley, Miles Davis, Billie Holiday etc… Also I’ve been lucky to know, and even have as lovers or friends, some Jewish people, and their c

      • If this is the case then you must condemn the Chinese, the Japanese and other non-white nations who wish to preserve their historic national identities for being racist as well. Please do so as I am waiting for those who call whites fascist for wishing to do so to demonstrate outside the embassies of China, Japan and India against their immigration policies and non-multicultural agendas. There is a difference between culture and identity. Even Baroness Warsi is rumoured to have said that if she went to live in China she could not be Chinese. And I am sure that a large colony of Africans in her native Pakistan would not be regarded as Pakistani. This is human nature which modern thinking is desperate to suppress. Racism was a term invented by Marxism a movement which saw no difference between different races in terms of aptitude and iq which the Baron has shown to be incorrect. If China would not be the same for Baroness Warsi if it became ethnically Pakistani then would England or Scotland be the same for you if they became wholly ethnically non-white? It is all a question of numbers, European countries, especially the former colonial powers, have always absorbed a small number of non-Europeans but now we are talking about millions in a country the size of England. As for the Jews there only ever were about half a million or less in Britain before the War, a country then with a population of 46m. What puzzles me is that we strive to preserve animal species but anybody wishing to preserve the national identity of white countries and the white race per se is decried as racist; something which does not apply to non-whites who now vastly outnumber us. Perhaps you should have given the matter a little more thought before replying in such an aggressive matter. England and Scotland had very specific identities developed over one to two thousand years. We never wanted them to change but were given no choice by the Marxist left and globalizing capitalists. Please allow us to lament their passing.

        • Further to the above, it is interesting that if you leaf through the pages of the Radio Times or you look at the front pages of women’s magazines here in Britain you will see very very few non-white faces, fewer than their actual numbers within the population. This indicates that, despite the comment of the gentleman who found the presence of millions of non-ethnic Britons here culturally enriching, Britain is very loathe to let go and embrace its non-white future. Whether this resistance will weaken over time or the urge to preserve its historic national identity remain too strong to break and it never will until the day in about 2050 when ethnic Britons are outnumbered by non-whites will be interesting to see.

          • Indeed I do condemn the approach of many Chinese and Japanese, but a (half-Jewish) friend is married to a Taiwanese lady; I had the pleasure of playing with their baby son a few days ago.
            Comparing attempts to conserve animal species (even Pandas, which frankly deserve to be extinct!) with mixing humans, who are a single species, is spurious.
            My ancestry is North of England with some Scots, so I’m probably mainly descended from Anglo-Saxon (German) and Danish (Norse) invaders, perhaps with some Norman French (also invaders). Only the Scots bit possibly qualifies as “original” British. Just look at the etymology of the English language to see how mixed we were even before recent immigration!
            I seem to recall the blog about race and IQ; a survey in the UK in the 1980s showed that different ethnicities tested level aged five, but a few years later the East Asians were ahead, then whites and most South Asians, with afro-caribbeans trailing.
            The author of the book quoting the figures (“Not Guilty”, by David Thomas) was making a point about the advantages of stable families and having fathers around, but the level pegging at age five suggests no inherent imbalance.
            I live in London, but when visiting family in the West Country miss the black and brown faces I’m used to. This doesn’t mean I don’t resent the burkas and beards of those who segregate themselves, or I wouldn’t follow this site in the first place.

          • To Mark H,

            i have a question related to culture (the western culture in particular). Let’s say, you have a country like UK constantly being flooded with foreigners from the second and third world. They (the foreigners) call themselves “brits”, they appeal to the “liberals” and in the same time are bloated with their ethnic pride and see the brits as immoral/kuffar/”white boyz”.

            Don’t you think that they will assimilate Your culture and replace it’s values with their own?

            PS
            Ignore the topic of Interracial mixing, it’s very low. Acts of bestiality are more common than your white neighbour to be genuinely interested with african men/women. IR is irrelevant… it’s not even a real issue.

  3. aaargh! posted by mistake before finishing. …their contribution is immense- check out how many Jews have Nobels!
    If Britain’s racial profile is changing, I believe this continues to be genuinely “culturally enriching”. The reason why the Baron uses the term ironically (oddly for an American, as they don’t do irony- and I’m being ironic here!) is because, if I’m not being presumptuous in speaking for him, Islam brings little to the party.

  4. China and Japan both definitely favor genetic assimilation of immigrants through marriage (compared to the establishment of a permanent ethnically distinct group, at least). But like all the East Asian countries they both have very restricted immigration, and both are far too densely populated already to make mass immigration a desirable policy in any case.

    I do not favor mass immigration. Even in the best of times, immigration should be restricted to those who are clearly willing to adopt the customs and fundamental moral values of the nation which accepts them. And in time of economic uncertainty and international political instability, including at least one major global ideological conflict, the immigrants need to be carefully scrutinized on an individual basis to ensure that they are not simply terrorists, enemy agents, or simply criminals and freeloaders there to undermine or exploit the host nation.

    The scale of immigration is also a factor, even if everyone immigrating is genuinely interested in adopting their new country’s ways. Depending on various factors like the natural resources, existing population demographics, established culture of self-reliance in the existing and immigrant populations, and degree of adaptation needed to acclimate to the national culture (and natural environment), there is going to be a limit to how many immigrants can be feasibly assimilated, which will be well below the ideal theoretical possible rate of assimilation. Where unexploited natural resources are scarce, the existing population is not heavily concentrated in the working/marriageable age groups, the culture and government trends towards state support being extended to most of those with sub par incomes, and the culture and environment are radically different from that of the immigrants, the rate of feasible assimilation is going to be low. Very low.

    Of course, the eventual goal of all immigration should be total assimilation, both cultural and (eventually) genetic. The degree to which genetic assimilation should lag behind cultural assimilation can vary based on a variety of considerations, but when cultural assimilation is complete genetic assimilation should at least begin even if it is not complete for several generations. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that to attempt to begin genetic assimilation before cultural assimilation has made substantial progress will ensure a total breakdown of family structure. The exact sort of breakdown depends on the exact relationship between the indigenous culture and the immigrant culture, it does not always have to take the form of sexual predation and rape. It may merely result in unhappy marriages in which children are subjected to a tug-of-war between the differing cultural values of their mismatched parents, but this is itself quite bad.

  5. Mark H. You obviously choose to live in London because it is what you like. However, most of the original inhabitants of London have been forced out to the point where the White British are now in a minority. Do you think it is fair that people are removed in this way for the purposes of mass immigration which they never voted for or never wanted and for which there is no democratic mandate? Also, do you think that your relatives feel deprived because those black and brown faces are lacking where they live? Many people choose to live with their own native race. Do you think they should be forced to live otherwise as the inhabitants of London and Birmingham, Leicester and many of our other towns and cities have to the point at which they are reduced to minorities in their own land? Such has been the scale of third world immigration that they have been removed against their will from large areas of their homeland and continue to be so so that by 2066 they will be in a minority in that homeland, if not before. I assume, therefore, that you do not agree with Paul Weston that the enthnic English or White British deserve a homeland? According to the United Nations everybody deserves a homeland and to deprive them of it is genocide as Paul was saying. Plus these New Britons do have homelands of their own where their own races are in the vast majority as used to be the case here. I cannot ever imagine Delhi or Islamabad or Lagos or Peking or Tokyo suffering the same fate.

    • Balkaner- your last para is so disgusting it merits no reply; reminds me of my Serbian ex-wife (not the main reason we parted, but it helped!)
      Anonymous- White British are far from a minority to date overall; it may happen, though some projections suggest otherwise.
      In WW2, many West Indians served as volunteers- not conscripts- in the fight against Fascism. Encouraged to think of England as the “Mother Country”, many immigrated here, and were often treated disgracefully.
      In the 1970s, South Asians (mainly Hindu) were expelled from Uganda, where the British had transplanted them in the first place! The (Tory) Commonwealth Secretary, Duncan Sandys, wanted to deny them UK passports, but civil servants (to their credit) resisted. These people also met bigotry.
      Both groups, and others, are mainly well integrated and contributing to our economy- and paying taxes to support pensioners like myself. If you think this is irrelevant, check out Japan with its low birthrate and ageing population.
      I’m attending some classical Prom concerts at the Albert Hall; last week a Bavarian orchestra and Japanese pianist playing German and French music (Beethoven, Berlioz). Few black or brown faces there, but hope they’ll come round in time as I love Marley. Certainly no sense that my (British/European) culture is under threat from immigrants- EXCEPT islamists. Which is where we came in…

      • You seem to have quite a bit of leftist, self loathing and self hating your own because you seem to have something to feel guilty about happening to you. I would seem that your education system really has done one heck of a number on you, maybe your should have listened to your Serbian ex wife, for you could certainly use some self pride and education.

        • I resent your assumption. My Quaker Mother taught me that if someone was, say, black or Jewish, this was something interesting about them, not an automatic negative. But my favourite Classical composer is Elgar, who was pretty quintessentially English (but more emotional than we’re supposed to be!). Adding other cultures to the mix is NOT necessarily a bad thing, so long as they don’t try to impose themselves, like some Muslims.
          I am VERY proud of my background, particularly the heritage of the Enlightenment, which led to the US Constitution, ideals (sadly betrayed) of the French Revolution, separation of Church and State, abolition of slavery and emancipation of women, the last three of which (at least) are threatened by Islam.
          BUT… I’m also proud to be on the political Left, which (especially in Europe) mainly championed the above ideals
          while “conservatives” opposed them. I probably part company with most posters here in believing that the battle is far from won; the gap between rich and poor has grown wider in the US and here in the UK. I’m no fan of Communism, but it didn’t grow in a vacuum; it succeeded (for a time) where exploitation of “peasants and workers” was most severe, Russia and China, rather than in industrialised Western countries, where it also existed, but not to such an extreme.
          So I’m in a minority here, but can we agree that the greatest threat to our free discourse is Islamic Fascism?

        • I resent your assumption. My Quaker Mother taught me that if someone was, say, black or Jewish, this was something interesting about them, not an automatic negative. But my favourite Classical composer is Elgar, who was pretty quintessentially English (but more emotional than we’re supposed to be!). How does being open make me self-hating ?!? Adding other cultures to the mix is NOT necessarily a bad thing, so long as they don’t try to impose themselves, like some Muslims.
          I am VERY proud of my background, particularly the heritage of the Enlightenment, which led to the US Constitution, ideals (sadly betrayed) of the French Revolution, separation of Church and State, abolition of slavery and emancipation of women, the last three of which (at least) are threatened by Islam.
          BUT… I’m also proud to be on the political Left, which (especially in Europe) mainly championed the above ideals
          while “conservatives” opposed them. I probably part company with most posters here in believing that the battle is far from won; the gap between rich and poor has grown wider in the US and here in the UK. I’m no fan of Communism, but it didn’t grow in a vacuum; it succeeded (for a time) where exploitation of “peasants and workers” was most severe, Russia and China, rather than in industrialised Western countries, where it also existed, but not to such an extreme.
          So I’m in a minority here, but can we agree that the greatest threat to our free discourse is Islamic Fascism?

  6. The Japanese are aware of their aging population and low birthrate and are prepared to tackle this and are not phased by it. As regards the Uganda and Kenyan Asians, India refused to take them back so the British had no option but to take them in, otherwise they would have been stateless. I cannot imagine the British refusing to take back their own. Now those same Asians have effectively driven the native English out of their own city of Leicester and are in the majority there. Elsewhere, in Fiji, Indians have taken over after they were taken there as indentured labour by the British; hence the Fijian coup. This is the fear of many White British here. Obviously, the Japanese enjoy European culture and why should not a Japanese or Chinese pianist play European classical music. I do not see the relevance.

  7. Low birthrate is only a problem for society as a whole when there is a socialist redistribution of the fruits of the labor of the workers to those who did nothing to assist in the bearing and raising of those workers. This is also the most common cause of a low birthrate, but in Japan particularly it isn’t the primary cause, since they are genuinely closer to the limits of a sustainable population given current technologies.

    • In Britain we have told that we have an aging population so we need millions more immigrants to cope with it. Where they are going to live and how to keep them fed and watered has not been considered. But this old chestnut has been tried before. Immigrants grow old themselves. The alternative is to have a system of gastarbeiter as tried by the Germans who would return home when they reach retirement age.

      Previously I believe you said that the chief reason that China cannot contemplate mass immigration as the West has been forced to endure is because the country is already overcrowded. I have just checked and the population density of China is 143 per sq kilometre; that for England is 371 per sq km. It was just over 300 per sq km in the 1950s. No need for any further people then according to Chinese criteria so why were they invited in as if there was plenty of room? There should have been no immigration at all; we were already full then.

      • It is worth pointing out that China includes one of the world’s largest and most inhospitable deserts in its land area, as well as much other land which is unsuitable for cultivation or human inhabitation. This significantly impacts the real population density and the margin of feasible population increase without resorting to higher-cost methods to increase crop yields.

        However, if you’ll read my comments closely, you’ll see that I say that immigration to European countries should be tightly controlled under current circumstances, with extensive verification of identities and backgrounds, and restricted to a very low level in addition to being tightly controlled. The larger problem for Europe is assimilation and security rather than inability to handle a substantial percentage increase in population. If the people now immigrating into Europe were instead going to China, there would be no question of their being allowed to set up separate cultural enclaves at state expense, let alone of making any demands that the Chinese people give up their own ways to avoid giving offense. But China does not have any need to increase its population anyway.

        The point is that there are arguments in favor of mass immigration for Europe which do not apply to China, namely to increase the population for economic reasons. But this does not remove the downsides of such immigration. Europe does not have the structural ability to assimilate the quantities of immigrants which are being introduced, nor to maintain national security without a degree of individual scrutiny of new immigrants which is completely unfeasible given their numbers (ironically, China could easily do both, but doesn’t need the increase in population). If Europe does need to increase their population for economic reasons, then they had best encourage the native peoples to start having more children instead of relying on immigration.

        Europe is never going to have the structural capacity of China to assimilate large numbers of immigrants while maintaining adequate security measures to ensure they do not become a major destabilizing force, while China will not for the foreseeable future require substantial population increase from any source, which would be the point of mass immigration.

        • Thank you for replying so honestly to my question. I believe that a West German politician from Rheinland-Westphalia a number of years ago said, “Wir brauchen Kinder nicht Indier” and was immediately condemned, indeed asked to relinquish his post I think. As for the economics, it all depends whether before the first West Indians arrived in Britain as cheap labour – our London bus drivers wanted more money – greedy employers could have been prevented from making fortunes by depressing wages through mass third world and latterly Eastern European immigration. This coupled with the Marxist one world utopianists has led to our present pass. What a difference between the opening ceremonies of the Peking (sorry but I prefer to use the old European word for the city rather than the more correct Chinese pronunciation imported from America) Olympics and those of London, that celebration of multiculturalism designed by a Marxist which nobody was allowed to denounce as not being a true reflection of our culture. Well, one mp tried and was made to apologise.

          As regards cheap labour, Romanians and Bulgarians are already starting to arrive. There are more in employment but many more on benefit and relying on foodbanks. This implies that those in employment are cheap imports whilst the natives are pushed onto benefits and risk starvation all to benefit capitalist globalisation and greedy employers who are subsidised by the British taxpayer.

          My father used to say that China, because it had the oldest civilisation would ultimately save the world – i.e. a Europe and the USA both held enthralled by the Marxist dream. Personally I think they will do it together with Russia, now more conservative than any Western European country and according to the Zagorsk prophecy the country which would turn back the Marxist terror first imposed on Russia in 1917 and re-christianise the West. Incidentally, I believe that China is a place where Christianity is showing one of its most rapid growths.

          • Wow! Danny Boyle is dangerous because he’s a Marxist (evidence please?). I have no interest in sport, but watched the Olympics’ opening ceremony enthralled, celebrating as it did the best of traditional and current Britain.
            On the other hand, importing Romanians and Bulgarians is a capitalist plot to force down wages. Actually, this may be true- I’m more and more against the EU- but linking the two makes you sound like the old man in “Cabaret” who thought the Jewish conspiracy of communists and capitalists was determined to bring down society by any means. How this might benefit such an unlikely alliance was not too clear…
            I do agree with you and Chiu ChunLing that Western Europe, and especially the UK, is overcrowded (don’t fall off your chair!) He is also correct that we should control our borders better- BUT this cannot justify decrying those who are already here (and have been for generations in some cases) and want to do their best for their families and society at large, whom I believe Boyle was celebrating. Please save your (justified) resentment for the others.

          • There are two basic problems with the idea that China is going to save the world, and they might not be unrelated. The first problem is that China has no intention of saving the rest of the world. The current leadership is evidently pursuing the opposite goal, and has invested considerable resources in the project. The second problem is that the current leadership also hasn’t done particularly well by China, and this causes much more serious problems with legitimacy than is the case in many other cultures.

            Another revolution will not be possible until substantial military deployments and force commitments have the PLA stretched much thinner than it is now, and possibly until there is a significant pool of dissatisfied combat veterans of all ranks. But those situations will both come to pass with the general collapse of the world economy and subsequent national failures.

  8. Mark H. Most people in this country would wonder if you are not on some sort of permanent drug-induced adolescent high the way you crave to see the world in rainbow colours as opposed to the monochrome of an homogeneous, cohesive and uniracial country.

    You seem to have every sympathy for those who have been brought here to serve the needs of greedy employers for cheap labour, even though they have countries of their own whilst we have only one. But you seem not to have a shred of sympathy for the indigenous population of this country who have been so hideously affected by globalizing capital and the policies of the international socialist left, pushed out of areas where their ancestors may have lived since the dawn of time. Did the indigenous Scots, English and Welsh not deserve countries of their own?; such countries having been in existence in the case of England between 1066 and 1948 before the Labour Party decided to embark upon their grand international socialist plan of social engineering which would benefit only themselves and the third world pawns they were determined to bring here and with which only they were in agreement.

    Hope not Hate and Searchlight spend all their time villifying those who disagree with this policy and silencing them or ensuring that their careers, political or otherwise, are wrecked. The people of Britain are sick of this fascism of the left and the total suppression of free speech that comes with it. Two world wars were fought primarily to preserve a homeland for the indigenous British ( and don’t dare say like David Cameron et al that there is no such thing ) for all their dreams to be ruined by the greed of certain people who called themselves Conservatives and the naive but unworkable utopianism of your people, who are a minority, rabidly determined to enforce their views on the majority. A piece of recent research showed that only one in ten people in the UK has a close friend of another race. Does that not imply to you that unlike yourself, people prefer to live with their own rather than in a sea of black and brown which you so love but in which you are rapidily becoming one of an ever smaller minority.

    The immigration policy outlined for China is the sort that the people of Britain would have chosen for their own country/countries if they had not been terrified into silence by the likes of you.

    As for Quakerism, I fear that if it had been left to them then Hitler would have triumphed which would hardly have been to your liking and left to them Islam will triumph as well. Christianity to survive needs people with a bit more muscle.

  9. Anonymous- From your persistence with this thread, it’s apparent you care deeply about our country; well, so do I, and although on the Left on many issues, I’m with Orwell in despising the kind of socialist who praises every society but his own. However…

    In your second para, you seem to think sympathising with exploited immigrants means I don’t care about native people. Where did I say that? And how is compassion divisible? You’re the one who cares about Christianity (I think most religion is a bad idea); try practising it. I do think we’ve had too many incomers in recent decades, as a result of misguided (or worse) policies, and this puts strain on schools, housing etc. (though the NHS would not function without them). This is no reason to take it out on the law-abiding majority.

    I gather you don’t live in an area of high recent immigration; resentment of incomers is usually strongest where there are fewest of them- ignorance breeds irrational fear.
    This is an American site, and the vast majority of US citizens are after all descended from immigrants. I’d be surprised if only one in ten Americans has a close friend of another race, but then they’ve had longer to get used to the idea; maybe you should give it time.

    Like you, I detest the fascism of the Left, and also their conviction (which I held when younger) that their opponents are morally inferior, and I think this blinds many of them to the dangers of Islamism and the strains of excessive immigration. Such are NOT “my people”. But there is a corresponding tendency for people on the Right (especially, but not only, in the US) to assume their opponents are unpatriotic, and you seem to believe this of me, which is offensive.

    My Mother’s Quakerism did not prevent her and my Father from serving in WW2, and your implied criticism is frankly inexcusable. However they thought they were fighting for democracy and against racism.

  10. I pity the immigrants as much as the indigenous people of this country. They have been used by the two sets of people I have already mentioned for their own ends, although I do find certain members of the Asian community rather arrogant and I note that none of them has shown any sympathy for the people they are displacing. The country was already overcrowded in 1948 and every effort should have been made to get the population down to an acceptable level. As it would be now for China, therefore, the whole exercise has been a huge and destructive mistake, destructive because it is obliterating the national identity of a country whose inhabitants have dna going back 11,000 years and destructive because it is completely destroying the native species of this country. Today we hear that our native birds are in peril and yet the enthusiasts for mass immigration would be quite happy for our population to rise above 80m. I also fail to understand as Enoch Powell did why destroying the world’s mosaic of individual nations, cultures and races for the reasons already stated is a good thing.

    As for America that is a different story, except for the native Americans, all those living there are immigrants. We are the native Americans and history repeating itself will benefit nobody.

    I apologise for being unaware that certain quakers did fight. As for racism, unfortunately it was Hitler’s excesses that has led to the position where European nations have been unable to maintain their national identities by admitting immigrants at the same level as China. Very very few would say that Hitler did not need defeating. However, it was Hitler’s actions that led to the abandonment of all common sense and logic in a knee-jerk reaction which is racially as destructive as his policies were.

Comments are closed.