This is what is so worrying: there is no resistance to the invasion, none whatsoever. The invasion is enabled and facilitated by white people who do not differ in general appearance from me or other Britons. The rest may make a few irate comments to the Daily mail but as soon as X-Factor, 'Strictly' or Big Brother comes up on the screen of control, the minds revert to their dumbed-down neutral point. I suppose it could be called Darwinism for, if the English (and British) are to survive this onslaught against their genes, then they will survive. I just see no evidence that they will, or have the will. 12,000 years of predominance in these islands shall be broken in two generations because the English didn't want to be called 'racist'.
Nicely put. But as they say, it's darkest before dawn. And Britain is pretty dark now.
distinction here is a sham. It's just hairsplitting wordplay intended to divert the gullible and has no substance.
The real question is this. Has immigration to this country ever had any legitimacy
The answer is a resounding NO, none of it has. And the distinction is important.
It's not just third-world immigration — this applies to ALL immigration. Nevertheless, because it is so thoroughly alien, so damaging, so massive and so deeply unwanted, it is the third-world variety that gets people particularly exercised. So let's just focus on that.
This crime against the British people—for that's what it is, a slow genocide—all started with the Empire Windrush docking at Tilbury in 1948 and has continued to this day with ever increasing intensity. Nothing can be more damaging to a democracy than changing the people, the demos, without their consent. This applies especially so to Britain where Britons have been the people of these British Isles for thousands of years. So says the DNA. Incidentally, contrary to, for example, that lying bitch Barbara Roche, Britain has NEVER been a "nation of immigrants". It makes one wonder why she should tell such an egregious lie and what her loyalties and prejudices are. But maybe that's a rude question, or worse, 'inappropriate
Anyway, none of this immigration has ever had any democratic mandate and none would ever have been given had it been sought. That is why it was done by political diktat and dressed up in a veneer of legality
Sure, parliamentarians can pass any laws they wish in order to make something legal
. No doubt those laws are legally
'valid' or whatever (under the present constitutional fudge we have), but does that make them legitimate, or—if you prefer a simpler word—right?
It's a good question. The answer, again, is no. Whatever the lawyer/constitutional types and other windbags might have to say, law only acquires its legitimacy if it has democratic backing. That's the bottom line in a democracy. (I'm sure everything Stalin and Hitler did was legal
— so much for mere legality and unthinking respect for mere law then.)
So what's to be done? Well, what do you do with any crime but try to undo the damage done and punish the guilty? So it's the same here.
For one thing, with the immigrant presence here resulting solely from criminal acts by politicians and others, all immigrants and their descendants have no business being in this country. The resulting policy prescription is pretty obvious — all must be removed. That some of them might be innocent parties is neither here no there. If they wish to take action on that account then good luck to them but they can attempt that one when they are back in their own lands. In the meantime Britons need recompensing and get first call. Besides, and speaking in parallel terms, the acquisition of stolen goods, for example, confers no rights; and the victim of the theft retains full ownership and has no obligation to any third parties involved, innocent or otherwise. The same sort of principle applies here.
Problem solved. It requires only the will.
On that last point, I believe it's there, just waiting to explode into bloom. And given the head of pressure that has built up, explode
is indeed the word. As for the bulk of people being sheep, to the extent that they are then that cuts both ways. Watching sheep being herded it's easy to see how quickly they can all be made to change direction. Woof woof.
Incidentally, in case anyone kindly enquires—and I can see the temptation—but yes, I am aware of the etymology of legal
etc. And the price of eggs.
P.S. I just caught the tail end of a report from Libya on Sky News. The reporter was interviewing some scraggly beard about his part in fighting with (and training/leading?) the rebels against Gaddafi. Apparently this freedom fighter's job is now done so he's gayly on his way back 'home' to England. That's nice. I wonder whose side he'll be on when the race war starts here.