I think there is a perfectly reasonable objection to processes being unleashed by government policies (oriented to either liberalism, or oriented to labour market needs, rectifying deficiencies in the age structure, or any other reason) which, without saying so, have the inevitable consequence of radically changing the composition of the population, in respect of its ancestral origins and languages, its religion, its assumptions, its attitudes towards family and values of every kind.
It is not that the immigrants' values and attitudes are necessarily “all bad”, but they are often different from those of the majority population and they may be in conflict with the norms and legal expectations that have been built up in societies over centuries. This is already seen to be the case with Sharia courts being in operation.
Projections have already been made by eight or so European countries (for which official statistics are available) and all of them suggest that by mid-century between 20 and 30 percent of the population of those countries will be of immigrant origin, by which they mean persons who were either born abroad of foreign origin, or were born in the country in which they're residing in Europe with one or two foreign parents.
Oddly though, these reports tend to classify further generations as being ‘native’, thus becoming “Dutch” or “German” or “English” in the projection figures. This makes the true projections to be conservative on the truth in terms of the actual ethnic composition of Europe, and certainly provides a margin of error should the forecast be challenged.
Yet this entire issue is not even mentioned or openly recognised by Europe’s main parties. They are now trapped, as well as ideologically opposed to making them issues. This can be very dangerous.
They (along with vast swathes of the native populations) have come to think that a majority population's wish to remain the majority population is a selfish and, in most countries, an ethnically, culturally-based desire which doesn't have anything to do with virtue. This is where the dangerous course of dissonance comes into play – the almost schizophrenic dual currents which permeate social and political life.
It is possible to ignore what is taking place, and perhaps learn to see it as not being an issue – after all, why should anybody care about such things as long as we have health care, some form of law and order, jobs, education programmes etc.......but at the same time, what they ignore is the stuff that doesn’t always make sense to them because they are not based upon practicalities.
People do care about these things, but can often not express their own feelings articulately. In theory, it might not matter whether this whole country became an outpost of Africa – but in reality, people would not really like that to happen even if they cannot be strong enough to say why. They just don’t, and will eventually end up resentful of the fact it is happening.
There are many people who are not educated or informed in what is happening, let alone spend the time analysing their own emotions and thoughts about it. We nationalists tend to forget that other people are clueless, and if not clueless they haven’t the tools of argument on their side – which leads them to personal emotional chaos, guilt, and then shutting it out of thought altogether because they find it difficult and uncomfortable.
Most people have egalitarian and humanist liberal views – and they like to be seen as tolerant, that they are not ‘prejudiced’ and that they enjoy the ‘diversity’ of people from many different cultures (even though they fail to see that this process is destroying that very diversity). Therefore, when having to deal with the reality of being usurped as a nation, I think it causes most people moral conflict.
One of the reasons people are still not comfortable about talking about this issue is that we need to address something emotional that's going on. It's not just statistical; it isn't about numbers, or “schools” and “hospitals” and “housing”. It's about people and it's about the way people feel about each other – and people are held hostage to their emotions being seen as the “correct” ones. They are uncomfortable about expressing discontent, and uncomfortable even asking themselves what they really think and feel about it.
For many people it would be nice if we could think of each other as one big, loving human family, but that's not how we think about ourselves or each other. We belong to groups and that's not going to change. We have an ingrained, natural, inner sense of who is "us", and who is "them". It may be regrettable but factions are part of the way we think, and part of the way we feel.
One of the things that's happening in the occidental world is that we're crossing what I think is a mathematically identifiable tipping point where we have strained our natural tolerance, our natural welcome, our natural enjoyment of the interesting and new. Suddenly, we are experiencing what is akin to invasion instead. It's a sense of being colonised, of being taken over. Suddenly, our homeland is no longer our homeland – as it is being taken from us. We don't have a sense of having ‘interesting visitors’ anymore – as they've moved into our house wholesale and are sat clipping their toenails on the kitchen worktops.
Whilst most people cannot articulate ‘nationalism’ as being a solution because they are ignorant to its real agenda and ideologies, they could still potentially use a general democratic objection to these things that are happening.
People should be allowed to have a say about how this country will end up, no matter if they express it properly or not, because these issues do affect so many people in their daily lives and it does change the concept of our local society and our nations as a whole.
People ought to be consulted on these things, we are supposed to live in a democracy but we are never asked and we cannot raise the issue.
But again, demographics and democracy clash in an unholy alliance on our ability to do so now.
One of the complications of immigration for democratic countries is that it involves a transfer of power. When immigrants and descendants are ‘naturalised’ to the country they land in, they get the vote. Therefore we are handing over political power, not just space, not just a job etc.
In the United States there are whole states where certain parties could never get elected to office if they say anything negative about immigration - because Hispanics (for example) will control the state. “Ethnic minorities” increasingly control the swing vote.
This is becoming apparent in the UK as well, as witnessed in newspaper reports before the election, where the newspapers crowed about how the “Black Vote” and the “Muslim Vote” could be the deciding factors in key seats. I have no reason to believe it is any different in wider Europe either.
The various parties will court their vote, even when it goes against the wishes and interests of the indigenous population. We are thus losing power in our own country via the demographic-democratic combination coupled with the thirst for political power. We should be able to rail against immigration on this factor alone – but we just don’t feel able to do so.
Britain and wider Europe is now in a demographic transition - an important, once-for-all, irreversible change from one pattern of demographic behaviour to a different one. Since the 1960s there's been a radical change in values and attitudes towards a much more individualistic, post-materialist viewpoint, which puts an individual's “self-realisation” on a much higher plane than the older concepts of duties to God, Queen and country, parents and society etc.
This has led to a radical change in behaviour and a whole manner of attitudes – such as a retreat from marriage, a much wider acceptance of homosexuality, of abortion, of immigrants and a further drop in the birth rate as a result. A radical change in behaviour and in norms has occurred, and has thus magnified the problem we are facing. There are elements we need to blame ourselves for – or rather, the way we have been socially engineered to be this way.
Assertive Islamic populations, former colonies and such which have been made to feel aggrieved at us for the ‘sins of our fathers’ are bound to take advantage of our collective weaknesses. I do feel we are being taken advantage of, and to use a blunter term I really do believe many non-whites and Islamic fanatics are completely taking the piss. They would not have dared take the piss before, but now, they feel they have the upper hand. They do have the upper hand.
Our forefathers wouldn’t have tolerated it, and I truly believe they would have kick started a war well before now if they had been presented with the concept of what is happening now. If “liberals” think attitudes are “bad” in modern society, they should imagine what it would have been like a century ago!
Although we Nationalists should all know that Islam is an expansionist faith which seeks the establishment of Islamic dominance worldwide – it is not always easy to persuasively argue (to the general public) that Muslim immigration is partially being driven by a political ambition to take over the host country. What is more absurd to me is that they expect Muslims (or any racial group for that matter) to NOT act in their own interests and for their own beliefs.
Muslims, for example, believe in the Islamic system – obviously – so why would we expect them NOT to work towards making that system prevailent in the society they live in and then wider society later? Do they hate their own system? Do they not gravitate naturally to their own belief systems and structures? Of course they don’t hate what they believe in, and of course they WILL gravitate to upholding it.
Although we have heard many an Islamic preacher openly declare “population jihad” against Europeans, it does not need to be the utterances of Islamic preachers like that who make it happen. The ‘noisy’ preachers state that in the long run they will change the system from within once significant numbers of Muslims live here in Europe.
They are right. It does not need to be ‘ordered’ from imams or extremists; it happens organically though everyday people and society. Muslims are here in great numbers, as are various ethnicities with vested interests. Whether or not there's an organised effort to do so, they WILL change the nature of a country their very presence and their high proportion of the population.
In the meantime, immigrants and their descendants will become angry. They will be frustrated that they are still ‘disadvantaged’ from attaining what they desire, that they are still seen as outsiders, that they are not receiving what is due to them and how society is not yet how they want it to be.
They resent being seen as an “underclass” by both liberals and conservatives. The liberals especially love to give off this impression to ethnic minorities that they're not being given as much as everyone around them and David Cameron has suggested the same as the liberals.
This taps into the whole “You're spoilt, you're lazy, you didn't earn this. Big deal, your ancestors were born here, so you're lucky, but I work harder than you do, I deserve what you have and I don't have it, that's not fair" chip on the shoulder. When liberals puff their ego by saying that all these people are needed to cover “spoilt, lazy, British people” for example, they assert this feeling.
The liberals have helped create an underclass – a visible underclass. We're constantly told that immigrants "do the jobs that natives don't want, but if you look at what they are suggesting a little harder, that means that what they want is to bring in a large group of poorly educated, low-skilled workers to do all the country’s dirty work.
This then tends to increase immigration, because when certain roles become seen as “immigrant jobs” and low paid jobs which would be hard to secure a living off, people will not want to do them. “Empty bins? Clean toilets? Wait tables? That’s an immigrant’s job! No thanks!”
The immigrants themselves are bound to be conscious of the fact that you've brought them in to do such roles, and naturally they will eventually get angry if they cannot escape from being seen at the bottom of the pile which they have been needlessly placed on.
In the past, of course, the only people who did those kinds of jobs were the natives. In low immigration countries the locals still do them, and in some countries even where there are lots of immigrants the locals still do them. It is complete hogwash to perpetuate this mantra that we cannot and do not want the work. It is the system of society that is wrong.
The answer to a shortage of labour is to improve conditions and improve wages, not import millions of people to be taken advantage of and demographically altering the whole fabric of our nation as a result.
If that means that people who sweep streets get paid as much as teachers, then that is a proper recognition of the fact that it is not a very attractive job and needs to be compensated for that purpose. We managed perfectly well without immigration before, and there is no reason why we could not manage again. Hell, we used to own and run around 1/3rd of the globe never mind our own tiny nation.
Everything that has been done to us is wrong-headed, has been unnecessary and has not been voted for. At best it has been an ‘accidental’ chain of events which we have stumbled through from one crisis to another until we have reached the future scenario of our demographic eradication.
At worst, it has been a plan all along, borne upon vested interests and political/social ideologies. Given some of evidence, I believe it is a combination of both. Regardless of how we arrived here, we are here, and we are going to have to do something about it.