Originally Posted by For_England:
The study done in the East End talked about people like Tom - the yuppies who have no roots in a place, and no long-term commitment of any kind. Yes, they tended to be the happiest with the situation. It was those who had seen their communities broken up and destroyed, and who had no way to escape, who were the real victims who hated what multi-culturalism did to their former homes. But people like Tom really couldn't care less for them.

People like Tom can move where there please to avoid the horrors of multiracialism.
On a world scale you could call them the "International Class" as they can just move to a better country if need by like many rich Liberal White South Africans did.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Tom Wilde:
Yes indeedy, and if you met some of my aunts you'd realize that the Celts haven't changed much since then either. But I do wonder whether perhaps you have rather missed the point of my posting.


As I believe I've mentioned before, I live in one of the most ethnically mixed parts of London. There aren't very many Asian people locally, but walking down the high road I usually pass more black people than white people. Among the white people, a fair proportion (1/4?) are speaking languages other than English. And there is a smaller but still sizable Chinese population. In my road, about a quarter of the residents are non-white.


How very empathic of you. However, judging by the number of racially mixed groups of friends and racially mixed couples I see every day, I'd have to say that you might save your sympathy for people unluckier than us.


I know how you love to speak for the People of England, and how convinced you are that your heart beats as one with theirs, so I'll tiptoe gently around your dreams and move on.

Well Tom, whatever part of London you live in it is clearly no longer remotely identifiable as English. As I said, it's a shame the people of England can't apply for a divorce and sail London off down the Thames (minus the contents of the National Gallery) never to be seen again.

But I'll let you into a secret.

Even if the population of London were 100% white I wouldn't change my opinion of the shith*le. it would still be a ghastly tip, full of communists and degenerates; a hotbed of vice and criminality.

Bismarck was right when he said that all cities should be destroyed because they are breeding-places of sedition and perverted thinking.

Only in the country can the pure spirit of our nation breathe freely.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by John Cooper:
Actually I like multicultarlism - but I like the truth more
St. Brice's Day massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




There are good and bad things about immigration but the worse thing are the lies people tell about immigration e.g immigrants come here to help the UK.
No they don't they come for a better life - nothing wrong with that but they are not missionaries.

Tom it took me 5 mins to find a flaw in your history lesson and I have history GCSE no more.

One of the Anglo-Saxon Kings - I forget which - was made into a 'blood-eagle' by the Danes.

I wonder if they used one of Tom's cardboard swords?

Must have been a fantastic Anglo-Danish multicultural event. The Dark Ages equivalent of English children prancing around with little lanterns to celebrate Diwali...

...but much more entertaining. :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Ken:
I intersted in why you have a favoursable impression of immigrants. I am being general but you seem to see benefits in their prescence here of either cultural enrichment or thay they are doing the work. I an anxious not topre-empt your view or put words in your mouth but you seem to view them as improving our lives and I wonder in what ways.

Thanks for your thoughtful question. I certainly don't have a favourable impression of each and every immigrant, just of some of them. At the risk of sounding cliched, there are good 'uns and bad 'uns in every barrel. Some are dangerous f-ckwits and others make a huge, valuable contribution to our society, and most are just somewhere in between. On the whole I don't see them as particularly better or worse than other people.

I said that I miss the ethnic diversity when I'm away from it, and that is true, but I think it is largely a matter of taste. I grew up in the 1970s in a suburb which was (and still is) mainly white. It was the end of the last big wave of immigration, the National Front were always in the news, and while I didn't know anyone who supported them, the general impression I picked up was that immigration was a Problem. When I finally moved away to somewhere with a big immigrant community I found it refreshing and interesting - suddenly there was no problem, everyone got along fine and there was all this great ethnic food too! People are much the same everywhere, but the ways they express themselves through culture, language, religion etc vary so much and I love that. I used to really like travelling for that reason; I don't get a chance to do that much these days so I suppose I'm glad to see all these other cultures on my doorstep instead! Anyway, that is just about my personal preferences as you were kind enough to ask - its not an argument about how much immigration we should or shouldn't allow.

(Incidentally, among my friends in London I know an old academic of Jewish extraction who fled Prague in 1939 just before the Nazis got there; a Hungarian who came over after the Rising was put down in '56; a Pole and a Roumanian who came over in the 1970s after making such a nuisance of themselves that their respective Communist governments were eventually glad to let them go; an Afghan who had a very tough time under the Taleban and a Zimbabwean who has had his asylum application rejected despite being the subject of an arrest warrant for opposition activities in Harare. They've all contributed to the life of this country, and are thoroughly nice people. This has made me more relaxed about the asylum issue than I might otherwise have been, even though I realize that many other asylum seekers are indeed 'bogus' as the tabloids would put it)

I recognize that immigration on a massive scale can cause big problems. It isn't just a problem for the working classes either, contrary to some postings in this thread. I'm sure that doctors, pharmacists and small shopkeepers could all tell you tales of unwelcome competition from newcomers willing to work long antisocial hours. I do think that overall it has done Britain good, but I think it happened too fast, and people didn't have time to adjust. Given the difficulties, I'm proud of how well people have adjusted, in fact. But I do think we need to take control of our borders back. We do need to be in control of the process, and to be able to decide for ourselves who comes in and in what numbers.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by John Cooper:
There are good and bad things about immigration but the worse thing are the lies people tell about immigration e.g immigrants come here to help the UK.
No they don't they come for a better life - nothing wrong with that but they are not missionaries.

I absolutely agree! They come here for their own benefit, not ours - but sometimes they happen to benefit us too in the process. (Not always, obviously)

I only have history 'o' level too. I was fascinated by your Wikipedia link about the massacre of Danes. I read the rest of the Wiki story too, beyond the bit you quoted. It went:

Originally Posted by :
It is unlikely that such a decree could be carried out literally but historians do believe there was significant loss of life in some towns.

The massacre in Oxford is described in the chronicle of John of Wallingford where it is recorded that the Danish inhabitants took refuge in a church which was burned down by the mob. Amongst those killed was Gunhilde, the sister of King Sweyn I of Denmark, her husband Pada and their child.

Sweyn's desire for revenge on the English led to the invasion of 1003/04, and his persecution of the country eventually saw Ethelred flee to Normandy, with Forkbeard's invasion of 1013/14. He was crowned King of England at this point, although he died within months. There is no evidence to suggest an assassination.

Maybe that was lesson in multiculturalism no. 456, i.e. "Don't murder innocent foreigners because it might come back to bite you in the bum!"
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Mikeuk:
One of the Anglo-Saxon Kings - I forget which - was made into a 'blood-eagle' by the Danes.

The Saxons used to do the blood eagle too, when they first came here. They stopped after a bit. I think they learned a lot from rubbing shoulders with the Britons for those 50 years of peace in the 6th century.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by For_England:
The study done in the East End talked about people like Tom - the yuppies who have no roots in a place, and no long-term commitment of any kind. Yes, they tended to be the happiest with the situation. It was those who had seen their communities broken up and destroyed, and who had no way to escape, who were the real victims who hated what multi-culturalism did to their former homes. But people like Tom really couldn't care less for them.

Ah yes, the theory of the rootless cosmopolitan. That rings a bell from somewhere. :-)

I'll pay you the respect of assuming that this wasn't meant to be a mindless insult but a serious point. The fact is that I do have roots here. In fact, 80 years ago, all my grandparents were already living within a few miles of this place. (Two were London Welsh, the others two were working-class English Londoners, though not Cockneys as such!). I'm London born and bred; I've lived elsewhere but came back to London and have been here for quite a few years. We have a very active and pleasant community here, in these few streets around where I and my family live, and I care very much about what happens to it.
[Rep]

Tom, to a large extent I agree with you and that is why I too like travelling - the mind-expanding experience of meeting different kinds of people. Where we depart is I don't want this country turned into a foreign land. I really see only virtue in respective nations being homogenous and believe the breakdown of national boundaries is so corporations have plenty of passive cheap labour to choose from. Thank you for your honesty.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Tom Wilde:
Ah yes, the theory of the rootless cosmopolitan. That rings a bell from somewhere. :-)

I'll pay you the respect of assuming that this wasn't meant to be a mindless insult but a serious point. The fact is that I do have roots here. In fact, 80 years ago, all my grandparents were already living within a few miles of this place. (Two were London Welsh, the others two were working-class English Londoners, though not Cockneys as such!). I'm London born and bred; I've lived elsewhere but came back to London and have been here for quite a few years. We have a very active and pleasant community here, in these few streets around where I and my family live, and I care very much about what happens to it.

Well if the hat fits ... You gave the game away when you said the nice suburb you are from is still white. I've seen my community destroyed by mass immigration, and I have very little family left - they all escaped. Still, you're a brave man to try raising a family in modern-day London.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Tom Wilde:
I absolutely agree! They come here for their own benefit, not ours - but sometimes they happen to benefit us too in the process. (Not always, obviously)

I only have history 'o' level too. I was fascinated by your Wikipedia link about the massacre of Danes. I read the rest of the Wiki story too, beyond the bit you quoted. It went:


Maybe that was lesson in multiculturalism no. 456, i.e. "Don't murder innocent foreigners because it might come back to bite you in the bum!"

If you read the whole link they were not that innocent - they were suspected of helping Danish invasions. Perhaps the lesson is don't let people in who are allied to your enemies - I wonder who that would apply to today.
[Rep]