Some people say soothingly that one should relax about this. The whole history of Britain’s population, they assure us, is one of ebb and flow of different peoples and tribal groups. All of these facts are correct, but the way they are presented is thoroughly questionable. Past migrations, of Jews and Jutes, of Celts and Romans, of Angles and Saxons, have never been on anything like the current scale. Around 95% of Britain’s pre-war population had been born here, and the other 5% was mostly made up of English and Scots whose parents had happened to be serving the Empire.
Historically, we have been a country of emigration, not immigration. Ashkenazis entered Western Europe by the tens of thousands, not by the millions. The Normans, although they seized land and power, were a tiny elite. The Dutch who arrived in the 16th Century were, in proportion to the whole population, a much tinier group. Even the 50,000 Huguenots from France only ever amounted to a hundredth of Britain’s total population, and they arrived over a period of 50 years.
Today, immigration adds 1% to Britain’s population every two years, or more than 5% every decade. Inevitably, this has led to changes in the queuing system for council housing, which once kept established working class communities together, but has now been adapted to meet the needs of new arrivals, who have tended to occupy housing units in higher densities and have settled in enclaves, cut off from their neighbours by great walls of ignorance, by impossible language barriers and by a growing, cold dislike. In the south east of England and around the Pennine towns in the north, there are places where people from different racial origins never meet, never talk, never go into each others’ homes. The result is the worst of both worlds: stoking up resentment against foreigners: and stoking up resentment against the authorities. The question that pro-free movement advocates should ask is: will the descendants of today’s huddled masses join the middle class or form a new underclass?
Of course, we have no crystal balls, but leaders with sound judgment on core policies don’t play dice with the fabric of organisational life. We’re lucky to live in a country cautiously built up by our ancestors through institutions like Parliament, the monarchy, Magna Carta, the system of justice and, at a more modest level, the pubs, chapels, local choirs, co-operatives, county regiments, trade unions, local rugby teams, and thousands of other local voluntary clubs and societies. Without a stable population there cannot be the values, habits, understandings and loyalties that enable us to live as we do and perhaps sometimes to act for the benefit of others in less fortunate places.
I chipped in with a comment about the secondary impact of immigration on Wales - the westward shift of the English which is damaging so many Welsh-speaking communities - and which I have blogged here, here , here and here.
31 comments:
Do you still want to be discussing immigration 10 years from now?
Of course its all about institutions. All we need to do is get the incomers to sing in the choir, join a rugby club, enjoy a regular pint with the lads....only a racist would think that a nation might be something to do with kinship.
"Past migrations, of Jews and Jutes, of Celts and Romans, of Angles and Saxons, have never been on anything like the current scale"
Angles, Saxons, Jutes ie the Englisc or Engla - although a small minority in overall population terms they imposed their will and created England by force of arms. It was a Conquest, over an extended period over course; it isn't called the Dark Ages for nothing.
"The Angles and Saxons came from the East
Over the broad sea they sought the land of Britain
Proud warmakers, victorious warriors
Conquered the Welsh and so obtained this land."
From Battle of Brunanburgh
Obviously the Romans conquered Britain as well - as the bit of backbone with the ballista bolt attatched to it in Dorchester Museum attests.
One of the worst things the deluded liberal left has done is cut us off from our history so most people simply lack the knowledge to make any valid comparisons with the past. The left has Naziified history - so that if one has the temerity to suggest the blindingly obvious......
"without a stable population there cannot be the values, habits, understandings and loyalties that enable us to live as we do and perhaps sometimes to act for the benefit of others in less fortunate places."
......they'll immediately start jumping up and down screaming with rage like a 3 year old who has been refused another ice cream.
Truth is that some of them want another go at Year Zero
"Of course, we have no crystal balls, but leaders with sound judgment on core policies don’t play dice with the fabric of organisational life"
And so laban
As we lack such leaders what then should we call the sorry bunch that have directed our affairs
At best fools and temporisers......and at worst?
What can we actually do?
From whence can salvation come?
Something else they fail to mention (Although I have not yet read the full article. They MAY have), is that the Angles, Sachsens, Jutes, Wikings, Belgae, were basically the same people. Intermarraige between Sachsen and Wiking or any combonation of links, was not uncommon, and a lot of families/tribes, had members on both "sides".
Their religion was also so damn similar as to be virtualy impossible to tell apart, except for the obvious God name differences, Thor for the Wikings, Donnar for the Sachsen. But the myths surrounding them prove them to be the same Godhead. As with Wotan/Odin, Tyr/Tiw, etc.
Their festivals were the same, their diatry habits were the same, none of this "We demand Halal Chicken" shite.
In these respects, even the Romans were not that different, and considering most of the mercenaries the Romans used in their wars against Britain and North Europe were Germanic any way, the difference was very small.
ALSO, none of THEM came demanding dole. The worked for a living, just as the people here before them.
"Something else they fail to mention (Although I have not yet read the full article. They MAY have), is that the Angles, Sachsens, Jutes, Wikings, Belgae, were basically the same people"
Caesar wrote(Gallic Wars) that " the interior of Britain is inhabitated by people who claim, on the strength of oral tradition, to be aboriginal; the coast by Belgic immigrants who came to plunder and make war"
But by the mid 5th century when the AS started to arrive in numbers I doubt this distinction would have meant anything
"ALSO, none of THEM came demanding dole. The worked for a living, just as the people here before them."
Well not exactly Furor, they got the natives to work for them...
"During the early middle ages slavery ages slavery had existed on a large scale throughout Mercia, Wessex and Sussex.......DJ Fisher wrote that "the fate of many of the natives was not extermination but slavery". This was not merely domestic bondage, but slavery on a larger scale. During the eighth and ninth centuries, the size of major slaveholdings in the south of England reached levels comparable to large plantations in the Americam South. When Bishop Wilfred acquired Selsey in Sussex, he emancipated 250 slaves on a single estate".
Albion's Seed - DM Fischer
Hence - Dark Ages
We don't want another Dark Ages
It seems to me that if you have high benefits (by third world standards) you must chose between high immigration and strict border controls.
In the past there were negligible benefits, and a high cost of transport acted as a border control for all but the rich, so immigration was small, and those immigrants who did arrive tended to be well to do.
Currently we have very high benefits by third world standards and transport is cheaper than it has ever been- so we get high immigration and not from the well to do.
Quite apart from the social effects outline in the post- can we actually generate enough wealth to continue paying benefits at this rate for ever, given that the bulk of immigrants are uneducated and only capable of low value work?
Sgt Troy. But their OWN Chieftains were doing the same to the peasents, and were doing until.....well, did they ever stop?
Nothing changed. THAT is my point.
Plus "slavery" then was NOT comparible with that of North America.
To own a slave you had to prove you could keep him "as a member of your own family would be kept", and they were "taken to table" just as the family were.
(Fischer-Fabian "Die ersten Deutschen", and Gwynn Jones "The Vikings" among other writters)
Pat
"Quite apart from the social effects outline in the post- can we actually generate enough wealth to continue paying benefits at this rate for ever, given that the bulk of immigrants are uneducated and only capable of low value work"
In a word, no
Welfare payments constitute 28% of public spending - this year the UK will be borrowing about £167 billion, same next year. There isn't any credible strategy for even halving the 12% / GDP deficit
Furor
"Sgt Troy. But their OWN Chieftains were doing the same to the peasents, and were doing until.....well, did they ever stop?"
I am pretty sure that a major factor behind the success of the Germanics in Dark Age Britain was their comparative collective strength
"When they go into battle, it is a disgrace for the chief to be surpassed in valour, a disgrace for his followers not to equal the valour of the chief. And it is an infamy and a reproach for life to have survived the chief, and returned from the field. To defend, to protect him, to ascribe one's own brave deeds to his renown, is the height of loyalty. The chief fights for victory; his vassals fight for their chief."
Tacitus
The Britons, otoh, had been through about 400 years of Roman colonisation; a subject people -that was inevitably damaging, and ultimately they went under again.
"Plus "slavery" then was NOT comparible with that of North America.
To own a slave you had to prove you could keep him "as a member of your own family would be kept", and they were "taken to table" just as the family were......"
I do not think this applies to Anglo-Saxon enslavement of the Britons
There was a fierce racial hatred between the two - for instance British Churchmen preferred to keep Christianity to themselves and not to convert such horrid heathen
The words of Gildas speak for themselves
"Then all the councillors, together with that proud tyrant Gurthrigern [Vortigern], the British king, were so blinded, that, as a protection to their country, they sealed its doom by inviting in among them (like wolves into the sheep-fold), the fierce and impious Saxons, a race hateful both to God and men, to repel the invasions of the northern nations. Nothing was ever so pernicious to our country, nothing was ever so unlucky. What palpable darkness must have enveloped their minds--darkness desperate and cruel!"
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gildas.html
Bede describes vicious racial war in Northern Britain
So I very much doubt that the more relatively benign household slavery applied
I chipped in with a comment about the secondary impact of immigration on Wales
Hahah. Come on now Laban. You must know the 'Welsh' do not exist.
Wales has for centuries absorbed incoming waves of Roalddahlians and Shirleybassianese.
Seriously now, I read somewhere that 25% of the population of Wales was not born in Wales.
Also, a while back I looked up CF (Cardiff and Valleys) postcodes on statistics online. From what I remember, over 90% of people within the CF postcode area were "White British" - I think that's the designation.
I would think it would a reasonable guess to assume that Cardiff is the most multiculti part of Wales, therefore, going by the above figures, it looks like Wales is being swamped by English, Scots and Ulsterman.
Although Scots and Ulstermen in Wales is not unheard of, I guess most of the incomers are English.
But to sort of go along with one of Furor Teutonicus' points, I would bet that the English incomers in Wales aren't as different from the Welsh as the 23% of English primary school children who are 'ethnic minority' - by which I don't think they mean Gaels. And of course the 23% of the babies born in 2008 who have mothers born overseas.
Sgt Troy said...
So I very much doubt that the more relatively benign household slavery applied
It was a "Wolfsheading" offence for it NOT to apply.
We are speaking of Germanic honour here, NOT some man made, written "law".
I had an amusing and illuminating conversation last weekend with a Welsh (language) speaker about the benefits (or not) of English incomers in Wales learning to speak Welsh.
I am grateful for this person for being so open with me as it gives me, an Englishman, an insight into a mildly alien culture - although it has to be said, this was the opinion and views of just one person.
It seems that there are two types of Welsh speakers - apart for the North/South dialects. There are those that grew up with Welsh and speak its somewhat idiomatic form which can apparently vary from valley to valley, and those that have learnt classroom (sort of BBC) Welsh.
It seems the idiomatic Welsh speakers have a certain amount of disdain for the classroom Welsh speakers.
It seems there is some sort of Institute Francais for Welsh, where some sort of official body decides what is good Welsh and what is bad Welsh and this gets reflected in what is taught in classrooms.
The point is, even if you learnt Welsh, you would never be accepted into the inner sanctum of the native speaker.
Furor
"We are speaking of Germanic honour here, NOT some man made, written "law"."
Well the Laws of Ine accorded lower wergilds to Britons, and the word "Welsh" from "Wealh", ie foreigner, speaks for itself. The Brits of the period had a Dhimmi status. The Dark Ages were grim
But eventually there was assimilation, upon English terms - the majority culture disappeared in the lands that became England - the language, the place names - all gone
"The point is, even if you learnt Welsh, you would never be accepted into the inner sanctum of the native speaker."
Indeed, we have all experienced the legendary welcome in the remote Welsh pub.
But to be fair, they want to keep their identity and culture alive(even heaven forfend their race) - and why not?
Isn't that the true meaning of diversity?
With regards to the Normans, it's worth pointing out that even though they successfully invaded and conquered England it was they who were eventually assimilated into the prevailing culture (demonstrated by the fact that we speak English today, not French).
Perhaps the biggest evidence of that was Magna Carta - when predominantly Norman noblemen forced a Norman king to grant Englishmen certain inalienable rights counter to existing Norman culture. It was the point when the conquereors became the conquered.
Sorry - this doesn't really contribute anything to the debate on immigration as such, but it does demonstrate the point that, eventually, one culture will dominate all others in a national context. In other words, multiculturalism can not work - it will only create divisions and, eventually, separate nations.
Sgt Troy 1:52 PM
Well the Laws of Ine accorded lower wergilds to Britons, and the word "Welsh" from "Wealh", ie foreigner, speaks for itself.
Yeah, 'Welsh' = 'Vlach' = "Walloon"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walha
But eventually there was assimilation, upon English terms - the majority culture disappeared in the lands that became England - the language, the place names - all gone
Not entirely. Place names, such as, off the top of my head: High Wycombe and Cumbria?
There may not be many Welsh words in English, but the English language assimilated a big chunk of Welsh grammar. There is no Dutch or German equivalent of 'do', 'doing', and 'don't'. A German would say "I know not". He wouldn't say "I don't know".
But to be fair, they want to keep their identity and culture alive(even heaven forfend their race) - and why not?
Absolutely.
Although for the race bit, most English (apart from those fortunate enough to originate from the South East and East generally :^)) are the same as the Welsh anyway:
http://www.dnatribes.com/sample-results/dnatribes-europa-sample-spanish.pdf
Y Mochen Saes Du
(btw - meaning?)
"Not entirely. Place names, such as, off the top of my head: High Wycombe and Cumbria?"
London, Dover of course - I was going a bit over the top there, something I never normally do(though opinion varies). However the point is essentially correct
"There may not be many Welsh words in English, but the English language assimilated a big chunk of Welsh grammar."
I had vaguely gathered that there might have been some effect on the structure of the language. In the circumstances it would have been odd if there had been none at all - British slave women looking after children maybe?
"Although for the race bit, most English (apart from those fortunate enough to originate from the South East and East generally :^)) are the same as the Welsh anyway:"
Some time since I read his book but Oppenheimer wrote that there were genetic differences which pre-dated the Anglo-Saxon invasions/migrations. The main settlement in the pre-historic period was from the Iberian Peninsula into Ireland and Britain, but then there was a substantial secondary settlement from Northern Europe into what is now England.
I have gathered that Dr Mark Thomas was OTT when he suggested that the English and Welsh are races apart
Back on topic this is exceedingly good from "undersinged" - CIF
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/02/immigration-vision-fairness-brown
'I'm an immigrant who sometimes works abroad who is tired of the lying and blinkered attitude of the pro-immigration obsessives.
Here are the facts: There is not free movement of people in the world. If you're someone with high-value specialist skills, you can market your skills in numerous countries around the world. A similar rule applies if you operate a business and are cash rich. If you're in these groups, it may seem that the world is your oyster, and you can claim to be a global citizen. Almost. In fact, there are quite severe restrictions on foreigners operating a business or owning property in many countries (nearly all third world countries have "indigenization" rules, and some other countries such as Russia have analogous policies). Also, there are quite high barriers in most countries to foreigners gaining citizenship, permanent residence, or the right to participate in politics at any level, even merely to vote.
CONT)
For people of more average skills, especially for the low-skilled and unskilled, quasi "global citizenship" is not a possibility. If you're one of these, the majority of countries will not let you in, except as a tourist, and if they do, you will face many restrictions and disadvantages, and receive few or no concessions. If you are a low-skilled worker in a rich country, the lower wages in much of the world would makes it uneconomic to travel abroad for work. If you're a low skilled worker in a poor country, however, there is a very strong incentive for you to emigrate, assuming a rich country will admit you, because of this same wage differential.
Now add to this picture a situation in which a few rich countries (basically, Western Europe) decide for some reason to open their doors pretty much to all comers. What happens? Obviously, lots of workers (at all skill levels) from poor countries migrate to the rich countries that have open doors. The low-skilled workers who are already resident, however, will stay put. What effect will this have?
Well, in the countries that receive the migrants, it pushes down wages, because the migrants are willing to accept lower wages, due to the high purchasing power that money acquires when it is repatriated. Skilled migrants, meanwhile, are willing to accept low-skill jobs, again because it enables them to repatriate valuable money. This will naturally please many employers, but will inflict suffering on the low-skilled workers who were already resident - this latter group will experience a drop in income, and will find it much harder to get a job if they are unemployed, due to the competition from migrants. It's even worse if there is a minimum wage law, and migrant workers are willing to undercut it
cont)
Simultaneously, there will be effects that arise from the suddenness of the influx: health services, the school system, and housing will be strained. Rents will be pushed upwards, delighting private landlords, but further reducing the standard of living of people already resident in the country.
Then there are the social effects. For long term residents of an area, its sudden transformation from a familiar and homogenous community to a confusing patchwork of inscrutable strangers, whose moral values, etiquette and aesthetics often seem alien or even downright wrong is definitely not a plus. As if that weren't bad enough, quite a lot of third world migrants come from places where corruption and violent crime are rife, and they bring their corrupt practices and criminality with them. This is reflected in the crime statistics, and is a cost to the country receiving the migrants, but especially impacts on the lives of those who live in working class areas.
Basically, the working classes experience massive disbenefits from mass immigration, and no tangible benefits at all. It is arrogance verging on sheer idiocy to demand that the working classes who bear the brunt of the negative effects of mass immigration should welcome the joys of "diversity".
The effects on the third world from whence these migrants come are not particularly positive, either. There is a brain drain, as graduates and professionals move abroad to take jobs as bus drivers. Then there is the moral hazard effect, whereby people who have relatives who regularly send cash from abroad become lazy, and the influx of cash also tends to be inflationary.
For a few rich countries to permit uncontrolled (or barely controlled) mass immigration, when the rest of the world does not, makes no sense at all. Dogmatic fans of mass immigration stubbornly ignore its social and economic costs, and respond to any mention of those costs with ad hominems.
Furor Teutonicus - a liberal will always try and sieze the high ground in the debate by pointedly implying there is no difference between a German and a Somali. They will only admit that number and culture, if at all, are what counts.
So 100,000 Germans as immigrants would be more problematical than 10,000 Somalis. Because, of course, there is no qualitive difference between them
Utter nonsense of course.
Welsh 'nationalists' are a funny lot.
They would burn down a house just because its owned by English people. Yet thousands of Asian Muslims settling in Wales.....?
*cue sound of wind blowing and tumbleweed blowing past*
For a few rich countries to permit uncontrolled (or barely controlled) mass immigration, when the rest of the world does not, makes no sense at all. Dogmatic fans of mass immigration stubbornly ignore its social and economic costs, and respond to any mention of those costs with ad hominems.
Quite so.
I've posted similar comments all over the place in the last few years. In every case (white) liberals respond with venom and the online equvalent of screaming abuse.
I was barred from a Facebook group only two weeks ago for making points like this. (an anti-BNP group)
Anon
"I've posted similar comments all over the place in the last few years. In every case (white) liberals respond with venom and the online equvalent of screaming abuse."
They're sick - they have drunk deep of the self-loathing draught - as one of laban's links amply demonstrates
http://waleshome.org/2010/03/built-by-migrants-closed-to-immigrants/
The Universities have been Seminaries of National Suicide just as the Prisons are Academies of Crime.
Truth means nothing to them
Did Fowler come out with this.......
"British imperialism led to the colonisation of over 57 countries (mostly in the 16th and 17th centuries)"
......because he simply didn't know - Britain didn't exist as a political entity until 1707 and most colonisation was 18th and 19th century - or because he wanted to extend the supposed iniquity over a longer time period? Or a bit of both.
Fowler's piece is worth a read for an understanding of the mindset
"This imagined community of a country is a construct. Even in a small nation like Wales most people never know, meet, or even hear of most of their fellow countrymen."
Obviously he is an intimate of everyone in SE Wales though, he must be because otherwise his community would be imagined as well
"Without the mass migration that resulted from industrialisation, and fuelled by the wealth of imperialism, Wales as we currently understand and experience it simply would not exist. Any recognisably separate identity to that of England would have disappeared into the footnotes of history"
Just like the Kurds and all the other "small" peoples of the world have disappeared then
"Over a period of four generations, from the late 18th to the early 20th Century, these immigrants were thoroughly absorbed, creating a melting pot that gave birth to a unique culture. A culture which defines “Welshness” far more keenly than any bardic ceremony."
Sounds a bit triumphalist really, my class trumps your nation every time
But the stupidity is indeed to compare internal migration then, and third world immigration now. Also obviously the economic prospects differ somewhat as well
Sgt Troy
Y Mochen Saes Du (btw - meaning?)
Dunno. I don't speak Welsh.
But, if you're a fan of cricket and go to see it at the ground in Cardiff, you may notice a pub at the entrance to the cricket ground. Now this isn't a recommendation because although I'm not a CAMRA man and know nothing of these things, they serve their real ale cold which seems just wrong to me. So I stick to lager whenever I'm in there. The pub is called Y Mochen Du, which I'm told means The Filthy Pig. Saes means English.
My word order my be wrong but I think a Welsh speaker would get the meaning.
I am English. Its a joke name I made up on the spot before spouting off on this thread.
YMSD
"I'm not a CAMRA man and know nothing of these things, they serve their real ale cold which seems just wrong to me."
It is so wrong
"Saes means English."
I know - my ex-mother-in-law used to live in a very remote village(the village of the damned) off the A40 near Carmarthen.
Quite often you'd see Saes Allen scrawled on buildings and bridges.
Saes I suppose is more literally Saxons
"Attacking vanguard and rear.
Saxons will kneel in blood,
Bleeding men on every side;
Many will flee through the forest
like foxes in the streets,
Banished forever from Britain's land"
http://everything2.com/title/Armes+Prydein+Vawr
Probably not quite on Fowler's wavelength, but having encountered a fair few braying Home Counties types down there, I can see their point
"I made up on the spot before spouting off on this thread."
Good spouting
Y Mochen Saes Du said...
There is no Dutch or German equivalent of 'do', 'doing', and 'don't'.
Quatsch!
"Tun". "Ich tue", "er/Sie/es tut", sie/wir tun. (I,etc, do)
"Ich tat", "sie/wir taten" "I, etc did", Ich habe getan, (I, etc have done),"Werde tun" (Will do), "Ich u.s.w tue es nicht" (I, etc don't do"
And then there is "machen" (To make, to do).
I know Dutch had similat, when not exactly the same.
Furor Teutonicus
Quatsch!
OK. My assertion was poorly worded.
Try this: There is no Dutch or German equivalent of 'do', 'doing', and 'don't' - used in the same way as in English
See here:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003270.html
People get itchy with the idea that GRAMMAR changes. But the very birth of Modern English, the language we are now taught is "proper," entailed the complete thrashing of an earlier English. If English had developed according to its own devices, then today we English speakers would find German pretty easy to pick up, just as Dutch speakers do. Instead, we speak a deeply odd singleton of a tongue.
For example, when's the last time you learned a language other than English that uses DO to form questions and make sentences negative? Think about it. "DO you like fish?" "I DO not like fish. " As languages go, this is really, really weird. Of course you might not think so if you were one of the 7000 people who speak, say, Nanai way, way, way down East in Siberia. But otherwise, some of the very few languages on the planet where people use DO this way are, as it happens, Welsh, Breton, and Cornish. These are Celtic languages spoken right alongside English for 1500 years-plus.
For centuries after (Old) English speakers came to Britain, the original inhabitants commonly spoke both a Celtic language and English. Increasing numbers of linguists are arguing that these people gave English a goodly chunk of not words, but grammar, the way the language is put together from the ground up. Traditionally, linguists have reconstructed ways that things like DO could have arisen just all by itself. But these accounts often leave as many questions as answers, one being why NO other Germanic language developed something similar.
And here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1592404944/
And then there is "machen" (To make, to do).
Machen is different from 'do' and used in a different way. You don't say in English "I make not know".
I know Dutch had similat, when not exactly the same.
I believe this is the Dutch equivalent of "I don't know": "Ik weet het niet." (I know it not)
Ich weiss nicht?
Y Mochen Saes Du said...
Furor Teutonicus
Quatsch!
OK. My assertion was poorly worded.
Try this: There is no Dutch or German equivalent of 'do', 'doing', and 'don't' - used in the same way as in English
Again WRONG, and I gave the example
TUN! Ich tue es, ich tue es nicht, ich habe es nicht getan. Ich werde es machen, ich werde es nicht machen.
Swedish has Göra and Inte göra, which means the same.
For example, when's the last time you learned a language other than English that uses DO to form questions and make sentences negative? Think about it. "DO you like fish?" "I DO not like fish.
There are hundreds of ways of forming "do", to use one sentence as an example for a whole language/grammar, is ridiculous, but even here, to negate the answer "Das tue ich nicht", is possible.
Even when "do" is not physicaly in a sentence, it is implied; "Verstehen Sie?" Do you understand?
Try learning the language before you try to teach it to some one who has both German and English as their "Mother tongue".
Anonymous said...
Furor Teutonicus - a liberal will always try and sieze the high ground in the debate by pointedly implying there is no difference between a German and a Somali.
10:25 PM
Who mentioned Soamli scum? I was saying that past invasions were of people of equal worth, so they can not be taken as an example of todays situation, when the invasion comes from third world dross, merely wanting more pocket money given them for doing nothing, instead of doing nothing at home and waiting for the great God Un to turn up in his magicaly productive white truck.
Post a Comment