Arguments against Immigration in England

…as in there aren’t any.

The following is a response to: “An Interesting Exchange of Views on Immigration” from Aryan Myth and Metahistory.

My friend, anyone Germanic in England is most assuredly an immigrant whether recent or ancient, in the sense of not being native.  The native British Islanders were NOT Germanic.  And I don’t think you want to take the UN’s word for one thing (the definition of indigenous), while rejecting it for another (its stance on multiculturalism, diversity, asylum and immigration).  So indigenous means original people, and for England, that is not Germanic.  Here is the evidence.

-“Speculation has run somewhat wild over the question of the composition of the Early Britons. But out of the clash of rival theories there emerges one–and one only–which may be considered as scientifically established. We have certain proof of two distinct human stocks in the British Islands at the time of the Roman Conquest; and so great an authority as Professor Huxley has given his opinion that there is no evidence of any others. [Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 – 1895) 19:1 Huxley: On Some Fixed Points in British Ethnology. 1871].

The earliest of these two races would seem to have inhabited our islands from the most ancient times, and may, for our purpose, be described as aboriginal. It was the people that built the “long barrows”; and which is variously called by ethnologists the Iberian, Mediterranean, Berber, Basque, Silurian, or Euskarian race. In physique it was short, swarthy, dark-haired, dark-eyed, and long-skulled; its language belonged to the class called “Hamitic”, the surviving types of which are found among the Gallas, Abyssinians, Berbers, and other North African tribes; and it seems to have come originally from some part either of Eastern, Northern, or Central Africa. Spreading thence, it was probably the first people to inhabit the Valley of the Nile, and it sent offshoots into Syria and Asia Minor. The earliest Hellenes found it in Greece under the name of “Pelasgoi”; the earliest Latins in Italy, as the “Etruscans”; and the Hebrews in Palestine, as the “Hittites”. It spread northward through Europe as far as the Baltic, and westward, along the Atlas chain, to Spain, France, and our own islands. 1 In many countries it reached a comparatively high level of civilization, but in Britain its development must have been early checked. We can discern it as an agricultural rather than a pastoral people, still in the Stone Age, dwelling in totemistic tribes on hills whose summits it fortified elaborately, and whose slopes it cultivated on what is called the “terrace system”, and having a primitive culture which ethnologists think to have much resembled that of the present hill-tribes of Southern India. 2 It held our islands till the coming of the Celts, who fought with the aborigines, dispossessed them of the more fertile parts, subjugated them, even amalgamated with them, but certainly never extirpated them. In the time of the Romans they were still practically independent in South Wales. In Ireland they were long unconquered, and are found as allies rather than serfs of the Gaels, ruling their own provinces, and preserving their own customs and religion. Nor, in spite of all the successive invasions of Great Britain and Ireland.” http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Crests/Crests.htm

-“Most readers of history know about the Celts, ancient inhabitants of Europe, whose priests were known as the Druids. It is generally thought that these Celts were Caucasoids, but Sir Godfrey Higgins, after much study came to the conclusion that they were a Negroid people. Higgins wrote a ponderous volume entitled The Celtic Druids. In the following passage from his Anacalypsis he modestly refers to it as an essay: “In my essay on the Celtic Druids, I have shown that a great nation called Celtae, of whom the Druids were the priests, spread themselves almost over the whole earth, and are to be traced in their rude gigantic monuments from India to the extremity of Britain. The religion of Buddha of India is well known to have been very ancient.” (Higgins is here referring to the first Buddha, who is supposed to have lived between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago, and not to Gautama Buddha who lived about 600 years B.C. There were at least ten Buddhas mentioned in the sacred books of India.) “Who these can have been but the early individuals of the black nation of whom we have been treating I know not, and in this opinion I am not singular. The learned Maurice says Cuthies (Cushites), i.e. Celts, built the great temples in India and Britain, and excavated the caves of the former; and the learned mathematician, Reuben Burrow, has no hesitation in pronouncing Stonehenge to be a temple of the black curly-headed Buddha.” (Anacalypsis, Vol. I, Book I, Chap. IV, New York, 1927.)”

http://2017blackart.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/ethiopia-and-the-origin-of-civilization-by-john-g-jackson/

Granted, the following link is about Ireland in particular, but Ireland part of the British Isles, so…

-“…Candid authorities like the British Egyptologists Gerald Massey and Albert Churchward, the Scottish historian David Mac Ritchie, and the British antiquarian Godfrey Higgins, have done exhaustive research and brought many facts to our knowledge. Tacitus, Pliny, Claudian and other writers have described the Blacks they encountered in the British Isles as “Black as Ethiopians,” “Cum Nigris Gentibus,” “nimble-footed blackamoors,” and so on.

From all indications, the ancient dwellers of the British Isles and Ireland, like the Kymry (one of the names given to the earliest inhabitants, from whom the Picts and Scots descended), were Blacks. David Mac Ritchie has provided substantial evidence in his two-volume work, Ancient and Modern Britons that the Picts as well as the ancient Danes were Blacks. The Partholans, Formorians, Nemeds, Firbolgs, Tuatha De Danann, Milesians of Ireland and the Picts of Northern Scotland were all Blacks.

The Firbolgs (believed to be a section of the Nemeds) are believed to be so-called pygmies or the Twa. They are the dwarfs, dark elves or leprechauns in Irish History. The British Egyptologist Albert Churchward is convinced that the Tuatha-de-Danann, who came to Ireland, were of the same race and spoke the same language as the Fir-Bogs and the Formorians…” (http://culturalhealth.blogspot.com/2011/03/irish-leprechauns-were-originally-black.html)

If you read this paper, of which I am pasting the abstract, you will see that even your Indo-European argument fails to establish a “white” or Germanic England.  Indo-European languages are only “European” (Europe is really Far West Asia) in the sense that they spread to West Asia from India.  So “Indo-European” really means ‘South Asian-West Asian’, and either way, their ultimate roots are in Africa.  So your Indo-European argument only establishes emigration from Sub-Saharan Africa into South Asia and Arabia, then into West and Far West Asia, including the British Isles.  Hardly a case against immigration today.

RECENT GENETIC RESEARCH AT UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE, MADRID, HAS SHOWN THAT THERE IS NO GENETIC EVIDENCE FOR AN ARYAN INVASION OF EUROPE. THIS INVASION IS A MYTH.

WE DEMONSTRATE THAT THE INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES CAME OUT OF AFRICA. THEY DERIVE FROM THE NIGER-CONGO GROUP. THE INDO-EUROPEAN “INVADERS” WERE NOT STRANGERS, BUT WERE GENETICALLY RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL BLACK AFRICAN INHABITANTS OF THE MEDITERRANEAN. GENETICS AND LINGUISTICS NOW LEAD US TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.

AFRO-ASIATIC FARMERS, NOT CONQUERING ARYANS, GRADUALLY OVERLAID THESE BLACK ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS, GIVING RISE TO THE OLIVE-SKINNED MEDITERRANEAN RACE.

Rask and Bopp founded Indo-European comparative linguistics on morphology.
Morphology remains the strongest weapon in the armoury of comparative
linguistics. We use morphology (prefixes, infixes, suffixes) to demonstrate that
there is a genetic linguistic relationship between the inflectional Indo-European
and the agglutinative Niger-Congo languages.

 

We also find a linguistic solution to the problem of the Proto-Indo-European
Homeland. Indo-European can now be linked on linguistic grounds with
Kartvelian (Southern Caucasian). Kartvelian likewise derives from Niger-Congo,
but at one remove. In showing this we also invoke morphology. Following
Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, and also Maria Gimbutas, we can now put the
Homeland of Indo-European in the Caucasus, the “mountain of languages”.
The common period of Indo-European and Kartvelian appears to postdate the
separation of Sanskrit and Greek from Indo-European, but not Hittite. It follows
therefore that the Anatolian languages were not involved in the primary division
of Indo-European.

 

The script used to write “Hieroglyphic Hittite”, really Luvian, which is closely
related to Hittite, evolved from a system of pictographs. The Devanagari
syllabary used for Sanskrit evolved, it seems from the pictographic script of
Mohenjo- Daro, which is also a syllabary. These syllabaries were of African
origin, and go back beyond the Indo-European period.
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS : INDO-EUROPEAN AND NIGER-CONGO © 2004 GJK Campbell-Dunn ISBN 1-877211-591

http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/gc_dunn/Comparative_Linguistics.pdf

Lastly, if the point is that immigration brings crime;  this is true.  Immigrants can be criminals.  But if you consider the British habit of committing genocide, you should welcome the immigrant crime rate as an improvement.

If you have clicked the links to the articles and read around a bit, you have seen the tip of the iceberg of the reality that your decades of research have been wasted listening to what you want to hear, as it were, rather than to what was and is.  It is myth, completely made up.  Like it if you want, be entertained by it, but don’t base your life on it.  Or at least acknowledge untruth as untruth and truth as truth before choosing what you prefer.

“Frankly, the history of every civilization in the world is a depressingly consistent chronicle of general greed, hubris, selfishness and cruelty, puncutated by only a few noble individual exceptions. To encourage a people to be proud of such a history is to encourage it to celebrate its own ugliness. On the contrary, it is sincerely admitting and apologizing for past wrongs that demonstrates goodwill and begins the process of genuine unification. Positive inspiration is also important, but should come instead from prehistoric or otherwise romantic myth, which reflects how we would like our civilization to be, and hence can depict genuinely admirable qualities for people to aspire towards.”

http://aryanism.net/culture/folk-and-nation/

 

Do you really want to restore England’s ‘white’ past? What was “white” Europe like? People who slept in the houses with their farm animals. Annual baths. Kings who couldn’t compare to the average man in Moorish Andalus. I suggest you take a look at these photos of Victorian England. Albion sans Negros. It’s hardly a utopia.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487041/Dickens-London-brought-life-Fascinating-snapshot-Victorian-street-traders-taken-dawn-photography.html

If anything, the influx of peoples from outside of West Asia into it coincides with an increase in the quality of life. The only thing you should be looking at is how causal the relationship is.

Advertisements

One thought on “Arguments against Immigration in England

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s