Across the Western world, governments have opened the floodgates to mass third-world immigration. It is questionable whether such policies have been popular anywhere, and it is hard to identify a country where citizens have ever voted for them. Thus, unrest has been inevitable. The international political class has usually responded to popular discontent over immigration by shutting down speech and criminalizing dissent. Meanwhile, a number of European countries are rapidly becoming unrecognizable.
Why this crazed dedication to an unpopular and likely suicidal policy? I wish I knew.
Yesterday, there were massive protests across the United Kingdom against the Uniparty’s immigration policies. This march took place in Manchester:
The marchers are waving the Union Jack, the flag of the United Kingdom, and St. George’s Cross, the flag of England. It is generally considered “far right” to display the English flag in England.
Opponents of mass third-world immigration are inhibited because they lack a vocabulary with which to oppose the inevitable charge of “racism,” a charge that is leveled just about everywhere, except against actual instances of racism. But why is it so difficult? A man from Cameroon, say, may be a wonderful gentleman, and he may be heir to a “vibrant” culture–a common euphemism in this context–but he is not British, and the culture to which he is heir is not British culture. Why is it out of bounds to say that Britain should be (predominantly, anyway) for the British, as France should be for the French, Germany for the Germans, Sweden for the Swedes? And that any minorities in those countries should adapt to the native cultures, not the other way around?
This queasiness seems to be exclusively a Western phenomenon. The Chinese have no doubt that China is their country, and the Chinese government displays no urge to import foreigners. If it did import foreigners, it would use them for slave labor. Same with the Japanese, except for the slave labor part.
Meanwhile, the Islamization of Britain continues apace. News is censored, lest people get the wrong (i.e., right) idea:
It’s worth spelling out why they act like this.
Britain’s establishment is aware that the migration policies it imposed have been an economic and social disaster. It also knows that it would be completely delegitimising to admit this. https://t.co/g35HDy4s65
— Sam Ashworth-Hayes (@SAshworthHayes) August 3, 2025
I recently noticed in the news that Keir Starmer’s Labour government has lowered the voting age to 16. This is the kind of thing liberals have tried to do in the U.S., on the assumption that most kids will vote Democrat. But in Britain, Mark Steyn points out, the reason goes deeper:
Britain’s government has decided to lower the voting age to sixteen. Almost all the commentary has focused on whether schoolchildren are informed or responsible enough to vote. Reading such bollocks is a complete waste of your time. The principal practical effect of sixteen-year-old electors will be to increase the migrant vote long before the formal handover of demographic supremacy in 2063 or whenever. As Richard North writes at The Conservative Woman:
In most Muslim households, it is a dead cert that the heads of the households will use the postal votes of their children to favour candidates pre-selected by the baradari (clan) elders at the mosques.
As someone once said, the future belongs to those who show up, and with Starmer’s legislation it shows up early. “Diversity” is not equally distributed: the Zimmer-frame vote is still overwhelmingly Anglo-Celtic; among newborns, forty per cent have at least one non-UK parent.
I wish Britain’s protesters well, but it is hard to be optimistic about where this all ends. In civil war, possibly, or in a takeover of countries like the U.K. by foreign elements, analogous to the Germanic invasions of the fifth and sixth centuries only with more radical consequences. Or possibly Britain and other countries will turn back from the brink with sane immigration policies. If it is not already too late.
