On Immigration
The History of Britain is the history of immigration
The History of Britain is the history of immigration, with each successive wave throttling the preceding one and raping their daughters. Indeed, this tradition is so long and consistent with our national character, that we might call those who are newest to our shores the most “British,” while classifying those who have idled within the limits of the island for more than two-hundred years, having neither invaded it nor migrated elsewhere to grow rich and fat off another people’s land, as the most foreign element to our constitution.
We have always been a nation of immigrants; racist immigrants disgusted by the native populations which we have found, and determined to breed them out of existence. It is no small relief to know that we have more in common with Caesar than we do with that “ugliest and stupidest of races” which he encountered on our shores.
Immigration, properly executed, is the advancement of desirable hereditary traits and the elimination of undesirable ones. But imagine, if you will, that the “ugliest and stupidest of races” were to regulate the immigration system. Would it not protect its own genetic line by encouraging Britain’s newest members to live separate lives, avoiding any significant interaction, sexual or otherwise, with its settled population?
This is the situation in which we find ourselves currently. Though Britain imports a significant amount of intelligent and fertile immigrants, they live mere parallel lives to those of the native population. Understandably, they house themselves in neighbourhoods where interaction with the average settled Britain is unlikely, where they are free to speak their own language and to greedily guard their gastronomic secrets. Meanwhile, those natural opportunities for bio-diversifying our island, which have always been at the heart of our advancement, are disappearing as the white working class, tucked neatly away in its own neighbourhood, inbreeds itself into greater infertility, stupidity and, consequently, less value in the sexual marketplace.
Regulation is key. While new immigrants naturally gravitate towards London, an island unto itself and one of the few places in Britain which has taken advantage of biodiversity, more remote and savage areas of the country are drowning in their own mauve-grey genetic soup.
What if, instead of allowing immigrants to move directly to the Capital, we invited them to the country on the basis that they locate to areas with high levels of endogamy, principally those in remote northern areas? What if we obliged them to mate with the native population?
This is the ideal situation, but forced copulation with Britons is an unethical practice, and the legal route would require us to offer state benefits to those immigrants who are willing to sacrifice their genetic line for that of our country. But the question remains: How do we convince a Pakistani doctor to mate with a chip-shop girl from Wigan?
Incredible work