22 November, 2005
I read Aaro's piece while standing waiting for the train, accompanied by assorted Nigerians, Chinese, Vietnamese, the occasional miscellaneous South Asian, and, oh yes, a couple of other White people, though whether they were natives or the usual Albanian/Russian mafia that has taken up residence in my part of South East London was impossible to say.
Aaro's thesis rather depends on your understanding of the term "Britain". If, as the tenor of his argument seems to imply, it is simply UK Ltd, a territorial subsidiary of Global plc, then of course he is entirely right.
But there is an alternative interpretation of what Britain means (or England, or the UK, or whatever of a group of overlapping concepts you prefer to concentrate on). It is a nation, a territorially-based, ethnically-homogeneous society based on the labour, struggle and social consensus over a period of 1000 to 1500 years of my ancestors. You might possibly make a plausible case for the economic benefits of unfettered migration, though I'd not necessarily agree with you, nor would the likes of Coleman and Rowthorn, but if the consequence is the effective destruction of my nation as a distinct entity, then the price is unacceptable.
I'd sooner be a slightly poorer Englishman than a feelthy rich shareholder in UK Ltd. Thanks, David, but on the other hand, no thanks!
So why would a secular Jew who is pro immigration be accused of being Islamaphobic?