image   Review topic: Immigration but without Jewish mention

David Conway: A Nation of Immigrants?: A Brief Demographic History of Britain

Added later: Ricardo Duchesne on Canada

Solid shortish book on population movements into Britain, designed to oppose errors, December 8, 2010

Published by 'Civitas' (civitas.org.uk) of The Institute for the Study of Civil Society. Short book—about 100 pages. Has endnotes, but is not indexed. It's unillustrated; this may sound trivial, but it means there are no graphs, maps, photos or other aids. The 'Gumball' video illustrates something like the opposite approach; it can be more effective.

Conway clarifies at the start that the 'nation of immigrants' claim presumably is the claim that a majority of people in Britain are descended from immigrants who entered Britain at some stage, when Britain existed—i.e. not the mists of prehistory.

British history is split into five time zones - up to the Roman Conquest (and its fall)/ Up to the Norman Conquest in 1066/ then to the Reformation/ then to Second World War/ finally, 1945 to the present—publication was in 2007.

He's picked these dates because they represent various types of immigration:
* Up to the Roman Conquest—the view now is that agriculture replaced hunter/gatherer life by diffusion, not invasion. Then of course 'Romans' invaded, tho these were mostly Belgae etc. So his first interval includes the Romans.
* There were Angles, Saxons and so on, and Vikings. And some Jews. Conway adduces evidence that the numbers weren't large.

Throughout there is evidence from DNA studies, some on bones a thousand or more years ago. B Sykes and S Oppenheimer are cited here. The Reformation introduced religious refugees, Protestants mostly. These included the Huguenots, whom Conway praises as does almost everyone.

* Up to the Second World War there were Jews round about 1890. Alien Act 1905. And Alien Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919. Their numbers however were dwarfed by the Irish. Conway is good on the reasons for England allying with Scotland, then Ireland—defensive measures against France.

* After the Second World War. Conway quotes official figures illustrating the 'staggering growth', mostly in England. He subdivides the period: 1945-1948 (including Poles left from WW2; and Ukrainians—I met an 82-year old Ukrainian woman who bemoaned men she knew from the next village getting married in UK bigamously); 1948-1971 1948 British Nationality Act (under Attlee, Labour) 'extended a right to them all [i.e. Indians and Pakistanis], even after independence' 1969 Commonwealth Appeals Act p 76; 1971-1997 1971 Immigration Act and 'patriality' (p 76) and where the EU had a problem with the eastern borders when the USSR failed, and 1997 is the start of Tony Blair's disastrously dogmatic 'New Labour' regime; 1997—present includes the further unfolding of chain immigration, arranged marriages, female genital mutilation, 'honour killings', fake asylum, fake students, movement of labour, and all the rest. [1981 Nationality Act changed legal meaning of 'British'—under Labour]

Conway identifies some influential publications and people:--
* 1996 'Commission for Racial Equality': 'Roots of the Future: Ethnic Diversity in the Making of Britain'. Conway says in effect this was propaganda rubbish promoting the lie of a 'mongrel nation'.
* 2000 Barbara Roche speech on 'UK migration in a global economy'. Conway says this was the start of the odd idea that unskilled illiterates were valuable to the economy and would 'pay our pensions'.
* 2004, R Winder, 'Bloody Foreigners: The Story of Immigration to Britain'. Conway, here implies this book is simple propaganda, aimed at an increasingly annoyed white populace.
* 2006 B Sykes and S Oppenheimer publish, says Conway, books with very similar accounts of results of DNA research into Britons, showing small penetration even by Angles and Saxons who were supposed to have invaded en masse.

This book needs to be read several times over, to get the feel for the way politicians have slanted and lied about the issues. 'The relatively high level of social harmony Britain has enjoyed results from the fact that earlier waves of immigrants ... had to adapt... Now our culture, and our nation, are in danger of fragmenting...' Conway doesn't tackle, or I think mention, the possible real differences in races—for example the lack of achievements by Africans.




Similar propaganda torrent in Canada: The following article is (I think) by Ricardo Duchesne, and was probably used in many publications. This version was taken from https://salisburyreview.com/ —a supposedly conservative 'review' from England, which however includes the Jew 'Theodore Dalrymple'. It deals with the settling of Canada, and is aimed against the Jewish views on migrations. I've taken out some graphics, such as simpleton soldiers, probably British, from the Great War. Probably around 2017; competition between Web sources means basic information is often avoided.

One of the most powerful memes in Canada is that “Canada is a nation of immigrants”. Millions of individuals have indeed migrated to Canada since John Cabot first claimed either Newfoundland or Cape Breton Island for England in 1497. But the intended meaning of this phrase goes well beyond this simple fact.

This phrase, continuously repeated by the media, and shoved down the throats of unsuspecting students from primary to higher education, is intended to fashion an image of Canada as a nation populated from the beginning by peoples from diverse cultures and racial backgrounds, in order to portray the Third World immigration patterns we have been witnessing since the 1970s as a continuation naturelle of past migration patterns, rather than as what they are: a radical departure aimed at the termination of Canada’s deep-seated Anglo-European ethnic character.

What follows is a statistical refutation of this deceptive meme. The historical record, the facts we have about the people who came to Canada, the racial makeup of the immigrants, the proportion of Whites to non-Whites, the birth rate of Eurocanadians, the rates of immigration versus the domestic fertility rates, demonstrate, to the contrary, that Canada was a nation created from top to bottom by immigrants from Europe and by Eurocanadians born in Canada, with next to zero contributions by non-Europeans.

The Facts

  • In 1871, according to the first census after Confederation, of the total population of 3.2 million, 32 percent were of French ancestry, 24 percent Irish, 20 percent English, 16 percent Scottish, and 6 percent German. Notice, therefore, that we should acknowledge the immense importance of the Irish and Scots in the first centuries of “English Canada”. There were only 21,500 blacks and 23,000 natives in 1871; by contrast, there were 202,991 persons of German origin.
  • Canada cannot “accurately be portrayed at Confederation as a nation of immigrants”. In 1867, 79 percent had been born in Canada. Over the 400 years before Confederation, there were only “two quite limited periods” of substantial arrivals of immigrants: from 1783 to 1812, and from 1830 to 1850. In these two periods, the immigrants were “overwhelmingly of British origin”. Immigration was not a major factor in population growth from 1850 to the end of the nineteenth century. From 1871 to 1891, “a high rate of natural increase allowed the population of Canada to grow from 3.7 million to 4.8 million”.
  • From 1608 to 1760, immigration to New France consisted of only 10,000 settlers, and thereafter it was “almost non-existent”. The French-speaking population numbered about 90,000 by 1770s, and thereafter, until the late 1800s, the population expanded rapidly with women having 5.6 surviving children on average. The increase in population in Lower Canada from 330,000 in 1815 to 890,000 in 1851 “was mainly attributable to the continuing high birth rate within the French-speaking community”. By 1950, the Quebec population was almost 4 million. This increase was not a result of immigration, but primarily of the still continuing high fertility rates. It was only in the 1970s that Montreal saw an increasing inflow of non-European immigrants.
  • Between 1896 and 1914, Canada experienced high immigration levels with more than 3 million arriving within this period. However, the ethnic composition of the nation remained 84 percent of British and French origin, while the European component rose to 9 percent. Between 1900 and 1915, the high mark in “Asian immigration” before the 1960s, 50,000 immigrants of Japanese, East Indian and Chinese descent arrived, but this number comprised less than 2 percent of the total immigration flow. In contrast, in 1914, there were nearly 400,000 Germans in Canada, the largest ethnic group apart from the British (which includes the Irish and Scots) and French.

The total intake of immigrants between 1946 and 1962 was 2,151,505. At the same time however, between 1941 and 1962, the population of Canada increased from 11.5 million to 18.5 million, “largely accounted” by Canada’s “extremely high domestic birth rates”, the so-called baby boom generation. Ninety percent of all immigrants who came to Canada before 1961 were from Britain. It was only after the institutionalization of official multiculturalism in 1971 that immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia at large started to arrive in large numbers. During the 1970s, the proportion originating in Europe was cut by half, whereas the proportion coming from Asia almost quadrupled. Of the 1.5 million who came between 1971 and 1981, 33 percent came from Asia, 16 percent from the Caribbean and South America and 5.5 percent from Africa. In the period 1991-2001, immigrants of European origin fell below 20 percent at the same time that Asian immigration soared to nearly 60 percent. From 1991 to 2000, 2.2 million immigrants were accepted, the “highest ever for any decade”. In recent years, Canada’s visible minority population has been growing much faster than its total population: 22 percent growth from 1996 to 2001 versus 4 percent growth in the general population. Today, roughly one out of every four people in Canada is a member of a visible minority.

Fight Against Multicultural Revisionism!

Don’t let them deceive you! Copy these facts and use them against the deceivers occupying our educational establishments. Don’t believe the globalist claim that your nation was a creation of diverse races and that “White racists” were supposedly hiding away the equal contribution of non-European immigrants. This is a historical falsehood of major proportions. Canada was created by people of British and French descent, and other European ancestries. All the institutions, legal system, educational curriculum, transformation of wilderness into productive farms, all the cities, the parliamentary traditions, the churches, the entire infrastructure of railways, ports, shipping industries, and highways, were created by hardworking Eurocanadians.

Sources

It should be noted that the following authors try to portray Canada as a nation that was from its beginning created by diverse immigrants leading to the official enactment of multiculturalism by P.E. Trudeau in 1971. Nevertheless the facts they bring out, which are the ones contained in the documents, show that Canada was a nation homogeneously White from its very beginnings.

  • J. M. Bumsted, Canada’s Diverse Peoples: A Reference Sourcebook, 2003
  • J. M. Bumsted, The People’s of Canada: A Pre-Confederation History, 2003
  • J. M. Bumsted, The People’s of Canada: A Post-Confederation History, 2004
  • Ninette Kelley and Michael Trebilcock, The Making of the Mosaic. A History of Canadian Immigration Policy, 1998
  • Roger Riendeau, A Brief History of Canada, 2007

Rae West. This dual version uploaded 17 February 2022