I came to this post from the related thread at GNXP today, and do so not with a comment but a couple of questions.

I think your three-stages fit the facts. I am interested' however, that you make no distinction between an agressive invasion for the purposes of a landgrab or, say, as an act of colonial war, and the sort of alien influx that we are seeing in Europe now. I understand that the results in terms of native deracination are the same. But your attempted Stage Two fightback from under the heel of a potentially genocidal military invader would be almost guaranteed. Conventional (liberal) wisdom has it, however, that under the influx scenario, native resistance will melt away through familiarity with the peaceful aliens.

Do you agree with the liberal notion or do you stick to the view that whilst independence and self-identification obtain the natives will seek to preserve themselves by conflict? Do you agree that the greater the variance in phenotype, the more likely conflict will arise?

The thing I was getting at is that at the first stage, the foreign element flies under the radar because it is still unknown and has a low demographic impact. People just don't have an opinion of it, nor do they see it frequently enough. There is a difference here with an influx of military invaders who arrive with visible intentions and are highly prominent.

The second stage happens when the foreign element is highly visible and the contrast of cultures, and perhaps physical appearances is noticed. At this stage sometimes there is a showdown and one of the elements emerges victorious (e.g., Hungarians against German penetration of their cities in the 18th century), or a new hybrid group is formed (Portuguese-Amerindian in Brazil), or the process of demographic change continues without much conflict until the native group disappears (Slavs de-Romanizing the northern Balkans).

Sometimes the process takes a very small time (as in the Magyarization of the inhabitants of Hungary in the 10th century), and sometimes it takes a long time (as in the gradual disappearance of Celtic speakers from the British Isles which is still not complete).

Interesting subject and one really important point:

The natives do not recognize the foreign element as a danger until its strong enought to fight and/or cannot removed peacefully.

F.e. if the North American Indians would have fight the first settlers with all their power, it would have been much, much more difficult to establish a big scale colony.

One point I would say is very important too is, that in a certain stage there is some interdependency between the groups (was the same with the Roman empire which was helpless without their Germanic soldiers in 4th century) economically, military, social etc...

Social also in that way that there are many relations and mixed people, so its difficult for one of the two group to fight the other openly or to say they are still foreign if f.e. a brother has a forein wife etc...
This is making a reaction even more difficult and almost impossible if its a common behaviour to have intermixed marriages.

Dienekes,

There was definitely a working class backlash to West Indian immigration to London during the early, post-Windrush period. The most visible manifestation was the "No Coloureds" signs that appeared outside lodging houses. But every form of casual, discriminatory behaviour that would now be considered criminal was visited on the newcomers. They, therefore, were not really flying under the radar.

However, since the immigrants were invited by government the latter not only noted the uncouth if predictable Cockney outrage but did everything it possibly could to stifle it. I doubt whether anything like this could have happened in Britain's misty, tribal past. It demonstrates how little respect for its own people our executive has and how completely secure in its powers it feels.

In looking for a universal causative in all this, therefore, whether one settles on a fatal division or fracture in society or on the usual Spenglerian recipe, I am undecided. Perhaps it's instructive to note that the the battle lines are still drawn between a dominant executive - now broadened into a full-blown liberal establishment - and the rest. (One must except from the rest, of course, the "race does not exist" elements of the left.) The dynamics are essentially unchanged. In a sense, one can't test British society for Spenglerian declension because the fracture frustrates popular will and produces a "decline and fall of Rome" anyway!

Still, every now and again "the rest" gives the executive a sharp kick. In the 1960's the government kept the Commonwealth immigration taps fully open. But in 1971 popular resentment forced the introduction of what were, on paper, quite strict controls. Likewise, the present Home Secretary has had to made a few gestures in the same direction - closing Sangatte, proposing national ID cards. So, the exact character of our Stage Two is as yet unclear. I hope it hurries along. I'm fifty-two and I'd quite like to see how things are going to work out!

You are right, there is the neoliberal Establishment and its believers and some some leftiest which are against them but not for their folk.

So we can see two ideologies and one interest group (parts of the establishment which want to promote certain values to get an absolutely liberal world wide market and destroyed social standards for maximum profit = for this they need to fraction the society, let in cheap workers and destroy all European structures which could resist this system (family, nation, race, religion, non-liberal-ideologies etc.)

So they see what happens but have a) their own priorities and b) dont care about it for their short time profit thinking and c) they have an ideology to justify what they are doing and destroying on their own = liberal-neoliberal-neoconservative thinking.

The crowd would have acted without the manipulation already in the 60s but the propaganda was getting more aggressive and manipulative with the rising stream of immigrants which were further and further away from the nations standard. (f.e. in German countries first Italians, Greeks, Spaniards etc. = Western Europeans; second South-Eastern Europeans and Turks, and now mostly Near Easterners, Gypsies and Negroes which are not integrable.

The desensibilisation (media, education, law, economic rules and system) was rising with the amount and difference of the immigrants.

I am an Australian, so my comments about Europe is based on my observations. Europe has a problem. The birthrate is below replacement of the living people. The populations are aging; there are less and less young people to pay for the older people. That applies to Spain, Italy, Sweden or Germany. Fewer babies are being born, couples are having children at an older age, infertility problems are evident in women aged 30 years plus. What that all means is that foreigners (guestworkers), illegals are seeing an opening for work and prosperity in your countries. Where do they come from? Middle East, North Africa, Black Africa, South and East Asia. And guess what? They are young, they work at lower wages and they have a high birth rate. They start at 2% of the population and lo and behold in a short while they are 20% and becoming demanding. So demanding that they change centuries old practices with their cultural practices and beliefs. Frankly Europe you are in big trouble.

Here in Australia the original European population was 90% British before WW2 now they are probably 60% and not pure. I am not complaining as I am part of the problem being a Med European, but now the number of half-asians are growing, the children of white men and asian women. I can tell you that I have seriously thought of returning to my birth country even though I have been ethnolysed myself and would find it hard to assimilate into my homeland. There is nothing wrong with East Asians, South Asians or Black Africans but they should stay in their own countries. Ethnolysation is not bad when the culture is compatible and the races similar. European panmixis is O.K as basically the same types will still exist just in every country. What's not O.K is the mixing with Middle Easterners and other foreigners. That mixing will ruin Europe, destroy centuries of civilisation, turn churches into mosques and temples. Look at modern Turkey. That country was European in race and culture before the Turkic speaking moslems arrived. Turkey has been called the sick man of Europe for a long time and its close association with Europe has not changed it much. It that what you want for Spain, Italy, Sweden and Germany? I hope not. I also hope that you Europeans whether your eye or hair colour realise that you have more in common with each other than with any Lebanese, Ghanain or Chinese. So be prepared or accept your fate which is of course an Eastern belief found in Islam, Buddhism or Confucism. Arab speaking moslems were in my homeland for centuries and they forced their language and beliefs on my ancestors. It was only when they were finally forced out that my people could be free, practice their religion, own their own land and throw off serfdom. Unfortunately the original language was lost and the modern language is very Arabic. That is what will happen to the rest of Europe if you keep sitting on your hands and playing holier than thou and let these aliens root in your countries.

I have recently travelled in Europe, and I have to say I agree with Graeme. But do these refugees or migrant workers actually pose a threat to the French, Spanish, Italian, or Germanic ethnic populations? Wouldn't the Swedish people be conscious of this fact and also be inherently more attracted to their own ethnic group?

Is the Northern European population at risk of having the white 'bred out of them.'? Not to mention the socio-cultural and economic probs. associated with peoples of these other lands?