You know, you are guilty of using ad hominen tactics here. I am not getting all pissy or offended, but in blithely declaring that I am a victim of the "globalist agenda" you are criticising me, and not what I am saying. It's weak.
I still don't understand how this "globalist agenda" has managed to do what you say it has done. Where did they get their power from? Western politics is, by and large, dominated by centrist to right governments. Not right wing enough for you, clearly, but certainly not left wing enough to have been able to apply this agenda you say exists.
No country is dependent on another.
Uh, who argued that it was?
You actually believe that if we asked all immigrants to leave our society would collapse?
Uh, no, I didn't say that. I said that services would. 26% of doctors in the NHS are immigrants. The NHS is appallingly understaffed as it is. What happens if you get your way and you return London to being 85% white? And where did you get 85% from?
And who TF are these all powerful "liberal elites"? Seriously, where do these liberal boogie men live?
What conclusions are we supposed draw re the educators? That they are all a part of a liberal elite conspiracy? If that's the case, why do we have the most right wing government in power since Thatcher? Why is the gap between the rich and poor widening?
It is not that I ignore all "these things". I just don't use them to draw exaggerated, unsubstantiated conclusions.
Honestly, I think mass immigration is more down to hubris and ineptitude than anything else. I do not think that it was a distinct plan or policy. I know, you do. But you have very little to back that up.
You have ignored many of my point and questions. I get that, these replies would become small novels if we stuck to every point. But please, answer me this, because I think it central to this exchange.
How do you think you will get back to 85% white? What mechanism will achieve this? And what do you think this demographic shift will actually mean?
I am in no way using ad hominem tactics whatsoever, you just don't like or agree with what I'm saying, and that is because you have not done your research. The facts are out there. If you consider that as a form of personal criticism then that is a matter for you. I am not ignoring the points you raise I am addressing them entirely.
You are indeed a victim of the globalist agenda or you are a supporter of it. From what you have said thus far it seems to me you are a victim of it, as you come across as reasonably intelligent but under researched.
You argued that 'all hospitals would collapse. There wouldn't be enough staff to sustain them. And not just hospitals - services would collapse left, right and centre.' That is utter nonsense. We are not dependent on another country which by your very own statement is what you're saying.
You clearly take everything going on in your society at face value and are not prepared to look at what is going on behind the scenes. You believe that the governments who are elected control everything when they do not, in many cases they are simply puppets. You need to ask yourself who is pulling those strings?
You need to look at the Bank of England, the mainstream news media, television broadcasters and their content and the agenda behind their content. The BBC and Channel 4 springs to mind as the worst purveyors of globalist Marxist content.
Try researching liberals such as George Soros and his chums the Rothschilds and Rockerfellers. There's your starting point. Who controls the Bank of England?
In answer to your question the only way to reclaim London would be for a true Conservative government, not that of Mrs. May's, to have the courage to implement firm policies that significantly reduce further inward migration. Then we need to incentivise many of the foreign nationals who have already settled here to return to their native countries. If all that fails then sadly only violence will resolve the situation ending in a period of martial law.
You gave yourself away right from the beginning when you jumped to the defence of Jeremy Corbyn and provided a false statement that the video sequence only focused on him, therefore apparently 'scapegoating' him.