Category: European Union
In the immediate aftermath of last week’s initial debate between the Deputy Prime Minister and LibDem leader Nick Clegg and UKIP’s Nigel Farage, an easy victory for the former was swiftly declared by the entire media Establishment – only for a snap poll by YouGov, conducted for The Sun, to prove them painfully wrong. 57% of the thousand-strong panel thought Farage won. Only 36% thought Clegg had emerged victorious.
There followed a lot of very rough changing of journalistic gears, along with several admissions of Westminster village behaviour. The underlying inference, though, remained that Farage’s views were “populist”, ie, not the sort of thing that interests the cogniscenti (they being far above the infirmity and fickle affections of the public Mind. Naturally.)
Anthony Wells at YouGov – a left-leaning polling company if ever there was one - made the point that just finding a thousand people who would listen to the LBC Radio broadcast was a challenge in itself; and took months to achieve. He seemed not to have great confidence in the sample at all.
My friend Tadeusz Korzeniewski has suggested that we engage in an exchange of letters, by way of exploration of one another’s views. I have no idea what will come out of that, if anything. But it is too interesting a prospect to be neglected. So here is my opener, on the subject suggested by Tadeusz. Replies will be added to the page, not to the comment thread - that is for readers with their own thoughts on the matter at hand.
Your suggestion is that we choose as our subject the appearance of a Polish diaspora in Britain. A brave choice. I certainly don’t have a great number of positive things to say about it. I don’t think you will find many patriotic Englishmen who do. But there are those among the bien pensant classes and, of course, the shrinking band of Europhiles and outright devotees of libertarianism and economism, as well as the usual haul of thoughtless little sleepers who parrot any media mantra, who will tell you that east European immigration (because, obviously, all east Europeans are Poles) is “not a problem” and even “a benefit”.
Well yes, east Europeans are, at least, white and Christian (nominally, anyway). They seem refreshingly, unusually like us. And some of the girls can be very appealing. They drink and swear and dance, and then they can be laid. To the English ethnic sensibility, this is an understandable species in a way. They can “assimilate”, in a way.
Obviously, as a matter of ethno-nationalist principle, it’s very different. All our peoples must live sovereign and free, and that means alone, on their own ancestral soil. Europe’s peoples must grant one another this most essential collective freedom, because sovereign possession of territory is, and has always been, the guarantor of life itself. We have no business in each other’s lands. Is not Polish history a long and painful testament to that?
The present-day story itself is lacking in Polish tragedy, but it has its victims. The million-fold young Poles and eastern Europeans generally who, since 1st May 2004, have come to Britain, and travelled in even greater numbers to Germany, have deserted their own needy economies and treated ours like some low-rent, mud-free Klondyke. They have created enormous resentment in East Anglian towns such as Peterborough and Boston. They frequently live in gang-houses provided for them by migrant-worker agencies. Rumours abound that they sleep several to a room, and know nothing of the always rising costs of owning an English house and raising an English family. English workers simply cannot compete on the subsistence earnings the incomers are so willing to accept.
It is said that local employers recruit directly in Poland, the jobs never being advertised to prospective English workers; and that whole workforces are recruited and actually paid in Poland, the employers exploiting loopholes in EU law to avoid employment taxes in Britain. The whole deal is topped off with constant praise for how “polite”, “hard-working” and “skilled” the incomers are, while the English men and women they have replaced are routinely dismissed as “lazy” and “uneducated”, and are left to rot on state benefits.
The underlying narrative is that life in the old Soviet bloc countries of eastern Europe has remained economically harsh, and workers still understand what it means to do an honest day’s work for what, by Western European standards, is a pittance. They are only too grateful, we are told, to take up “the jobs British workers will not do”. British society, on the other hand, is written off as having become decadent and uncompetitive in the global economy. Our people have come to expect the good things in life without having to work for them. Europhile politicians and financial journalists, whose own jobs are not at risk in the new neoliberal universe, regularly reinforce this message. Some have the gall to lecture the English unemployed to the effect that if they don’t like it, they are always free to go and find work for slave-labour wages elsewhere in Europe, as if to be decanted from home and family into the life of a characterless economic cypher is an acceptable station for any human being.
It is true, of course, that the eastern European workers are an economically productive cohort. Migration is a filter for IQ, and the quality of first-generation migrants is higher in all sorts of ways than the average for their country of origin. Higher, in this case, than the average for the natives too. But by the same measure the eastern Europeans have come with rather more than the average loading of competent criminal gangs. The least of it involves metal theft: stealing manhole covers, stripping lead from church roofs and power-cabling from railway lines. Multiple accident insurance fraud is another little game. Armed robberies of soft targets like petrol stations and jewellers are also a favoured pick and, naturally, the drug trade has benefited substantially from “skilled eastern European labour”. The very worst of it has been the smuggling and prostitution - sexual enslavement, actually - of innocent and brutally used eastern European girls hidden away in inner-city whore-houses. Undoubtedly the most novel and multicultural felony has been the provision of rather more willing eastern European “brides” for the purpose of a passport scam, usually involving Asian fixers and African “husbands” willing to part with a few hundred quid for a quick I do. Not the hardest work a hard-working eastern European girl could find to do in opportunity-laden Britain.
The whole “hard-working” narrative took a bit of a knock from about the middle of the recession - well, perhaps not the “hard” part. We began to hear about penniless, unemployed eastern Europeans living rough in parks and public spaces, “skipping” supermarket bins and hunting the edible wild-life to extinction. The sight of regal swans gracing the urban river landscape has become a thing of the past on some East Anglian rivers. In contrast, alcoholism, at which eastern Europe has always excelled, has become a rather more commonplace feature of town-centres.
Now we are told the recession is over. But nine out of every ten new jobs is being taken by immigrants of one hue or another. Our kids struggle to enter the workforce at all. Only half of graduates find non-menial work. Of the others many are serving internships - generally without pay, just to have a chance of a permanent job at some point in the future. It is, of course, an utter betrayal of the young, to add to the long, long list of betrayals we have suffered in the grand cause of maximum corporate freedom. The politicians, together with the businessmen who have wallowed in its profits and the liberal Establishment which has found it so convenient and personally inexpensive, can never make amends for what they have done. Tumbrils and old maids with knitting needles will not make amends. Only mass repatriation, ruthless and complete, will make amends.
As for the eastern Europeans, they do not escape without a cost to their humanity. Like all new migrants, they have brought upon themselves and their children a ceasura they do not yet understand. The subtle rewards of peoplehood, of life among kind, of natural belonging and warmth and understanding have been replaced in them by becoming a stranger in another man’s land, and by the coldness and disinterest he feels for them. This is the true wage that the neoliberal system pays its migrant workers. Its materialism has become theirs, and its power to commodify human lives has commodified them. Until they go home they are merely labour, another commodity to place alongside goods, services, and damned capital.
Nick Griffin addresses EU Parliament, calling to account criminals behind EU immigration policy and their deceptive terms:
Posted by DanielS on Friday, March 14, 2014 at 11:29 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, British Politics, Demographics, European Nationalism, European Union, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Law
This little video shows Italian police removing their helmets in solidarity with what appears to be an Anonymous protest, but is wider than that. One of the posters on the YouTube page explains:
People are stirring everywhere.
Tens of thousands of people in Poland have been taking to the streets, in freezing weather, to protest the government being open to the enforcement of ACTA (ACTA = Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), which is administered by an international body outside local jurisdiction. It has been noted that the real reason for ACTA (also the Trans-Pacific Partnership; SOPA and PIPA) is an attempt to control the dissemination of information, not the superficial issue of violation of copyright.
It was recently noted that Europeans will be increasingly experiencing what the Third World has to experience when bankers start enforcing austerity measures because Europeans governments borrow money from bankers, at interest, money that the bankers create out of thin air. Here are recent mass protests against austerity measures (more taxes, less benefits, increase in retirement age, etc.) in Belgium that shut down large parts of her.
Well, I didn’t expect it. Like most people, I think, I had David Cameron down as electable Mr Bland, a wax-work dummy from Madame Tussauds carefully placed in the leadership of the Conservative Party to follow the internationalist, neoliberal script. And perhaps he would have done so, turning his back on national interest as every other British Prime Minister has, finally, over the last thirty-five years. But, it seems, Sarko and his mandarins, possessed as they are of a vision for Europe on a Napoleonic scale and a horrible suspicion that Anglo-Saxon skulduggery is undermining it, made it impossible for him, wearing the colours of Arch-Defender of Financial Services, to sign on fiscal Europe’s bottom line.
Now we have a situation where seventeen eurozone states and nine EU member but non-eurozone states are going to make lovebird sounds to another, while totally ignoring the will of their respective peoples. One other state is, as they say, “isolated”, though it is a rather smug and relieved isolation at the moment. If Cameron calls a snap election now, or if the LibDems collapse the coalition (which they can’t, of course), he would scoot home. Even with all the austerity.
But ... what does it all mean from a nationalist perspective? Has anything changed for us? Well, two things for starters.
First, the definition of a Eurosceptic has been expanded. Cameron’s veto has made the beast mainstream. Meanwhile, the ante has been vertiginously upped for supporters of joining the Euro. The old argument about being at “the heart of Europe” to protect our interests is defunct – we are not going to be at the heart of Europe ever again. Now Europhiles have to argue that agreeing to German oversight of UK taxation and spending policy and practise would be in the national interest.
Cameron’s veto will have an immediate effect on UKIP and on British nationalism, forcing a focus on the perfect nonsense of belonging to a club of 27 which 26 have left, and the half-life Britain will now increasingly inherit as the 26 develop their union. The argument for independence therefore becomes one of re-definition and regularisation. It has lost much of its power.
Second, notwithstanding our signature to the existing EU treaties (including Lisbon which effectively abolishes the nation state) the intergovernmental process of de-sovereignisation has come to a screeching halt for Britain. The sole remaining interests for the British government in the EU are the preservation of (i) the Single Market and (ii) the unregulated status of the City of London. The project has now become a neoliberal one, not an internationalist one, and that will require a more nuanced critique from nationalists.
In this respect globalisation presents a particular challenge. It continues to exercise its baleful influence upon us and to be fully supported by the political mainstream. But it is nebulous, and the power of corporations does not pack the same punch as a political target as the power of Brussels.
A lot has changed today. We do not yet know how all the pieces will fall finally. But nationalism didn’t make much impact when the ideological times were good. They just got tougher, and I am none too confident that we can rise to the challenge.
As conceived by Guardianoid.
The last, volatile twenty-four hours on the trading floors and in the political councils have confirmed for anyone interested in knowing the fact (and many are determined not to know it) that political internationalism is in deep trouble. The European political class appears to be unable to do any more than kick the can down the road. We are probably still two months away from knowing for sure whether any kind of definitive package can be put in place to prevent the Greek government defaulting on debt repayment, or whether such a default would necessarily drag in Portugal, and Portugal Spain.
The Euro could not survive such an eventuality, and the European process could not survive the loss of the Euro. It’s something Eurosceptics knew about from the outset, of course, and have been telling the world ever since. But notwithstanding its predictive power and support among the voters, Euroscepticism remains a minority interest at the top of the main parties, in governments and government departments and, inevitably, in the European nomenclature. It is a political conviction fatally divorced from office.
There ought to be an opportunity here for political nationalism. This is the time to talk about economics. So what would a nationalist economic policy look like in these times? I’ve been posting the following list, or parts thereof, on various UK national daily threads, just to introduce a few people to the kind of revolutionary ideas that nationalists ought to be exploring. I’m not sure that any nationalist party could seriously propose very much of it at this stage. It’s more than a wish-list, though. The components hang together, and a successful overthrow of the Money Power is the only basis on which our racial goals can be achieved.
A post I put up earlier today on the BNP Section of British Democracy Forum.
Peter Oborne redeemed his reputation somewhat in his piece in the Telegraph today on yesterday’s fateful step towards fiscal union in the eurozone. (By redeemed, I mean one might perhaps now look past what he thinks about the soon-to-be-fired Baroness Warsi and Islamophobia.)
Because his take on the future for the EU is very clear-sighted indeed and undoubtedly accurate:
It is good to see Fred’s wee linguistic invention spreading its shocking-fascist tentacles even unto the very heart of European political fishiness.
A translation by Fred Scrooby
THERE’S NO LACK OF RATIONAL ARGUMENTS FOR DRAWING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ANKARA’S CANDIDACY
Today I close the dossier on the Turkish question, my small book, a little heavier than anticipated.
As I write this, intending to get it finished, seemingly unbeknown to the Europeans important changes are shaking up debate in Turkey itself. Involved are probably real developments, in part. The current majority party, AKP, and the alliance of forces which it represents, are making their moves for essentially national reasons. But the program for reform was developed at the end of June with the candidacy for membership in the European Union explicitly in mind, with a view to making it presentable. This was repeated by Prime Minister Erdogan and Abdullah Gül, President of Turkey.
Thus did we see a diplomatic offensive aimed at the Armenians, promising them the future reopening of a border whose shutting has completely closed off their country. There’s been vague talk of normalizing the status of religious minorities (the latter are so small in number, one wonders how they could possibly be a threat to touchy Turkish Jacobinism) — thus are their representatives taken hostage to use as agents of Turkish diplomacy, in the tradition of totalitarian countries.
The most important advance is said to have been proposed to the Kurds. After the head of government had received certain Kurdish leaders, from August 25 to September 22 there is said to have been considerable antagonism between the political leaders and the Chief of Staff of the Turkish Army, General Basbug. In August Gen. Basbug had stated that the Army could not accept, and would therefore oppose, any plan that was in violation of Article 3 of the Constitution which declared that Turkey was a single and indivisible state and its language was Turkish. The Kemalist and nationalist opposition joined in chorus to decry government betrayal. There could be no clearer threat of a coup d’état as has been a recurrent event in this country’s political life since the 1946 adoption of democratic pluralism.
By David Hamilton
The media are part of the ideological caste and, unless they are brave or honourable, keep “sensitive” issues from the public or present them in a way favourable to the elites. The highest sensitivity is reserved for race, then gender and sexual orientation. The EU promotes this ideology. The news reporting is managed, and EU and UN schemes to discriminate against whites are kept from the public. People cannot revolt against something if they do not know it is happening. So what is really happening?
Throughout Europe there is a developing war on the streets for possession of the continent. This is mainly aimed at us European people but anti-Semitism is coming back too.
British Muslims are not only burrowing into our institutions and undermining them from within, they are beginning a war in the UK AND they are fighting against our troops in Afghanistan. EU rulers know this but still encourage immigration to build up their numbers.
How realistic is the New World Order: or is Globalisation beneficial? In an outstanding article of 30 Jan 2009, Patrick J.Buchanan talked of the Globalist fantasy and what is really happening:-
By David Hamilton
1. A WELCOME FOR IMMIGRANTS AND FOR ISLAM
In a question and answer session with a group European journalists, and published in November 2008 by French magazine Café Babel, European Commissioner Jaques Barrot (mail him here) lifted the veil on the secret machinations of the EU rulers and their real views on Islam and mass immigration, and how they are trying to destroy Europe.
2. THE OBLIGATION TO INTER-BREED WITH BLACKS AND BROWNS
Every few days I pay a call to EU Commissioner Margot Wallstrom’s blog, mostly to enjoy whatever shouting match between the ‘philes and ‘sceptics has broken out. Margot, a Swedish lefty, is Vice President in charge of Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy, and one of only two Commissioners brave enough to operate a comment blog (the other is Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas).
Margot’s latest post is headed Irish referendum result, and dated yesterday. In it she blithely informs us that the outcome of last week’s referendum:-
This is pretty telling. She burbles away for a bit, and then delivers herself of this observation:-
Strip away the EU politician’s reluctance to speak plainly, apply a cold douche of cynicism, and what we have here is a plainly stated intention to buy the Irish public off and make them vote again.
As the story develops, a lot of people are going to get very angry. Bruno Waterfield, in the Telegraph gets their first:-
stitching-up will now follow, leading to a lengthy sell to the Irish public in advance of the second ballot in September or so.
How will it go down? That’s the question. Will the numbers accepting the bribe outweigh those angered by the sheer bloody arrogance of the EU oligarchy?
I rather suspect they will.
Maggie Thatcher said it of the Poles back in the late 80s: “When people are free to choose, they choose freedom.”
Alone in the EU, the Irish people had the constitutional right to choose whether to acquiesce in the drive to a European superstate or to make a stand against it. Just as they did seven years ago in the first of their two votes on the Nice Treaty, they have made their stand. Declan Ganley and his rag-tag assortment of no-sayers, including Sinn Fein, have won. The political, business and media elites of Ireland have been humiliated.
The European elites, meanwhile, have received a resounding slap in the face. The very manipulations they made to render the Treaty impossible to read for anyone other than a constitutional lawyer have backfired on them. Many sturdy voters said they would not endorse a Treaty the meaning of which they did not understand.
Now the elites have a thorny problem. Despite the speculation that they would simply forge ahead and ratify the Treaty without Ireland, they cannot legally do so. No member state can ratify the Treaty unless all 27 do.
Will we see a repeat of the Nice “solution” when the Irish electorate was bought off, and an initial vote of 54% to 46% in favour of the No Campaign was turned into a 63% to 37% triumph for the Yes men? The voting split yesterday was about the same 54% to 46%, so opt-outs on sensitive issues such as business tax harmonisation and abortion rights may well be in the offing. It pays to be cynical about anything to do with EU integration. But it will take an awfully shameless Irish politician to force the electorate back into the voting booths this time?
In any case, the elites’ response is for tomorrow. Today we raise a glass to the health and good sense of the Irish.
Today I came across a video slice of a Henry Kissinger interview about the troubled and troubling process of European integration. The interview was conducted by Peter Robinson for National Review Online, and it’s dated 22nd April 2008.
Kissinger was an academic connected to the Council on Foreign Relations in the late 1950s while the Treaty of Rome was being planned. His specialism was security, with reference to nuclear weapons. Obviously, one of the major strands in the European project was the prevention of a third 20th Century war, so he may well have contributed to the CFR’s adumbrations on the subject, and the somewhat royal “We” he employs in the interview is more than likely justified.
In any event, at one minute in, the old thaumaturge relieves himself of the following remark:-
Next Thursday 12th June, the Irish electorate will go to the polls as the only member nation of the EU to vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Last week the Irish Times published an opinion poll which showed the swashbuckling “No” Campaign ahead for the first time:-
35% No (up 17%)
The Eurosceptic UK national dailies have been banging on today about Gordon Brown signing away our control of immigration. “Buried in the Treaty’s small print is a ruling that gives new rights to EU leaders to overturn decisions made by Britain’s Immigration and Asylum Tribunal,” claims the Daily Mail.
Here, drawn from the Draft Treaty dated 3rd December 2007 (pdf) are the significant references to immigration:-
And from the Protocols section:
There follow some abstruse substitutions in former treaties, the meaning of which is totally open-ended from our lay perspective.
It is, I think, clear both that the competence of the European Court of Human Rights has been extended to immigration and asylum, and the common policies which will flow from the Treaty will supercede member countries’ immigration and asylum laws. The usual rain of Brussels directives will fall upon this new ground.
One should not be surprised. The elite cult of internationalism abhors nation - and nationalism, of course. Europe’s nations are not intended to survive. It is not too dramatic to say the same for Europe’s peoples.
Economic integration, no less.
The “neighbours” committed to common values with, of course, no dividing lines include Algeria, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine Authority, Syria and Tunisia, as well as a clutch of eastern European or at least Christian countries. Each is allotted an ENP Action Plan that sets out how “cooperation” - meaning mutual manipulation - can be pursued. To be honest, I cannot see what priceless gifts are to be mined from the Islamically-inclined on the list - nothing yet from some of them because they are still to be inducted into the cooperation process. But Israel is past all that, of course, and is already making good use of the bureaucratic channels open to it. And guess what:-
The European Defence Agency employs a number of analysts whose function is “long vision” - looking into the future of Europe from a defence perspective. The IHR circularised this summary by EU Business of one of these guys’ reports.
There’s nothing in the demographic aspects of it that aren’t familiar fare to MR readers. But, of course, the EDA reports directly to the highest echelons of European political life. EU Business, meanwhile, is well-read by corporate and financial Europe.
These two sectors - fundamentally, the European political Establishment and European finance and capital - don’t get their opinion from VDare or Amren. But they are getting the raw facts. What they make of them, however, is another matter.
Here’s the first half of the text from the EU Business article:-
I am posting Martin Hutchinson’s latest Bear’s Lair piece, which addresses what, currently, is the hottest European potato: the conflict between the grand ambition of EU enlargement and the practical difficulties it poses. It is dated today, 2nd October, and is published on the Prudent Bear website.
The political arguments for and against EU expansion are clear. On the one hand, the EU wants to take in its poorer neighbors, to include them in a greater European federation that can pull its weight in world affairs and produce prosperity for its people. On the other hand, as the EU goes further East and South, it comes to countries which are either exceedingly poor (hence possibly a burden on EU social funds and other programs) or culturally sufficiently different from the European majority (for example, primarily Moslem) that their assimilation might prove difficult. There is no hard dividing line – Bosnia is a Moslem country that is historically well within the European heartland, while Armenia is a Christian country whose history has little connection with Western Europe. Nevertheless it’s clear that politically, while the absorption of culturally close entities such as East Germany and Hungary was supported by the great majority of EU citizens, expansion beyond the European heartland poses progressively more difficult problems.
Spring seems to exercise a quite remarkable effect on European politicos and bureaucrats. Perhaps it’s a rare form of hay fever, perhaps some kind of atonement for our disgraceful victory at Trafalgar, but every time round about now we get the latest example of EU brazenness and the British government’s craven cowardice.
First look at this .
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa