In response to “Flippityfloppity’s” concern regarding definitions
I may have deserved a barb for being a little hypocritically amenable to Anthony’s proposal that Christianity can serve an important constructive function in organizing a guiding and spiritual light for Whites. I was a bit too agreeable perhaps because I like the rest of what he says well enough. Though his including Buddha and Lao Tze into the mix would indicate that he can reach accord with people like me for whom race serves as the organizing spirit and transcendent, religious factor (our legacy being the hereafter). That is probably why I appeared to flip flop a little to accommodate him.
However, introducing Christianity into the mix, with its propensity for a myriad of definitions, including liberal and universal, non-accountability thereof, is problematic.
Regarding definitions, I do not flip flop. But people, including WN, do, especially between definitions of “Left and Liberal.” Basically because they are following an “official” (i.e., convenient to Jews) definition of “the left”, which fluctuates between being liberal and open to all; or specifically open to unions of non-Whites or unions of people with problems; imposed in special admission, inclusion and integration upon Whites under the guise of equality and undoing exploitation.
The chief reason why people might use The Left defined as such is because that definition has gained wide currency as the Jews have largely defined and promulgated the term through academia and the media – that being a confused definition promoted by Jews precisely because it is confusing and because it altercasts us as rightists (who are not necessarily against imposed liberalism, just against “equality” - great, we are accepting the definition of ourselves as elitist pigs, but open to others if they are “better”). The acceptance of this definition and its flip flop between left and liberal is exemplified by the way that the Political Cesspool (among others accepting the definitions, themselves as right, their opponents as left) will flip flop between saying “the left and liberal” in the same broadcast.
Those who accept the rightist altercast and endeavor its position are to blame as much if not more than Jews for enforcing the idea that leftism and liberalism is all about “equality.” That is even worse theoretically than it is descriptively. For as White Leftists, we would be basing discrimination mostly on an assortment and disbursing of qualitative differences, which would be a symbiotic, largely non conflictual basis; not subject to the false comparison that lends to conflict as the phoney “equality non equality” issue engenders. Equality/non-equality is neither sufficiently descriptive or prescriptive - unless, perhaps, you want to instigate what is likely to turn out to be mutually destructive conflict.
We might stay with the confused definition of The Left - as liberalism, advocacy of non-Whites, their equality and imposition on Whites because it has had currency through Jewish media. Then oppose that for obvious reasons, as has been the strategy of almost all WN. However, staying with that definition, just because it has wide currency - despite the fact that it is a disingenuous and confusing definition promulgated by Jews (for the reason that it is confusing and disingenuous as they want us to be “rightists”, to scare people, our own included) and turn people off, our own included, as such, by reflecting that disingen -uousness and confusion through disorganization and denial of accountability - is neither sufficient reason nor compensation for the price paid. It is like saying we should continue to trade in currency that makes Jews wealthy and destroys us. It is counterfeit currency (definition) aimed to circulate to our confusion and detriment.
It is obvious enough that plutocratic, traitorous and well, elitist pigs of any stripe, will conveniently cite “The left” as the great enemy.
I believe you make a good point, that we probably should nail down some definitions and try to make them stick, as best we can, at least here at MR. One trick will be getting people to do this despite me – so that they will not refuse to do it just to spite yours truly. That can be a problem because I am not always most tactful. I understand this motivation to not be ego bullied (for example, I would not use the prefix “Zio” or “Jewish supremacist” in part because Duke proposes it, in addition to the fact that I don’t like the sound). Nevertheless, I maintain that the aim here is not about ego but theoretical accuracy, viz. theory which serves White interests. I do use the following terms consistently and they continue to make perfect sense – that is why I “stubbornly” continue to do so.
These proposed definitions are holding up, making consistent sense of pro and anti White alike.
We must not be so averse to terms and concepts Jews have abused as to fall into the trap of their being didactic as the Jews may want, for us to rebel against what is good for us. This has happened with social constructionism and hermeneutics for example. To where even the Heideggerian notion of hermeneutics would be looked upon as Jewish and Marxist, such that we would not admit of that part of the non-Cartesian process which provides orientation on scientific focus, to allow for that tad of narrative speculation of the not-at-all-times-observable social classificatory boundary of the European biological system and its history (to allow for Heidegger’s admission of the form of the people as necessary as well, an observation by GW that I had missed).
The White Left as:
A social classification and classifying of a people (specifically native European people), legitimizing unionized discrimination against outsiders; accountability to those within; both in positive return on effort and what is brought historically; and in a negative sense against those would-be facilitators of “scabbing” and those elites who might betray the class. This would be in contrast to leftist classification and advocacy of other groups; and certainly in contrast to our universal obligation to include in (our) vital resources (esp. genetic) just anyone who appears to be down-trodden or desirous of entry, including those outside the socially delimited group. This is discrimination against individuals of classifications based on warranted prejudice of the pattern of which they are a part. The White Left would take the White Class as synonymous with the distinct genus of the native European race and its distinct sub-classifications. It is a social taxonomic classifying necessary to accountability and human ecology.
It focuses on qualitative and symbiotic differences while keeping to a minimum false, quantitative comparisons (as opposed to equality/non equality it focuses more on qualitative sameness or difference).
It is decidedly not against private property (may in fact work with the land tax / exemption scheme laid-out by Bowery)
It does not aspire to equal wealth (there can be some people who are significantly more wealthy than others), but does strive after some balance, a middle class and shared leverage on some basic necessities. The point is that the boundaries are maintained. More or less socialism or free enterprise can be flexible according to the particular state.
As a rule, it applies the silver rule to out-groups as opposed to the golden rule.
Thus, it is in contrast to liberalism as applied to non-Whites, which is what racialists normally mean when they say, “the left.”
Beliefs and practices which intimate and can ultimately deviate and rupture reconstruction of the systemic biological pattern, accountable social classifications.
Designating, classifying a social group as a race (a species of people distinctly evolved to circumstances and practices in history, who have discernibly more genetic similarity to themselves than to other human groups) and discriminating accordingly. It is a motivation to separatism, not elitism, exploitation and persecution. This separatist discriminatory motive is more than generally advisable, it is necessary for accountability, human ecology and biodiversity.
The coercive prohibition against classifying people (could be even non-racial classifications) and discrimination accordingly. The coercive imposition of one people upon another, the denial of their freedom of and from association.
As they are defined here, they even make sense of how other people bungle these terms.
This issue probably is worth this main post, as trade in the currency of these terms defined in this way would help a great deal to achieve clarity and direction. These definitions make consistent sense of organizing our people, their requirements and problems.
In my next post, I will attempt to show how modernity, as a pejorative term, does not contradict but contributes to the articulation of what Bowery sees as negative in his definition of “civilization.”
In that regard I would point them to Harré‘s suggestion that there are two vital aspects to self, and thus to authentic self and individuality, which are 1, the corporeal, embodied, genetic self, having biological requirements, potentials and limits (which you three are concerned to approximate in description of its authentic functioning as closely as possible, un-borrowed from non-native influence) and 2, a narrative self, which is crucial for the matter of coherence, orientation, connection with the systemic whole and history. Now, that narrative self can deviate, even terribly, from the authentic biological interests of the self and system. It is obviously better if it accords well with our biological interests and historical form. I believe the Jewish abuse of hermeneutics is why GW has been a bit averse, and surprisingly, as it is one necessary side of a would-be Heideggerian, hermeneutic process; but then, even MacDonald was averse, apparently for the same reason of Jews having made it didactic.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, June 22, 2014 at 06:26 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Christianity, Conservatism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Linguistics, White Nationalism
Paul Weston has been arrested for reciting a speech by Churchill, the one about Muslims.
Weston on preventing White genocide and implications of Muslim population explosion in Britain and other European nations:
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, April 27, 2014 at 07:39 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, British Politics, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, Free Speech, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Islam & Islamification, Law, White Genocide: Europe
It’s all rather reminiscent of those far-off days when a constituent of Enoch Powell was talking about the black man having the whip hand over the white man. Indeed, on the second of those two Telegraph pieces (both with comments open, which was odd) somebody helpfully posted the video of David Frost’s hour-long interview - cross-examination, really - of the great man in which that very matter is explored. Frost considered it risible that Powell could consider such an event remotely possible. Now we know better. But in 1969 the liberal classes were only just learning how to impose their value system on the rest of us:
Their great fear was that speaking too truly and, certainly, too plainly might “stir up racial hatred” among the English. The African and Asian colonisations must not be thought about too much because “hate” would be worse by orders of magnitude than anything else that could possibly happen.
Things haven’t changed much. The same shallow attitudes prevail. The liberal-left still thinks that “immigration” takes place in a consequential vacuum while dissent among the natives indicates the presence of “hate” - obviously, an irredeemably shocking and just not liberal state of affairs. This, of course, is a deeply irrational point of view. It is emotionally rooted. It is faux-moralistic. It does not respond in any way to facts or to reasoned argument. I know from personal experience in the thread-war that it does not respond to proofs of liberal guilt or even total humiliation. Nothing seems to touch it. What, then, will? What, if anything, are we missing?
The second instalment of my latest never-to-be-pursued novel, for anyone who remembers the first.
Ricky Kellogg was a man on a mission. At twenty-five, he was the youngest sub working on The Guardian on-line edition. He wasn’t proud of the fact. Coining google-friendly headlines and standfirsts and saving ungrateful colleagues from their own laziness and illiteracy was not exactly how he had imagined spending his working day at this point in his glittering career.
In fact, he had only been in the role for three months. Career-wise, it might as well have been a retirement home. What he wanted, what he never tired of telling his editor-in-chief Miles Waldron, or anyone else who would listen, was a move back to investigative journalism on the print edition.
That had always been the plan. That was why, as a sixteen year old fresh out of school, he had worked so hard to find a job – any job, just to get into the industry. It was why he had done the same to get himself on the staff of a national. But here he was, a fully-fledged, London-based pro with a good nose and some hardcore contacts in the right places. When they finally started chasing internships, the middle-class boys and girls who had drifted through their gap year and a degree in Journalism or Politics & Economics, followed by an MA, were miffed to find that clever Ricky had been in paid employment all along and was burning up the word-strip ahead of them. Or would be if he hadn’t been diverted into subbing.
“Look, Ricky,” Waldron would explain with his customary patience and kindness, “you have to see this job as an opportunity, not a punishment. It will give you the disciplined, methodical approach you need, and real insight into the digital and professional challenges of the job. It will make you a better journalist. Knuckle down for a year or so. Make the most of what it has to offer. Then we can talk about where you go from there.”
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
The first chapter of another of my books that will never be written. A fiction today. But one hopes that one day the important parts of it will be fact.
“The Court will hear your opening statement if you please, Mr Truscott-Brown,” announced the presiding chief justice in perfectly fluent but by no means native English. For that was to be the only language spoken in the room during the next three days. No translators would be whispering into microphones, no one in Court would be hurriedly adjusting his or her earpiece to catch some mangled phrase. This was an entirely English, or British, affair except that it was taking place at the Hague before one judge from Alsace, another from Heidelberg, and a third from Uppsala, all of whom had forgone the privilege of hearing the proceedings in their native tongue.
“Thank you, your Honour,” came the reply in ringing received pronunciation. George Truscott-Brown QC OBE, lead advocate for the plaintiff, eternal renegade and inveterate fighter of lost causes, peered over his glasses at the unknown quantity which was the bench. He steadied himself inwardly and, with a final, ever so slightly uncertain pat of the neat rectangle of papers on the table in front of him, began his work for the day.
“Learned judges will be fully aware that this is a complex and, in some quarters, controversial action which presents a number of tests for the 1948 Convention. If the plaintiff is successful at this review, a subsequent plenary hearing may set precedent in several areas of high significance for the jurisdiction and practise of the ICC and to future interpretation of Article 2.
“Mindful, therefore, of the profound responsibility which would weigh upon the trial judges, it is our intention, at the kind invitation of the Office of the Prosecutor, to present you with the greatest possible wealth of evidence and legal argument within the time available to us. It is our firm belief that all of the former will be ruled admissable and the latter applicable, and that your Honours will be led to the only possible conclusion that the Court must grant the Prosecutor leave to investigate the complicity of those individuals named in the Court papers.”
Paul Weston’s blog: http://paulweston101.blogspot.co.uk/
Liberty GB: http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/
Hat-tip to Morgoth
We are down to 80/20 per cent. But read on.
■ White was the majority ethnic group at 48.2 million in 2011 (86.0 per cent). Within this ethnic group, White British1 was the largest group at 45.1 million (80.5 per cent).
■ The White ethnic group accounted for 86.0 per cent of the usual resident population in 2011, a decrease from 91.3 per cent in 2001 and 94.1 per cent in 1991.
■ White British and White Irish decreased between 2001 and 2011. The remaining ethnic groups increased, Any Other White background had the largest increase of 1.1 million (1.8 percentage points).
■ Across the English regions and Wales, London was the most ethnically diverse area, and Wales the least.
■ 91.0 per cent of the usual resident population identified with at least one UK national identity (English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, and British) in 2011.
■ The number of residents who stated that their religion was Christian in 2011 was fewer than in 2001. The size of this group decreased 13 percentage points to 59 per cent (33.2 million) in 2011 from 72 per cent (37.3 million) in 2001. The size of the group who stated that they had no religious affiliation increased by 10 percentage points from 15 per cent (7.7 million) in 2001 to 25 per cent (14.1 million) in 2011.
■ Most residents of England and Wales belonged to the White ethnic group (86 per cent, 48.2 million) in 2011, and the majority of these belonged to the White British group (80 per cent of the total population, 45.1 million). In London in 2011, 45 per cent (3.7 million) out of 8.2 million usual residents were White British.
■ Twelve per cent (2.0 million) of households with at least two people had partners or household members of different ethnic groups in 2011, a three percentage point increase on 2001 (nine per cent, 1.4 million).
■ Of the 13 per cent (7.5 million) of residents of England and Wales on 27 March 2011 who were born outside of the UK, just over half (3.8 million) arrived in the last 10 years.
■ Nearly 4.8 million residents held a non-UK passport that was either an EU passport (2.3 million) or a foreign passport (2.4 million).
The full ONS report on ethnicity is here (pdf).
One quote from that report:
Well, the population of England given in the Census is 53 million (Wales 3.1 million). On that basis we were actually at 61% in March 2011. But that is very unlikely to include a satisfactory total for illegals or for legal, non-white non-respondees to the Census.
We will minoritise within a decade by a strict reading (ie, excluding Scots, Welsh, N.Irish, and Irish admixtures as fully English).
I received a mail this morning from one Friendrick requesting a “position statement” on the argument for the dissolution of white America presented by the science correspondent of Reason Magazine, Ronald Bailey. Bailey has a pretty impressive CV, and obviously considers himself expert in matters of ethics as well as science. But he is also a liberal, and the argument he has written is a wholly liberal argument, not an ethical or scientific one.
It is an argument relying on a particular reading of 20th century American immigration history. Its principal thrust is that the definition of white America already expanded from “Nordic” during the 20th century, and will continue to expand in the 21st to include Hispanics (he means Mestizos). Obviously, one could respond to this in equally historical terms, standing on the ground of the righteous white American deploring the effects of that expansion. But that’s not intellectually aggressive enough, I feel. One has to get at the faux-virtue of liberal principle and undo it by more powerful ethical arguments.
Bailey’s guiding principle is tolerance ad infinitum in the face of coercive change, and the “good” that diversity does to expand said tolerance. It is the job of white America to deracinate to be tolerant. Bailey writes of “the ever-broadening inclusive tolerance of the American social project” without ever stopping to consider whether peoples and races have the right to life, or the right to express their own interests, or the right of consent, or the right to self-defence, or whether it is intolerant to deny such rights solely in respect to one people and one race. In the politics of the unfettered will such ethical considerations are assiduously ignored or, if they can’t be ignored, hurriedly buried beneath a flurry of weak and easily rebutted arguments.
I have responded to Friendrick’s invitation by visiting Reason and the thread to Mr Bailey’s article, and posting what is, I hope, a suitable ethical and even scientific argument. Whether it qualifies as a position statement I don’t know. But it will be interesting to see if any advocate of endless tolerance can undermine its position.
I doubt it somehow.
My reply is reproduced below the fold.
It was claimed that the devastation of the Third World by bankers creates plenty of would-be economic immigrants. The retort was that this is a Judeo-Marxist canard used to induce ‘white guilt’ and justify various ‘aid’ and ‘refugee’ programs. The retort added that parts of Africa in 1812 had yet to see the wheel, the implication being that Third world nations have been built or economically enhanced by the West. The retort also blames slaughters and devastation in the Third World on their natives alone.
Let’s see. Civilization shouldn’t be confused with economic security. An isolated hunter-gatherer tribe living in a jungle typically has sufficient food to eat, clothing and living structures; they are willing and able to provide for themselves. Whereas in a modern civilization such as the U.S., tens of millions are unable to provide food for themselves, in spite of being willing and able to work, and must depend on government handouts such as food stamps, and there are millions of homeless people.
The reason for the economic problems of Western nations is that malicious bankers issue and control money, which is also the case for nearly all Third World nations. So how does the Third world fare under banker control?
For a while now, this is how the international bankers have dealt with the Third World [some things apply to some Western nations also]:
Naturally, Third World nations will experience significant emigration pressures. Residents of some European nations will better understand what the Third World experiences when austerirty measures in their nations become more severe to pay the interests on loans they need from banks.
As of now, people are rioting over gas prices in Nigeria, but before one brings in the violence proneness of blacks, take a guess at what’s caused the rise and toward which purpose. One has to wonder how many other instances of rioting in Third World nations have their root cause in what the international bankers do, not in violence that would occur no matter what. These international bankers are behind numerous wars in the Western hemisphere, and they surely haven’t left the Third world in peace.
Notice that some black African nations are resource-rich but the masses live in poverty. Is this due to the corruption of their elite? They have corrupt elite, but if this were the reason, there would be lots of black billionaires [U.S. dollars] in some African nations, whereas the natural resource-related wealth is siphoned out by the international bankers, in the manner detailed above, and scraps, in comparison, are given to the corrupt elite.
People complain about me focusing on money and the community disproportionately controlling it when there are serious immigration issues to be discussed, but what’s causing the immigration issues? It takes more than merely opening Western borders to immigrants; Third Worlders need an incentive to emigrate en masse, too.
Will the masses be willing to go to a land far, far away where people speak a different language and have a very different culture if the masses have a reasonable income/sustenance where they live, and live in a relatively peaceful society? Will the masses be willing to give up the security of their existence for discordance, learning and re-learning skills in a foreign nation and the uncertainty of having a similar level of economic security there? These are important questions to reflect on. A desire to emigrate will be true of some individuals, but not the masses if there’s basic economic security [food, shelter, clothing, base medical facilities] and no warfare or civil strife.
But economic devastation provides a strong incentive for mass emigration pressure in the Third World. And thus we have the demand and supply of contemporary mass immigration into Western nations:
So is it wise to complain about immigration levels and focus on blacks, Hispanics, Muslims----like Amren, Vdare, the masses of the “alternative right” or “Third position” crowds----or is it wise to aim for the root cause, which lies in malicious bankers controlling the money supply? And is it wise to just focus on the money issue or also expose some of the other major crimes of these people, such as 9/11? They bring in all these immigrants to undermine ethnic cohesion in the West. Complaining about immigration doesn’t help and exacerbates division. But the money issue and 9/11 are of universal significance and unite the divided against the bankers. And some people complain of conspiracy and detraction from the important issues, such as immigration and multiculturalism, when 9/11 is brought up!
A Pee-Cee news report, with comments switched off, is here.
So reads the immigration e-petition posted on the Downing Street petitions site by Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch. It is doing a brisk trade. Only two petitions so far have scraped together the 100,000 signatures that triggers a House of Commons debate. The government allows a full year for this total to be reached. The immigration petition did it inside a week.
Of course, it’s weak tea stuff. Sir Andrew is involved in the balanced migration campaign, which only seeks to match immigration numbers with those emigrating. But it’s a start, and the explosive success of the e-petition is not an endorsement for balanced migration.
Some time in the next two years the government will have to make time for a debate on the 70 million issue. The debate itself will be no less controlled than the EU debate of a few days ago. Nothing will come of it. It is inconceivable that there will be another large-scale rebellion among Tory MPs. But the petition could easily be several hundred signatures strong by then. It will feel very lonely in the “we love migrants” camp.
I have signed the petition. Every loyal Brit should do so.
Next stop Cool Britannia?
This piece in Saturday’s Daily Mail could not be allowed to pass without comment here, even at the very real risk of re-igniting the Cock-up or Conspiracy debate that inflamed passions around these parts not so long ago. Has there been a single confirmed Scrooby sighting since?
While the Mail article succeeds in its obvious aim of getting the readers stoked up (almost 600 overwhelmingly hostile comments so far) it fails to add any real context or search for greater meaning, taking the opportunity to slag off Tony Blair being apparently an end in itself.
But, we perhaps we need to probe a little deeper ...
Ultra-social conservative crypto-something Laban Tall blogs on the riots in France:
You’ve got to love those quotes around youths. Laban is criticizing the beeb for leaving out the criminals’ ethnicity, while avoiding mentioning it himself. Well, I’ll say it: they are Muslims, which means Turks or Arabs in France (or just possibly Pakistanis). Members not just of more or less the same religion, but also of more or less the same genotype.
I was fourteen years old at the end of July in 1966 when, with my parents, I took my seat at Wembley Stadium to watch England win the World Cup for the one and only time. I’ve seen the match and, especially, the goal replays on TV so many times since, most of my memories of the actual game have been blotted out. But one memory that survives is driving away from the ground afterwards with the team page from the Daily Express’s World Cup Final Special pressed against a rear window of the car, so the residents of north London would get the message, if they had not already done so.
Without ever considering the fact, of course, I had just witnessed twenty-two white men playing football in front of 94,000 white spectators, and now we were edging through the traffic in a Wembley populated by, as far as I recall, white people, my people. To the south-west, in Greenford and in Southall, there was an enclave of Indian immigrants, to be sure. But Wembley was still ours, and there seemed no reason to think it would ever be otherwise.
That was four decades ago. Here is the situation today as explained, partially anyway, by Andrew Neather and recorded for us by the South Wales BNP activist Roger Phillips:
The video is on the BNP’s website. A long thread is already appended, with comments like: “Slough is exactly the same, Reading and Maidenhead are due to follow” ... “And its exactly the same in South London, e.g Balham, Tooting, Lewisham, right through to Bow, Leyton and Walthamstow in East London” ... “Bradford Dewsbury large parts of Leeds…the list goes on” ... “We have two areas, here in Glasgow, called Govanhill and Pollokshields, both predominately Muslim, so much so, that it is unsafe to be there after a certain time of night.”
About Wembley and, more generally, London, one BNP member notes:
And what should be the proper response to this political crime? Well, possibly not the BNP’s realpolitik. First, for me, mourning for what has been done to our people and our land. Second, a deep, cold anger that nothing can placate. Third, an unbending determination to undo it all - absolutely all of it, so that nothing, no detail however small, will speak treachery to posterity. Not the people who did this to us, not any part of the political structure they created, not the human tools they employed ... none of it must remain in place. This isn’t simply about our genetic continuity. This is about the completeness of our political victory, too.
UPDATE - 4th November 2009
Surely, Herr Kramer has also spotted the subtle variation on the Kühnen-Gruß:
I’ve had this piece on the back burner for a little while now, waiting for the main protagonist to re-surface and provide a little topical interest. However, except for a cameo appearance on BBC Radio 4 earlier this month Philippe Legrain appears to have gone incommunicado. It seems he’s writing a new book, supposedly nothing to do with immigration this time, so there wouldn’t seem to be reason to dilly-dally any further.
According to the liner notes of his 2006 book Immigrants – Your Country Needs Them, Legrain is “… a British economist, journalist and writer. Previously trade and economics correspondent for the Economist and special adviser to the director-general of the WTO, he is the author of Open World: The Truth About Globalization, and has written for the Financial Times, the New Republic, and Foreign Policy, among other publications.”
His website and blog provide further biographical detail (although Legrain has a British passport, that appears to be his only claim to any local connection), as well as links to his many articles and media appearances, and is well worth spending some time there to get a clearer understanding of the way which the argument for ‘Open Borders’ (a euphemism for mass immigration from the Third World) is mutating and is becoming reconfigured in response to recent (successful) efforts to refute government propaganda about the economic benefits of immigration, as well as the new economic realities which are not conducive, to say the least, to arguments calling for further mass immigration for labour purposes.
The rate at which Legrain’s argument for mass immigration is mutating is quite apparent from the change of emphasis now evident in his writings and speaking compared to when he was framing his Open Borders case for his book. In the book – published little more than two years ago – Legrain focuses largely on the economic arguments pro and contra, such that the US edition carries the following tribute from the Economist on its front cover: “Mr. Legrain has assembled powerful evidence to undermine the economic arguments against immigration.” In the aftermath of the Lords Committee report which fatally torpedoes those arguments [see below] that’s probably one endorsement that the Economist’s editors might now wish to retract given the opportunity.
Legrain himself has, in the meantime, rather overtly changed tack. His more recent paeans to Open Borders have tended to continue to pay lip service to economic aspects, however, now he prefers instead to focus on what is presumably felt to be firmer ground: the humanitarian rationale for migration, as well as the benefits of the diversity and the cultural enrichment that only migrants are considered capable of providing. One of Mr. Legrain’s more recent missives in this vein is this contribution to the “Migrant Voice” project on OpenDemocracy.net, in which he proposes what he terms as an alternative ‘win-win’ scenario.
I’ve taken the liberty of abbreviating and recasting Legrain’s piece to frame his case in a more thematic manner than in the article. When the argument is distilled to its essentials, as in the following, it clearly demonstrates the effort being made to move the debate away from a morally-neutral discussion of economic benefits to one which focuses on the ‘softer’, more humanist aspects of the immigration question. The clear if unstated intent in this new approach being to construct a value-loaded narrative in which anyone disagreeing with it, and the Open Borders manifesto in particular, can be monochromatically denounced as a ‘bad person’. This is where, it seems to me, that the frontline in the immigration war is now being drawn, and it is the terrain upon which we must become increasingly accustomed to campaigning.
by Dan Dare
Readers may recall the brouhaha that erupted several months ago when Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, announced his intention to commission a study of the economic aspects of an amnesty for illegal or ‘irregular’ immigrants. Hundreds of thousands such migrants are suspected to be present in London, as well as Britain as a whole. Boris was roundly scolded for his troubles by political leaders across the spectrum, including his own party leader, David Cameron. Nevertheless Boris pressed ahead and the study, prepared by specialists at the LSE, appeared in final form on June 16th. It is titled “Economic impact on the London and UK economy of an earned regularisation of irregular migrants to the UK”.
Unsurprisingly, the report reaches the conclusion that the overall economic effect is positive, and recommends that Boris and the GLA should just get on with their plan. More interesting than the anodyne conclusion, however, is the additional light that the investigation sheds on the scale of illegal immigration into Britain. It indicates that there were between 417,000 and 863,000 irregulars present in Britain as of 2007, with a central estimate of 618,000. The report states that around two-thirds of this estimate consists of around 400,000 failed asylum seekers, which can actually be confirmed through inspection of the Home Office’s quarterly statistical reports on asylum.
A fissure appears to be opening between the views of some national governments in Europe struggling with recession and those of the more detached and strategically-inclined EU Commission. Among others, Greece, France, Spain and now Italy have adopted some strict measures to discourage immigration. But Italy’s populist center-right coalition, which includes the Northern Leagues, has gone a good deal further than the others, even criminalising those who house illegals. On Thursday the senate, Italy’s upper parliamentary chamber, endorsed a vote in May by the lower house. Unmoved by the left’s inevitable comparison with Mussolini’s racial purity laws, and by criticism from human rights groups and the Vatican, the senate voted 157 in favour and 124 against to bring the package of measures into force.
1. Illegal immigration becomes a criminal offence punishable by a fine of between 5,000 and 10,000 euros and immediate expulsion.
2. Anyone caught housing an illegal immigrant could face jail.
3. Unarmed citizens patrols will assist the police by mounting patrols on the lookout for public order offences.
4. Parents will have to prove their legal status by presenting their passport or residency permit when they declare the birth of a child.
The European Commission, meanwhile, is looking for ways to strike at least some of these provisions down. It has announced that it will examine the new law to determine whether it complies with EU norms. “Automatic expulsion rules for entire categories are not acceptable,” it says. The Commission is probably miffed because it has only recently opened the first of several African migration offices, this one in Bamoko, the capital of Mali. The plan is to bring in 50,000,000 + Africans over the next few decades to counter the ageing European demographic.
If national governments will only now address the ageing issue, the Commission’s race-replacement scheme could be in terminal difficulty.
The Establishment’s tale:-
Seasoned MR readers might remember that we’ve featured a couple of posts about the English accoustic folk duo, Show of Hands. I was much taken by the simple trust for and faith in their own English people that Steve Knightley and Phil Beer display. But I’m posting the video of their number The Flood from the 2001 album Cold Frontier for a different reason.
A Lewes resident during the floods of 2000, I recognised straight away Steve Knightley’s descriptive account of “the Southern Chalk downland ... soaked after weeks of hard rain” and “streams that were dry since the war, they’re flowing again”. But it was what followed that surprised me. Here is Knightley linking the flood we saw with climate change and desertification, African boat people, the Sangatte crisis of 1999-2002 and most remarkably and presciently, the debt crisis of today. The central theme to all of this is the “cost of the flood” that “everyone round here is counting”.
Naturally, this conjunction of folk music and protest of social issues would have moved Knightley and Beer - men of my age - in their youth. But how refreshing to encounter it today allied to an overarching concern for the real people of this country. The more I hear of these two guys, the more I find to agree with and admire.
By David Hamilton
New-born babies are now tested for tuberculosis in UK hospitals. TB was the biggest killer in this country during the 19th century. It had nearly been eradicated. But Third World immigrants have brought it back.
The first duty of Government is to protect the population. But for sixty years successive governments have been neglecting this responsibility and exposing innocent members of the public to deadly diseases. They should have reversed the idea and not allowed immigrants into the country without proper health checks - all should have been screened for TB.
The Daily Mail of 5th July 2001 described Newham, London as TB capital of the West. It had 108 cases per 100,000 people which over twice that of India, where there are 41 cases per 100,000, and more than Russia, where there are 91 cases. On an average day, seven people in London show the first symptoms of TB - a persistent cough, chest pains and sweats.
What do I admire about Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman?
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