|
|
The Bear’s Lair: The economics of migrationBy Martin Hutchinson
Immigration advocates, even those on the political right, have a nasty habit of referring to their opponents as “racists” or “political primitives.” While I’m happy to be called a racist in a good cause (if they hate you, they’re paying attention, right?) I can understand that Bear’s Lair’s more delicate minded readers may not be. So this column will stick to economics, and will avoid the complex sociology of the world’s diverse ethnic and religious tribalisms. In the Whiggish free market economic model worldwide free movement of labor, like free movement of goods, maximizes Gross World Product. Workers trapped in Third World countries move to the rich West, increase their living standards, yet are still able to find employment at wage levels well below those otherwise prevailing in the West. The West gets poorer and the Third World gets emptier, but Gross World Product is nevertheless increased. Easier world communications, both verbally through the Internet, and physically through low cost air travel improve the efficiency of this arbitrage and are therefore a Good Thing. Like most Whiggish views of the world, this one is simplified to the point of falsehood. For one thing, the world is not organized on the basis of a single world government. Anyone who has dealt with supranational bureaucracies and observed their habits knows that any movement towards a single world government would be a nightmare, not an ideal. The theoretical benefit of a single world government in reducing trade frictions would be far more than outweighed by the direct and indirect costs of the unaccountable bureaucracy such a government would create. Just as Robert Mundell postulated an “optimal currency area” beyond which a single currency would be counterproductive, so too there is an “optimal government area” beyond which the costs of government outweigh its benefits. For many of us, that optimal government area may be a Cotswold village, but it certainly isn’t the world. Once you accept the fact that the world is made of disparate nation states, each with its own government, then it follows that each nation state’s government should seek to restrict low skill immigration from much poorer areas, because its responsibility is to its own people, not to outsiders. A completely free market in terms of immigration and trade would cause the world to become more equal before it became richer, thus impoverishing rich country electorates (even without considering damaging second order effects.) Whiggish economists may grind their teeth all they like, but rational rich country governments will attempt to avoid this, and rightly so. Regardless of its effect on GWP, low skill immigration from poor countries is only attractive to employers if it drives down wages. For jobs in which employees are not substitutable, and skills and local know-how are important, immigration has only a modest effect on wages. Its severely depressing effect is concentrated in areas where skill levels are low and substitutability high. Thus the market for Chief Executive Officers and U.S. Senators is not significantly affected by free immigration from the Third World, while that for landscapers and construction workers is transformed. If immigration is freed up completely (or restrictions are not enforced) then wage rates for low skill operations are driven down close to those in the world’s lowest cost source of labor, probably today Congo or Zimbabwe, environments so unpleasant that workers will pay to escape them, so that their shadow wage rate is in effect negative. Employers and the pro-immigration crowd will point out that this is the purpose of free immigration; it increases the competitiveness of the host country and reduces costs for its citizens. For labor that produced internationally traded goods, this would be the case – the goods made with the cheap labor could be exported, and industries using such labor rendered more competitive in the international market. However, such industries can reduce their costs even further by outsourcing production. In such cases labor costs can be reduced to those in the Third World country, and industry can be freed from bearing the costs of transporting labor from that country to the United States (for economies of scale and frictional reasons, it will almost always be more cost-efficient to export a production operation to say India rather than importing Indian production workers one at a time to the United States.) Since outsourcing is more efficient than immigration for export industries, it will have a net positive effect on the economy compared with immigration, and a less negative one on the domestic jobs market. Either way, domestic labor isn’t going to get those jobs, but if outsourcing is chosen over immigration at least the immigrants won’t be in situ competing with domestic labor for other un-outsourced jobs. Internationally traded industries are thus not the largest employers of illegal immigrant labor, a fact the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is notably slow to point out. General Motors, Boeing and Microsoft, the nation’s great exporters, do not employ illegal immigrants much; their use of immigrant labor is confined to high skill immigrants with every i dotted and t crossed on their immigration documents. Agriculture uses a lot of immigrant labor, but U.S. agribusiness exerts huge political pressure to ensure that agricultural products aren’t as internationally traded as they should be. The biggest users of illegal immigrant labor are in agriculture (protected from competition) and in retailing, construction, hospitality and personal services, in all of which because of their nature there is no practical possibility of outsourcing, or of importing the item from overseas. The international competitiveness of the United States is thus largely unaffected by the cheap labor illegal immigrants provide. Instead, that labor’s effects are concentrated within the U.S. economy, driving down costs in construction, personal services and retailing (though not in agriculture, where costs would be even lower if free imports from abroad were allowed) and driving down wages at the low skill end of the income distribution. The effect of illegal immigration is thus a large subsidy to society as a whole, particularly its wealthier members, from the domestic pool of unskilled and semi-skilled labor. Since unskilled workers are on average poorer than users of personal services and recipients of dividends from employing companies, the net economic welfare effect of illegal immigration is thus substantially negative (because the law of diminishing marginal returns applies to money as to everything else, an extra $1,000 is worth more to a pauper than to a millionaire.) More construction takes place than would otherwise be the case, more personal services are provided (remember when the middle classes used to mow their own lawns?) and retail sales are increased. However the marginal operations in each sector – those which rely on cheap illegal immigrant labor to survive—are destroyers of value; the economy would be better off without them. The welfare system further increases the costs of immigration to society. Since welfare allows domestic low skill labor to survive without working, society ends up paying for the same service twice, once to the illegal immigrant who provides it and once to the domestic worker who would have provided it but finds welfare more remunerative and pleasant. Further, cut-throat competition is introduced to the job market for unskilled workers, those least capable of dealing with it and most likely to develop social pathologies such as crime and drug addiction if they are unable to achieve their modest goal of a stable, employed existence. The second order costs to society are further increased in the case of illegal immigration, which like Prohibition and draconian drug laws introduces a scofflaw culture into the economic system which is hugely damaging to its integrity. High skill immigration from the Third World has a different effect; it drains the Third World of educational resources, by siphoning off its best graduates. Again, the economics of this are more complex than in the Whig model. High skill graduates are the principal top managers and formers of new “growth” businesses; hence a Third World country with few such graduates is condemned to be primarily a supplier of contract labor to the rich, without significant bargaining power in the unequal transactions that result. Whereas the Third World graduate migrant increases U.S. welfare only marginally, by lowering the wage rates of scientists and other skilled personnel, he reduces the relatively small pool of high skilled labor in his home country by much more proportionately than he increases the U.S. pool, and so has a correspondingly greater effect on his home economy. In such a situation, the return to the Third World country from providing graduate education is artificially depressed, and investment in education correspondingly disfavored. Finally, in some sectors such as finance there is the effect of cross-border migration on markets themselves. Markets work best when the participants trust each other, and can enter into contracts on a “my word is my bond” basis. Such trust is most easily created in an environment where everyone knows each other, or at least went to the same schools. That’s why the London merchant banks were so effective for over 200 years. Their replacement by stateless finance behemoths will prove in the long run to have been disastrous to the world economy, hugely increasing both the costs of the financial sector and the level of unnecessary churning in the corporate sector. Mass international migration, even at high skill levels, prevents the close communication that oils the wheels of commerce and leads to a blizzard of American-style legal documents, as participants attempt to codify what everyone had previously understood. A certain amount of mutual migration is beneficial, it cross-pollinates civilizations, bringing Indian restaurants to Peoria and hamburgers to Delhi, or the intellectual equivalent thereof. Nevertheless at some point excessive international migration between countries that differ greatly in wealth, instead of being beneficial to the world economy becomes damaging to it; it impoverishes the rich country’s working class, it de-funds Third World education systems and it hinders the close communication and trust that makes markets work best. The benefits of international migration are real; as for most economic goods they decline gently with volume, so that the 1 millionth migrant is worth substantially less than the first. However the simplistic linear first-order “free movement of labor” view, propagated so energetically by the George W. Bush administration and others with an axe to grind, ignores cost externalities. Unlike the benefits of international migration, the cost externalities are highly non-linear; they are modest at low levels of international migration, but become prohibitive once low skill immigration drives down domestic low skill wage rates significantly, or high skill migration makes a significant dent in the top quality graduate pool of the migrants’ home countries. Both those conditions are more than fulfilled at current levels of immigration into the United States, which consequently must be both controlled and reduced. There – Bear’s Lair’s views on immigration – all without mentioning ethnic and cultural factors at all! —
Posted by karlmagnus on Monday, April 3, 2006 at 10:18 AM in Immigration Comments:2
Posted by Steve Edwards on April 03, 2006, 11:25 AM | # It is another weapon in the arsenal, and is gratefully received. 3
Posted by Mark on April 03, 2006, 01:56 PM | # I think a different solution to the problems of immigration is needed rather than deportation and impenetrable borders. The fact is neither will happen, at least in the US. If one cannot face these facts, one isn’t facing reality. 4
Posted by karlmagnus on April 03, 2006, 03:03 PM | # You don’t have to deport them, you just take names on the employers and put the CEOs of Marriott, Toll Brothers and Wal-Mart in the slammer. Once you’ve done that, they’ll deport themslves, most of them. I like the wall though; it’s more or less worked for Israel. By agitating for the politically impossible, you move the mid-point in your direction. Compromise is death! 5
Posted by Phil Peterson on April 03, 2006, 03:14 PM | # I know you guys will think this is wimpy, but I’m trying to address the undecided, not the converted. The point is that even for a mythical raceless “economic man” heavy immigration is a bad thing. Thank you for this Martin. A lot of people keep raising questions as to why you and John blog here given that neither of you are WN (or equivalent). But as I said the other day, this blog needs both of you perhaps even more than it needs guys like me. If immigration refrom is to be achieved, it will not happen with WNs grabbing the US majority vote (something which is perhaps impossible) but with a coalition of interests all of whom are opposed to immigration. And as Steve notes, this is another weapon in our arsenal. Good stuff. 6
Posted by Matra on April 03, 2006, 03:15 PM | # KM - The point is that even for a mythical raceless “economic man” heavy immigration is a bad thing. It’s refreshing to read that after a week of listening to pundits claiming the US economy will collapse without immigrants. One wonders what the US and the West ever did to survive before all these Mexicans, Chinese, and Africans arrived to save us from ourselves. Mark - I think a different solution to the problems of immigration is needed rather than deportation and impenetrable borders. The fact is neither will happen, at least in the US…The solution is to embrace Mexicans and turn them to our side, to counter the white socialists/multicultis and the blacks. Unlikely, I know, but at least somewhat possible, as opposed to keeping them out. They are here, not going away, and more, lots more, are coming. Such defeatism! So much for the American “can-do” attitude. Rigorous enforcement of immigration laws and banning illegals from getting welfare would in time make the US less attractive and the deportations that would go along with law enforcement would get rid of a significant proportion of the invaders. A high wall along the border would also help. Also Mexicans will never be on “our side” (as you put it) in the long run. Temporary alliances in particular areas may be possible against blacks (though I doubt even that) but not against the Left. If there are Mexican characteristics the “multiculti” crowd doesn’t like (sexism, homophobia etc,) they’ll adjust to suit changing demographics. Just look at how many secular leftists have embraced Muslims. They will always support the group challenging whites. 7
Posted by Ben Tillman on April 03, 2006, 03:17 PM | # The solution is to embrace Mexicans and turn them to our side, to counter the white socialists/multicultis and the blacks. But Mark, we have nothing to bargain with. The other side has already offered everything we purport to own, from our country to our very selves. 8
Posted by Geoff Beck on April 03, 2006, 03:36 PM | # Whilst searching for a compromise and singing halleiluyah Mark’s grand-daughter is sodomized by a Nigerian. John, you want to marry your grandchildren off to Mestizos and Arabs go ahead; that’s what you’re talking about; that’s what you “can’t we all get along types” are promoting. BS: 10
Posted by MichaelCD on April 03, 2006, 03:42 PM | # Thanks for that Martin, a timely column considering this BBC quote.
11
Posted by Steve Edwards on April 03, 2006, 03:51 PM | # “A lot of people keep raising questions as to why you and John blog here given that neither of you are WN…” I’m not really a WN on first principles either - I’m simply a hardline advocate of private property rights, freedom of association, and self-determination (and anti-NWO or anything that could conceivably advance the NWO) along the lines of Hoppe et al. However, the implications vis-a-vis WN-ism are almost identical. 12
Posted by Geoff Beck on April 03, 2006, 03:56 PM | # > Such defeatism! So much for the American “can-do” attitude. What brave souls survived WWI, WWII, and Vietnam were eventually killed by television and the public schools. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on April 03, 2006, 04:07 PM | # JW, Matt Nuenke and Svi are very likely the only self-described WN’s on the MR slate. Johan is, like Mark, Phil and myself of a predominantly Conservative cast of mind, and I think Alex would describe himself as such, also. By Conservative, however, we do not mean sound asleep. Soren, JR and James are all far too intellectually complex, and Zach - who is due to come on-stream any time now - too beautiful a writer for me to order any of them into a little political box. Charles and Will, well ... 14
Posted by Phil on April 03, 2006, 04:07 PM | # What brave souls survived WWI, WWII, and Vietnam were eventually killed by television and the public schools. Nothing kills like decadence. 15
Posted by Phil on April 03, 2006, 04:17 PM | # GW, I agree. Which is why I said “WN (or equivalent)”. I suppose what I was really saying was that if one sees from the prism of “current mainstream opinion”, I would imagine that all of us barring John and Martin would be characterised as WN or “White Separatists”. This is a loaded term and does not convey any degree of subtlety or nuance. But we are, after all, in the process of facilitating the metamorphosis of mainstream opinion. 16
Posted by Steve Edwards on April 03, 2006, 04:26 PM | # Whatever the “label”, the important thing is that as many points of view are tolerated as possible, and that each methodology progresses sound and consistent principles. If you have an argument, you should be heard. However, anything based on dishonesty, inconsistency, sophistry or any other indicators of bad faith shouldn’t be given the time of day (which is why JJR simply shouldn’t bother posting about 25% of his articles - it’s just a waste of everyone’s time). 17
Posted by Steve Edwards on April 03, 2006, 04:29 PM | # ...each methodology progresses along sound and consistent principles… 18
Posted by karlmagnus on April 03, 2006, 04:31 PM | # Gee, thanks GW. “Soren, JR and James are far too intellectually complex…” Arr, dang un. Oi be just a simple Glowstershire yokel, happy if the zoyder’s good! 19
Posted by Phil on April 03, 2006, 04:33 PM | # which is why JJR simply shouldn’t bother posting about 25% of his articles - it’s just a waste of everyone’s time It isn’t the case that John is incapable of producing quality stuff. But I think sometimes his desire to produce vast numbers of posts ends up diluting quality, which is inevitable. 20
Posted by Steve Edwards on April 03, 2006, 04:36 PM | # I agree - JJR produces some excellent material. It’s just that he also tends to excrete some utter bile from time to time, and for some reason he always has to do it over here. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on April 03, 2006, 04:49 PM | # Well, Mart’n, as a Darset boy moisen Oi can feels a zurtain sympatico for a poor lad from Zummerzet and even Woltshirrre. But this ere Glowstershirrre lark stroiks me a bit strange. Good jarb you’re a Tory or Oi’d ‘ave to arsk you t’ blog at that there VNN. 22
Posted by Geoff Beck on April 03, 2006, 05:12 PM | # After the last comment, I was reminded of an event in which most participants were from Britain and which also included a one German and one American. But since Martin already thinks I’m anti-Monarchist - and probably a Germanophile - I’d better not say anything… better hold in it in reserve. 23
Posted by karlmagnus on April 03, 2006, 05:15 PM | # Geoff, you ARE anti-monarchist, but I’ve no objection to Germans—good beer, great music, tasty sausage, what’s not to like? 26
Posted by AD on April 03, 2006, 05:23 PM | # I’m sure i heard one of Geoff’s radio programs where he was being all pro-aristocracy….Evola style. 27
Posted by Geoff Beck on April 03, 2006, 05:28 PM | # I am not anti-Monarchist, but we are a long way from Louix IX, Otto III and Charles IV - oh, and importantly, Edward I. The story is quite long, I btw, was the lone American, and I was attending 3 week seminar for the company I once worked for. During one presentation by the Germans ( a group I was much impressed with: sober, well dressed, punctual. Unlike the Brits that were drunk, hung-over and always sporting a mocking & cynical demeanor) a German spoke of some aspect of his nation’s history. A Briton interrupted him and noted: “yes, and isn’t it true our Royal Family is German”. To which the German replied “we don’t care you can have them”. Frankly, it was one of the few times the boistrous British delegation was silent. The Germans got a big rise out of the affair. Actually there is more to it, maybe later. ——————- Oh, did anyone notice this? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2114237,00.html 28
Posted by Guessedworker on April 03, 2006, 05:34 PM | # No, Geoff, didn’t see that. I’ll post it on the page. 29
Posted by Phil on April 03, 2006, 05:35 PM | # Unlike the Brits that were drunk, hung-over and always sporting a mocking & cynical demeanor Geoff, Did you read this? 30
Posted by Geoff Beck on April 03, 2006, 07:01 PM | # Phil, Yob, that’s an unknown word over here. But I get the meaning pretty well from Ray’s piece. I’ve spoken with many about the calamity of post-war Briton with friends. Sometimes it is easier to discuss the faults of others ). The reasons found are many 1) the dysgenetic calamities of WW1 WWII, 2) decapitation of the elite, 3) the weird mix of class and mass democracy, 4) post-war socialism, and etc… Whatever happend, it is is quite a fall from the summit of Victorian and Edwardian culture which many would assume is normative, or I did until I met those folks in the seminar. 31
Posted by Guessedworker on April 03, 2006, 07:14 PM | # Geoff, There has always been a streak of yobbery in the English. It can be extremely boorish. But it can also be extremely useful. The heroic deeds of Elizabethan piracy on the high seas are of a piece with the professionalism of our modern armed forces and our even more modern football hooligans. We aren’t like that all the time, of course. I enjoy serious music as much as anyone but I spent 20 years in a gym loading 200 k on a bar and discussing the local leotards with ex-cons. We are, I suppose, aggressive bastards but our fathers have given more to Mankind than most. 32
Posted by Geoff Beck on April 03, 2006, 07:18 PM | # > But it can also be extremely useful. The heroic deeds of Elizabethan piracy on the high seas are of a piece with the professionalism of our modern armed forces and our even more modern football hooligans. Well, it would seem if some force is not able to direct it properly, ie building an Empire or even Privateering it degenerates into utter boorishness. 33
Posted by Matra on April 03, 2006, 07:47 PM | # the Germans ( a group I was much impressed with: sober, well dressed, punctual. Unlike the Brits that were drunk, hung-over and always sporting a mocking & cynical demeanor) I could have told you the Brits are more fun than those boring Jerries. Though it’s true the British are more vulgar and less restrained in many ways than previous generations too much is made of binge drinking. It’s been the norm for centuries to unwind by getting smashed. In the ‘Celtic fringe’ especially people tend to be either church-going teetotallers (often ex-alcoholics) or binge drinkers. Culture is part of it, especially if you are working class, but genetics probably plays a part. I think it’s the same in Scandinavia. There’s no doubt that my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents and their contemporaries drank a lot more than my generation does. All the fuss about drinking isn’t much different from the anti-smoking, anti-fast food hysteria. 34
Posted by Geoff Beck on April 03, 2006, 08:21 PM | # Matra, At this seminar the dress code was strict, at least for men it was suits. You cannot believe the tacky clothing these peope wore: purple dress shirts, with wide pin stripe suits. Unbelievable combinations. Worse if they’d been drinking too much the night before some might come to the lectures with bare feet or with slippers on their feet, often with their collars pushed up or their cuffs unbottoned. I saw one poor girl ( cute, dark hair, very fair skin) suffering from what appeared to be alcohol poisoning in one session. 35
Posted by starimomak on April 03, 2006, 09:12 PM | # You cannot believe the tacky clothing these peope wore: purple dress shirts, with wide pin stripe suits. Unbelievable combinations. That is actually one aspect of the typical City bloke that I like. Much better than the solid blue/white shirt/red tie typical of Americans. I’ve even taken to wearing DKNY shimmery shirts—I have a lovely maroon one—on the rare occasions I wear a suit. 36
Posted by karlmagnus on April 03, 2006, 09:18 PM | # Geoff, those were probably Harvie and Hudson shirts, identifying their owners as creme de la creme. My stuffed shirt colleagues in Citi NY never understood my fascination for wearing what were essentially pyjama tops to the office. When I liberated myself from there and returned to—almost—merchant banking in London I celebrated with a lovely collection of mauve velvet waistcoats. —Sic transit gloria mundi! 39
Posted by Geoff Beck on April 03, 2006, 10:27 PM | # Sorry, for me, clothes must be RESPECTABLE! (Yes, that’s right, respectible). Suit coates: wool solids, muted plaids, and perhaps a seersucker for hot climes. Khakis and polo knit shirts for relaxation - with brown leather shows - no sneakers. Really, you folks need to look back at your history and see how men dress, and it wasn’t like a pimp. I just can’t take a man seriously that looks like a pimp. 40
Posted by AD on April 03, 2006, 11:00 PM | # .....and we wonder why the west is being taken over by aliens. Our main warriors: fancy homosexualists and wiggers. We make the fat “flashy” romans who were slaughtered by the germanics look tough by comparison. 41
Posted by Matra on April 03, 2006, 11:13 PM | # Geoff, A typical example of how working class Brits dress. Though some wear the baseball cap backwards. 42
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 03, 2006, 11:58 PM | # Count your blessings, Matra: they’re white. Plenty of folk in the U.S. would give their eye-teeth to have neighborhood “chavs” that look like that instead of what they’re stuck with. You should see some of the specimens we have in the States. Those guys are downright refined in comparison! Waiting for that pic to load, I was expecting the worst. When it came up on the screen, I said, “Is that all? I’d say Matra needs to get out more ...” 43
Posted by Guessedworker on April 04, 2006, 04:12 AM | # Apologies to Matra for leaving him off my round-up last night of the WNism of MR contributors. But he is a difficult one. I see him as a social conservative before he is a political Conservative. I’m struggling somewhat to find the right gradation on the scale. But I see him, possible, as defining himself more by being against our brave new modernity than for any particular extanct political philosophy. But, then, he does live in Canada. Perhaps he will put me right. 44
Posted by Lurker on April 04, 2006, 07:05 AM | # A sartorial aside - wearing the baseball cap back to front has largely died out now, I suppose thats an improvement of sorts. 45
Posted by karlmagnus on April 04, 2006, 08:49 AM | # Geoff, THIS is the ultimate ego-ideal of the British male when the country was properly run. It does NOT make you gay! 46
Posted by karlmagnus on April 04, 2006, 09:01 AM | # The black and white look which we associate with the Victorians was brought in by Lord Castlereagh, himself a very natty dresser, and popularized at the Congress of Vienna, where his expert wielding of Britain’s considerable power caused a reaction against the highly colored “French” fashions of Talleyrand, Metternich and the like. Thus: 47
Posted by Geoff Beck on April 04, 2006, 09:51 AM | # Karl, yes,men did dress in what I would consider an effeminate and flashy style in the 18th century, as you’ve shown with Percy Blankeney. Yet, I think the paradigm of clothing set by the 19th and first half on the 20th century is still applicable and makes more sense. People of European descent must be taught again how to be White, we are not Semetic nor are we African apes - as the owners of our media are training us to be. 48
Posted by Matra on April 04, 2006, 06:36 PM | # GW:I see him, possible, as defining himself more by being against our brave new modernity than for any particular extanct political philosophy. But, then, he does live in Canada. I suppose I’m an Anglo-Celtic/Saxon reactionary. I looked at many conservative and libertarian movements and ideologies but over time lost interest in them when it became clear they would do nothing to help my ethnic group survive, never mind prosper, on our land. I care about economic and social issues too but my primary concern is our ethnic subordination to others. It’s too late in the day to be picky so any movement or ideas that can save us are fine by me. Fred: Count your blessings, Matra: they’re white. Plenty of folk in the U.S. would give their eye-teeth to have neighborhood “chavs” that look like that instead of what they’re stuck with. You should see some of the specimens we have in the States. Those guys are downright refined in comparison! A lot of “chavs” lived in my old neighbourhood in Belfast and I’ve known a few. Some are hoodlum scum, others are just ignorant but harmless. I guess they are easy targets, like rednecks in the US. In the ongoing tribal battles in Northern Ireland the “tracksuit brigades” (as i’ve heard them called) are often the ones willing to put themselves on the front lines. I do not know if they do so out of atavistic tribal loyalty or because they just like confrontation and violence. Probably a mixture of both. 49
Posted by Matra on April 04, 2006, 07:01 PM | # An old irish joke about those reactionary Ulster Protestants:
50
Posted by Fred Scrooby on April 04, 2006, 11:05 PM | # Matra, that hundred-year-old Ulster Protestant is exactly my kind of guy. Reminds me of Evelyn Waugh’s explanation of what he disliked about the Tories: in their time in power they hadn’t succeeded in turning the clock back a single minute! Next entry: Drew Fraser stands firm against Human Rights Commission Previous entry: Is the new psychiatric State coming to YOU? |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 04:44 PM. (go) (view) pierdzimaka commented in entry 'Political lies, lived lies, all that is not real' on 05/24/12, 03:25 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:20 PM. (go) (view) grecian commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:10 PM. (go) (view) hnjoewdh commented in entry 'Seeking Chinese Nationalist For Majority Radio Guest Spot' on 05/24/12, 02:39 PM. (go) (view) Scewoweks commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/24/12, 02:24 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:04 PM. (go) (view) Salvatore Quinto commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/24/12, 12:47 PM. (go) (view) Trofigiogelry commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/24/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) DiefleleziG commented in entry 'Tiger Tiger' on 05/24/12, 12:18 PM. (go) (view) Martha Barreda commented in entry 'Sunic interviews Fraser' on 05/24/12, 12:12 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 12:07 PM. (go) (view) Adalberto Deavers commented in entry 'The compassion of the court' on 05/24/12, 12:00 PM. (go) (view) Optigmata commented in entry 'More thread wars' on 05/24/12, 11:08 AM. (go) (view) payday loans commented in entry 'ANTI-JEWISM: The Deadly Plague of White Nationalist Slave Morality' on 05/24/12, 10:27 AM. (go) (view) Verlene Zumwalt commented in entry 'Ireland Worshipping at the Holocaust Shrine' on 05/24/12, 10:16 AM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) pay day loans commented in entry 'Heidegger: The West Texas Translation' on 05/24/12, 09:59 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by karlmagnus on April 03, 2006, 10:21 AM | #
I know you guys will think this is wimpy, but I’m trying to address the undecided, not the converted. The point is that even for a mythical raceless “economic man” heavy immigration is a bad thing.