|
|
The Immigration Industry tacks into the windI’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. But first, let’s survey the state of of the art as it pertains to the Economic Argument.
And that’s really the sum total of Legrain’s present-day (as opposed to his 2006-vintage) argument for the economic benefits of immigration. I think we can consider that this pro-forma genuflection towards ‘huge economic benefits’ as well as the forlorn attempt to draw a parallel between 19th century industrializing America and 21st century post-industrial Europe indicate that Legrain has now given up on this one. The economic argument has been holed below the waterline and, although it may still be instructive to review how that came about, following that we can then quickly move on to consider the other, non-economic strands to Legrain’s overall argument. The Economic Case: For – In review In 2002, the Home Office published a research paper entitled The Migrant Population in the UK: Fiscal Effects (pdf). This is the notorious report that, with the aid of a series of rather dodgy assumptions, reached the tentative conclusion that migrants contribute £2.5 billion more to the Exchequer in taxes annually than they consume in public services. Various New Labour personalities latched onto this figure as a key prop for their pro-immigration utterances, notwithstanding the many hedges and caveats that accompanied the original report. Needless to say the report was roundly criticised and comprehensively debunked, not least by the ‘watchdog’ group Migration Watch UK and it is never mentioned by Labour politicians or other immigration enthusiasts these days. In 2005 the self-styled ‘progressive’ think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) issued an expanded update of the original Home Office report, Immigrants contribute more to the public purse than UK-born. This publication, although relying on the same underlying methodology, attempts to answer the criticisms that were directed towards the original and, in the process, restore some credibility to the government’s claims for the economic (fiscal) benefits of immigration. Even though it was also widely promoted in the mainstream press (as in The Guardian) for example, it proved to be only a partial success. Tellingly the IPPR report represents the last attempt to date by the British government to spin a positive economic argument based on quantifiable data as opposed to platitudinous anecdote. The Economic Case: Against – in review The IPPR report soon found itself under similar critical scrutiny by, amongst others, Migration Watch UK (MWUK). In August 2006 MWUK issued a Briefing Paper with their own analysis of the Home Office and IPPR reports. Needless to say MWUK were very soon able to put their finger on fundamental flaws in both efforts and were able to convincingly claim that “…The Home Office and IPPR studies of the fiscal contribution of migrants made a serious error in selecting the basis for their calculation. This crucially affected the outcome.” Suffice to say that neither the government nor IPPR have since made any effort to answer MWUK’s conclusions. The economic case for immigration received a further battering in the form of a report from the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords, which soundly debunked the prevailing wisdom that immigration delivers significant economic benefits to the country as a whole (as opposed to discrete segments of society such as employers of foreign nannies). In fact, the government’s own evidence submitted to the Lords committee finally admitted that, in terms of GDP per capita, migration brings ‘miniscule’ benefits to Britain. Philippe Legrain’s own ‘rebuttal’ of the HoL report in the Guardian is typically long on the usual rhetoric but short on verifiable data. Rather than attempting to refute the actual economic data which underpins the report’s conclusion, Legrain relies instead on another proforma recitation of essentially unquantifiable and subjective ‘benefits’ such as the ‘flexibility’, ‘adaptability’, ‘dynamism’ and ‘competitiveness’ which migrants are said to confer on the host society. Through his inability to bring any quantitative data into play, Legrain effectively signals the abandonment of the economic argument for migration, just as the UK government itself has done. A subsequent ignominious CiF outing created a firestorm of hostile commentary and two weeks later drew a stinging rebuke from Andrew Green of Migration Watch UK - We do not lie about migration. The following added on September 24, 2009 at 12:57AM Now that the economic argument has been accorded the last rites, we can now proceed to consider the remainder of the case which Legrain presents for continued immigration. This can be summarised as follows: 1. The Humanitarian strand I’ll be putting forward Legrain’s propositions in support of each, together with the arguments against, in subsequent comments below. At this stage it appears that the last of the three will require the closest attention. There is actually another common strand to the immigration refrain that Legrain has chosen to omit from his Open Britain proposal, although he does cover it some detail in his book. It is somewhat related to the economic argument and is often cited by less sophisticated members of the industry as one of the key beneficial outcomes of a liberal immigration policy. That is the proposition that immigration provides a magic silver-bullet solution to the ‘demographic crisis’ that is said to be looming in countries where the birthrate has fallen below replacement levels. Immigration, so the story goes, is the only sure-fire way in which the support ratio (between the working and non-working populations) can be maintained. Only through the admission of hordes of fecund immigrants (aka third worlders) can we be certain of getting our old-age pensions paid and of leading a comfortable life in our declining years. Whenever this argument arises in an internet discussion on immigration, as it almost always will, I have found that the most effective way to stop it is to ask the arguer to read David Coleman’s classic paper ‘Replacement Migration’, or why everyone’s going to have to live in Korea; A fable for our times from the United Nations and then to return with their refutation of it. Nobody has ever come back. I’m pretty sure that Legrain will also be familiar with Coleman, even he though he neglects to mention him in his book. Legrain does start off his discussion (in the book) with a little of his trademark snake-oil peddling perhaps to snare the unwary browser:
But then, after several more pages of inconclusive waffle, he finally has to come clean and acknowledge that:
Quite clearly, Legrain recognises that ‘replacement migration’ is a non-starter, and this is why he ends his discussion in an uncharacteristically sheepish fashion, merely noting that letting in ‘some’ of the billion or so additional potential workers from poor countries would ‘make eminent sense’ [p 160]. On then to the next strand. THE HUMANITARIAN ARGUMENT - An Appeal to Fairness
In one sense this may be the strongest card that Legrain has to play since, on the face of it, anyone opposing the humanitarian proposition runs the risk of being labeled as selfish, xenophobic, racist and un-Christian to boot. So we need to work hard to counter this challenge without falling into the trap that has been set. The argument rests of course on the premise that national borders and even nation-states themselves are obsolete, and of no significance or importance in the globalised One World Society that Legrain evidently deems both desirable and inevitable. Unfortunately for him, however, even the liberal intelligentsia who might be expected to fall into lock-step agreement are themselves deeply divided on that point. David Goodhart, for example, the impeccably liberal editor of the ‘progressive’ journal Prospect has cogently argued for the relevance of the nation-state, the exclusiveness of citizenship and the need for national boundaries – with the implicit requirement for controls on migration – in his recent essay on Progressive Nationalism]:
Understanding well the fatal consequences for the welfare state implicit in Legrain’s dogmatically libertarian Open Borders stance, Goodhart goes on to administer the progressive coup de grâce:
This succinctly highlights the essential absurdity implicit in Legrain’s worldview; the potential numbers likely to want to take advantage of his Open Borders concept to settle in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, were there no restrictions placed on their entry, would be bound to overwhelm the ability of any host society to accommodate them. Legrain’s grand scheme would merely result in mega-slums like present-day Bombay, Lagos and Manila sprouting up all around Europe. We would merely end up impoverishing ourselves without necessarily ameliorating the circumstances of those who have moved in to join us. It seems curious that Legrain, as a graduate of the LSE, appears to be unacquainted with former Professor of Economics Ezra Mishan and his famous essay Popular Economic Fallacies Regarding Immigration If the welfare of the inhabitants of the third world is a pressing concern, as Legrain insists it should be for us, it would be far more rational to do as Goodhart suggests, and to express our humanitarian concern through development aid to be used locally rather than requiring the third world poor to transport themselves to the west, with all the disruption and social conflict that that would entail. It should also be noted that the supposed ability of white people to move around the world and to settle more or less anywhere at will is largely a figment of Legrain’s imagination. It would be as difficult for an Englishman to migrate to India or Pakistan and take up permanent residence there as it is for an Indian or a Pakistani to settle in Britain, probably even more so in truth. Anyone who has visited China in recent years will be well aware of the multiple hoops that need to jumped through merely to obtain a tourist visa. In Alien Nation Peter Brimelow amusingly recounts his predictably unproductive encounters as a prospective migrant with the Chinese, Mexican, Filipino, Indian and several other consulates representing the countries that send the bulk of migrants to the US (search on “Turnabout is fair play, isn’t it?”). The Imperative of Universal Human Rights
Well that’s correct, I suppose on the face of it. Legrain highlights an apparent anomaly in the UDHR but then fails to think it through. Then as now the decision whether or not to admit an individual alien remains the prerogative of sovereign nation-states, even though all western liberal democracies have shied away from properly exercising that prerogative in recent years. What Legrain does not state, although I’m sure he understands, is that the UDHR was intended to be a companion piece to the UN Convention on Refugees. The right of exit under one is reciprocated by the right of entry (for genuine refugees) under the other. Neither legal instrument was intended to stand alone, nor were they ever designed to cope with international economic migration on the present scale. So yes, Legrain is correct. New international legislation is required, but not legislation designed to open the floodgates and facilitate yet more international migration. The Altruistic Argument
Having reached the inevitable conclusion that appeals to economic self-interest are doomed to failure, since nobody is buying that line anymore, Legrain is now reduced to guilt-mongering and emotive moralising. If we turn our backs on the teeming billions in the third world, he is saying, and resolve to let nature take its course, we are being callous and inhuman. It’s all very reminiscent of the sanctimonious blather which spouts forth from the likes of St. Bob of Geldof and The Blessed Bonio every time their publicity machinery flags it’s time for an image refresh and wheel out the ‘Feed the World’ bandwagon on its third or fourth set of retreads. Give us a bloody break, enough already! He may have a point about remittances, however. I’m sure they do more good for ordinary people than the aid funds that pass through official channels, much of which ends up in the Swiss accounts of third-world kleptocrats or in the pockets of the local Mercedes-Benz importers. Added on September 24, 2009 at 12.00PM (approx) The next strand is rather brief, perhaps reflecting Legrain’s lack or interest in or knowledge of cultural matters, or perhaps indicating that the alleged benefits are nothing to write home about. Probably both. THE CULTURAL ENRICHMENT ARGUMENT [Social and Cultural benefits arising therefrom]
In contrast to his declamatory statement that the benefits are ‘huge’, Legrain’s inventory of social and cultural benefits is tiny, a particularly thin gruel consisting of the usual trite litany trotted out ad nauseum by immigration enthusiasts: ethnic restaurants, etc. He also commits the usual fallacy that, in order for the transmission of a cultural artifact to occur, it is necessary for somebody to physically and permanently move from its place of origin to the place where that artifact will be experienced. If that were the case, symphony orchestras in China would need to be permanently manned by Germans or Austrians, and pizza parlours in India by Italians. Performances of Shakespeare in Indonesia would be impossible to mount without the physical presence of British actors and, according to Legrain’s logic, nobody anywhere in the third world should ever contemplate experiencing Balzac on the grounds that he spent his entire life in France. But what is so striking about Legrain’s argument, aside from its predictable triviality, is its conspicuous asymmetry, an irony to which Legrain appears blithely oblivious. We have passed on to them the English language and received the unreadable Salman Rushdie and the insufferably parochial Zadie Smith in return. Chicken tikka marsala serves to reciprocate for the gift of parliamentary democracy and the Common Law, reggae and samba music are to be considered a Fair Trade swap for Mozart and the Beatles. Legrain had made such a bollocks of his argument for the social and cultural benefits of immigration that I took a look at the book to see if he had more to say there. Sure enough, there are plenty of references in the index to “cultural benefits of immigration”, so I decided to look them up. The great majority consist of often unsubstantiated pronouncements of the type ‘…immigration brings cultural diversity which in turn results in economic benefits like blah blah blah…’, which reflects Legrain’s over-riding economic focus in 2006. We will pick up the diversity theme and its alleged benefits again later, however in terms of cultural benefits per se in even a peripheral sense, the only positive benefits that Legrain enumerates concern the London dance-club scene (p 118) and the multicultural nature of the present-day Arsenal football team (p 123), which Legrain claims to support. This is quite revealing as an indication of the extent of Legrain’s cultural horizons, which for someone in his mid-30s seem to be remarkably constrained. His closing comment in the book concerning immigration and culture is as follows:
Without labouring the obvious point that those for whom constant cross-cultural interaction is a pressing concern can just as easily in this day and age avail themselves of such experiences through traveling to the source, without the rest of needing to be bothered by unwanted immigrants if we do not wish to, Legrain seems to be completely unselective as to the content and quality of those interactions. He would probably be unable to discern any difference in cultural worth between London’s annual Afro-Caribbean orgy of crime and violence, ironically billed by its promoters as “Europe’s Greatest Cultural Event” (scroll down for quote) and a visit from the touring company of the Bolshoi Ballet. In fact he probably prefers the former. Philippe Legrain should probably be one of the last people to pay attention to when it comes to cultural matters.
Most receiving countries get those migrants who decide to turn up rather than those who they might otherwise have preferred to invite in. In the case of the US and Europe the great majority of incoming migrants are not, as Legrain suggests, budding founders of the next Intel or Google but rather the impoverished and desperate. In the case of the US, they are overwhelmingly the relatives of earlier immigrants; only around 15% of all ‘green cards’ are issued to people entering for purposes of employment (and that includes their dependents as well). As immigrant populations grow in other countries the number of third-world entrants through the ‘family reunion’ or ‘family formation’ channels rapidly grows to dwarf all the other categories. Countries like Australia and Canada believe that their so-called ‘skills-based’ immigration system renders them immune to this phenomenon, but they are not. In any country where the bulk of the migrant stream originates in the third world, and where such migrants are able to sponsor their extended family members for admission, it is simply a matter of time before the magic of chain migration kicks in. In the case of Britain, the countries providing the most permanent new residents are, by number India, Pakistan, the Philippines, Iraq, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Somalia. There are likely to be far fewer potential Nobel laureates or captains of industry per capita in such a migrant flow than already exist within the indigenous population. If intellectual ability or inventiveness were the desired outcome, the best policy would be to stimulate the indigenous birthrate. With respect to Nobel laureates, Legrain’s figures are wrong, at least in the case of the UK. Of 114 British laureates, 23 were born abroad, but only nine of those arrived as refugees. The rest of the ‘foreign-born’ non-refugees include the likes of George Bernard Shaw (Ireland) and Rudyard Kipling (India). For the US, the overwhelming majority of ‘immigrant’ laureates arrived from Europe; almost none came from the countries which now supply the bulk of migrants: Mexico, India, China, and so on. To put the probability of missing a potential immigrant genius into some sort of perspective, consider the instance of the Central European Jews who fled to Britain during the 1930s. According to Daniel Snowman in The Hitler Émigrés: The Cultural Impact on Britain of Refugees from Nazism only ‘a small fraction of a small fraction’ of the estimated 55,000 refugees went on to make ‘a powerful impact on the country that had given them refuge’ [p. 319]. His index includes around 500 named individuals, these being presumably those members of this well-educated and cultured migrant group who have made a notable contribution to British life. That implies that less than 1% of Central European Jewish refugees actually made such a contribution. Given such a low yield from such an outstandingly promising source, does it really make sense to import millions of semi-literate third-worlders in the hope of turning up another Sergei Brin? Legrain’s remarks about Silicon Valley are shallow, anecdotal and uninformed. He focuses on three companies formed quite recently that have done very well, and which happen to have had recent immigrants have played a role in their formation. But so what? There are hundreds and thousands of other successful enterprises in the tech sector which were created by native-born Americans including one of the most venerable, that formed by Messrs Hewlett and Packard. In this respect Legrain needs to broaden his perspective to reach an understanding that the origins of the technology sector in California stretch back to the Second World War. Its development and ongoing vigour rest far more upon its continuing role as a part of the military-industrial complex than on the contribution of recent immigrants.
Taking the last first, a quick Google on Waheed Ali turns up two possibilities: one is a perpetrator of 7/7 London Underground bombings and the other the first ‘openly gay life peer’, an individual of Indian extraction who was ennobled by Tony Blair for his services to ‘yoof culture’. We can safely assume it is the latter who is being referred to. Perhaps he was recognised by Blair for his advocacy for legislation to lower the age of consent for homosexual buggery (the legal term for anal intercourse) from 18 to 16? It would be interesting to learn why Legrain feels that ‘Lord’ Ali is someone whose presence in Britain should be lauded. The Olympic athlete ‘Dame’ Kelly Holmes I’m unsure about, she is reputed to be ‘dual-voltage’ libido-wise but, that aside, there seems to be little point in bringing her up unless, like ‘Lord’ Ali, Legrain feels that she also represents a decadently hedonistic metrosexual milieu within which he himself may feel most comfortable. As for the legacy of the Empire Windrush, there can be little argument that the great majority of the knife- and gun-crime and much of the other street crime committed in contemporary Britain is directly attributable to various tranches of Afro-Caribbean migrants and their offspring. The Windrush itself has come to symoblise the entry of millions more Afro-Asian migrants and their extended families, a great many of whom are now bringing the entrepreneurial skills that Legrain values so highly to bear as active participants in the criminal gangs that control the trade in hard drugs and in other social pathologies that now blight Britain’s major cities, But all that aside, let’s move to the main point in contention, that is: more migrants bring greater diversity, and greater diversity brings ‘better solutions’. Legrain does not elaborate on the sort of problems that his ‘ten persons sitting round a table’ are meant be resolving, or indeed what it is that makes them diverse. Are they diverse in the political sense, that is, do they exhibit a variety of identity-based differences based on race, ethnicity, culture, gender, sexual orientation and so on, or are they diverse in a functional, cognitive sense, that is, are they all talented, intelligent and qualified individuals who bring with them different but valid approaches to solving difficult problems? Legrain puts forward Scott Page, an academic at the University of Michigan, as his principal source for the notion that ‘different thinking’ results in faster and better problem solving. He specifically cites Page’s book The Difference which was published in 2007. However, in typical slippery fashion, Legrain omits to mention Page’s own ambivalence about the value that identity-diversity, as opposed to cognitive-diversity, brings to the business of solving complex problems. In fact one of the most prominent examples of the diversity that Page argues for in his book has nothing to do with identity diversity at all. It concerns the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA by three people, who were distinguishable not through their identity – all were male heterosexuals of Anglo-Saxon heritage in early middle age, trained in the Western tradition of free scientific enquiry – but rather through their cognitive diversity, one having trained as a zoologist, the second as a physicist, and the third as a molecular biologist. Page also cites several times the instance of Bletchley Park, the Second World War codebreaking centre where the secrets of the German Enigma machines were uncovered. But here too, the type of diversity in play was strictly cognitive. It was the complex and unpredictable interaction between mathematicians, engineers, classicists, moral philosophers, linguists, philologists, historians and even crossword puzzle setters, not to mention the occasional cryptanalyst, that provided the creative spark. As Page himself notes “…Let’s be honest, Bletchley Park was hardly a rainbow gathering [p 14]” (Alan Turing’s sexual proclivities notwithstanding.) Incidentally, Page himself can be viewed in action here giving a lecture at the Santa Fe Institute in 2007. But somehow I don’t think that this is what Legrain has in mind when he pictures his ten diverse people sitting in a room, solving problems, although he might argue that James Watson being a Yank at Cambridge was, at least technically, a ‘migrant’. The type of diversity that Legrain argues for when pushing Open Borders is obviously identity-diversity. Page actually states several times the obvious point that, for complex problem-solving, identity-diversity by itself is worthless. He acknowledges that, in effect, there is no utility in insisting that every scientific inquiry or product development team include the correct quota of blacks, Asians, females, homosexuals or one-legged Hispanic transgendered lesbians if by so doing there is no relevant improvement in overall group cognitive function. Page himself is clearly reluctant to make major claims that any significant and quantifiable benefit arises from identity-diversity, and he is far more ambivalent about its intrinsic value than Legrain’s glib puffery of his book would imply. No doubt Legrain was hoping that his readers would be too lazy or too gullible to check it out for themselves. Early on in the book, Page states:
Page cites a great number of studies of the effects of diversity in the workplace, including a number of surveys that review other studies:
Given the almost complete absence of anything resembling empirical evidence in his book, it’s a little puzzling that Page should choose to conclude on such a panglossian note. What he is saying in effect is that we don’t really know whether identity-diversity delivers any real-world benefits, despite the crescendo of establishment propaganda that claims insists otherwise. We think it might have some benefit in some small and as-yet indefinable way, but it’s proven to be so difficult to manage such diverse groups that we haven’t yet figured out how to do it. This despite corporations and government spending untold billions on ‘educating’ their workforces and the public, and installing Diversity Police throughout society at all levels. I suspect the answer may have more than a little to do with Page’s place of employment and his role as the Leonid Hurwicz Collegiate Professor of Complex Systems, Political Science, and Economics there.
Scott Page’s association with the University of Michigan didn’t ring any particular bells until I came across the name Patricia Gurin amongst his acknowledgments. Gurin is the author of the eponymous report which played a key role in the case of Grutter vs Bollinger which came before the US Supreme Court in 2003. In its ruling the Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the UM Law School; as noted in the summarization of the case on Wikipedia:
Gurin provides a lengthy response on the UofM website linked above.
Posted by Dan Dare on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 at 12:47 AM in Immigration Comments:2
Posted by Beardy on September 23, 2009, 05:55 AM | # The case of Switzrland in the post-war period is very instructive. 3
Posted by Bill on September 23, 2009, 06:14 AM | # Like everything else concerned with race replacement the special effects department of the men behind the curtain are working overtime and doing a damn good job to boot. Doesn’t matter what aspect is under discussion, their smoke and mirror department launch their weapons of mass deception. The guy I listen to occasionally, http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/ tells me the men behind the curtain are on a roll, they are revving up all set to go, and nothing will stand in their way. Expense, (in whatever form) is of no consequence to them, so just like the Red team v Blue team tag matches it’s all a diversion. In other words, the question whether immigration is good for the economy or not is a no brainer, their objective, their goal is all that matters. I know very little of economics, but it does seem more than a coincidence that the Western (global) economy has gone pear shaped since the surge of immigration over the last ten years. It is my contention that here in the UK, mass immigration has contributed much to the demise of our economy. (Maybe all of it) I am intrigued to notice that Dan says,
What do you mean by this? If you mean we are entering a new phase (post meltdown) I think your right. The battle of mass immigration in this race replacement war has been won hands down, won by them - not us. There is now sufficient critical demographic mass in place to finish the job off. I don’t suppose this is what Dan meant, but any talk of economics is over, we’re now in the Camp of the Saints territory. 4
Posted by Lurker on September 23, 2009, 06:47 AM | # Ive been leaving love letters on the comments sections of Philipes’s site for the past year. He never replies. You know, I get the feeling he just doesnt want to talk. 5
Posted by Guessedworker on September 23, 2009, 08:11 AM | # Good post, Dan. When any advocate abandons his justifications but not his advocacy it is reasonable to infer that the justifications were insincerely held, and that other motives apply. The only question regarding Legrain is what those motives are. Financial gain ... a place at high table ... racial animosity ... a psychotic personality? What moves this creature to agitate for the death of England? 6
Posted by Captainchaos on September 23, 2009, 08:46 AM | #
In the short term no, in in the long term, that depends upon the genetic potential of immigrants. One could pursue the course of Australia, which will enjoy an Asian technocratic elite which worked its way from the bottom up just as all valuable immigrants should. If one thinks that future undesirable though, one must concede other considerations need be in play besides economism.
Yet the success of state-bureaucratic intervention has had in the Russian Federation in elevating a flagging birth rate in such a short time shows what benefit said can have. With the birth rate so low especially among native cognitive elites, sans intervention of the kind Putin employed, high IQ immigration seems to be a reasonable response to the problem. That is if ‘keeping the economy going’ and ‘keeping taxes low’ are the only considerations. Dan Dare supports economic migration within EU countries as being mutually beneficial to all countries involved, assuming the exchange is equal in number of migrants. One wonders if he would not extend the same invitation to Asian cognitive elites? What of the resultant damage to EGI of the respective host populations? If I approach a man on the street and ask him if he will let me break his nose, so long as I let him break mine after the fact, wouldn’t he be a sucker not to take me up on my generous offer? According to Dare, when considering EGI, yes, he would. Of course Dare’s vision for the future of our race is one of a managed decline, with the inevitable flocking to the BNP stopping the total bleeding out at some point. One of the BNP’s luminaries is Lee John Barnes, who with such aplomb ushers us all into the shining future of genetic engineering. With “friends” like that, one may wonder why one needs Jews. 7
Posted by Gorboduc on September 23, 2009, 08:52 AM | # Can someone with a bit of ability in Photoshop or Paint, or all those graphics programmes that I can’t understand, do a poster with some horrible rapper or - well, just about any of those thicklipped faces from those newspaper pictures of killer gangsters in the UK that they print when they don’t like to state directly that the knifemen/gunmen/rapists were, ahem, of Caribbean or Somali extraction - as I was saying, can someone put one of these monsters’ faces onto a poster that parodies the famous WWI recruiting posters with Kitchener or Uncle Sam pointing out at you, but saying “YO’ COUNTRY NEED ME!” instead?? Banksy, you’re supposed to be a bit of a rebel - design us a sprayable stencil! 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 23, 2009, 09:03 AM | #
There’s one more question (and the more important of the two): who exactly, in the mainstream media, is hyping Legrain, what are their ethnicities, and, to put it frankly, are they (fill in the blank) _______ ? He’s not hyping himself and couldn’t if he wanted to. Someone is hyping him, making him and his genocide-advocacy “mainstream.” Who? Who is deliberately making genocide of Euro-race peoples mainstream? A lot of people have written books. Francis Parker Yockey wrote books. Revilo Oliver wrote books. Dr. David Duke has written books. I don’t see anyone in the mainstream media hyping David Duke. I don’t see anyone making David Duke mainstream. Who’s making Legrain mainstream? I don’t give two damns about Legrain’s motivation. I want to know the identities of the ones behind the scenes who are hyping him. I already know their motivation: genocide of the white race. What I need are their exact identities and their exact ethnicities. 9
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 23, 2009, 09:07 AM | # I also don’t want to know the identities of frontmen. Blair, Brown, and Karma Chameleon are frontmen. I want to know the identities of the men giving the frontmen their orders and their paychecks (paychecks or IOUs to be cashed in after they leave office, same thing). 10
Posted by Beardy on September 23, 2009, 09:48 AM | # Captainchaos, 11
Posted by G on September 23, 2009, 09:49 AM | # Good question, Fred. It’s not just the Media, though. Not all that many private punters, I’ll bet, buy books of this nature. But I’ll bet that dozens, no, hundreds of universities and colleges all over the UK have put it in their libraries, and that dozens and dozens of lecturers have put it on their students’ reading lists. If so, some places will have perhaps bought 12 or 15 copies! A survey of current prospectuses married to a check on those many Uni. libraries that have OPACs (Online Public Access Catalogues) might show where the book will have a lot of clout. One establishment I know of runs a module on The Notting Hill Carnival, for God’s sake! 12
Posted by Selous Scout on September 23, 2009, 09:53 AM | # Our enemies are getting bold. They are waving their Race Replacement schemes in our face, in triumph. They do it fearlessly. What we need to do is make traitors like Legrain and his backers fear us. All this debate and analysis have got us nowhere. Talk talk talk. The natives are getting restless and an uprising/coup is in the offing. 13
Posted by Captainchaos on September 23, 2009, 10:14 AM | #
I don’t believe it is arguable that an advanced civilization could not be maintained with cognitive elitism and eugenics/genetic engineering. Yes it could. Which is why those that invest their valuations in economism, progress and the like are not ultimately friends of ours. Which was my point. Race before all other things, the propagation of our racial being as life’s penultimate interest, that is where I’m coming from. Of course Dare balks at such a stark commitment, because it too much smacks of what those naughty Krauts did back when, back when the Good and the Great burned the Krauterland to ashes in a fit of “righteous” indignation, and “moral” vanity does not brook gainsayers well. Nearly one half of the German soldiers who died during World War Two did so in the last eighteen months of combat on the Eastern Front, those were men - economismists? - not so much. 14
Posted by Guessedworker on September 23, 2009, 10:14 AM | # Fred: Someone is hyping him, making him and his genocide-advocacy “mainstream.” Not someone, something. I know it’s not believable across the pond but Jews do not own/plan/control everything over here. Legrain’s Wikipedia entry lists his career as involving: Prospect magazine No one is going along to the managers of these institutions and the editors of these publications and saying, “Hef I got a vinner for you, oi!” It’s subtle, it’s endemic, it’s the zeitgeist, it’s finance capitalism in the age of hyper-individualism. This we know, and we don’t need “men behind the curtain” to explain it. Not in Europe. Listen to the Europeans. Listen to Finn and Dan and me, because we aren’t wrong about this, and we aren’t saying it because we love Jews or are owned by Jews. We are saying it because it is true. 15
Posted by Dasein on September 23, 2009, 11:12 AM | # Dan, what do you think is the likelihood that there are costs of immigration that the government has managed to keep hidden from investigating bodies, e.g. the Economic Affairs Committee of the House of Lords? In Holland the costs were estimated to be around 7 billion eruos per year after Wilders’ party was able to get access to ministry data. In Germany, I would estimate the costs to be at least 5 billion per year, based on figures from Herwig Birg. It would be great if the citizen’s dividend of one Mars bar per week could be shown to be a net loss of billions per year. 16
Posted by Captainchaos on September 23, 2009, 11:53 AM | #
That mongrelizing superior racial stock with muds will have a future deleterious economic impact is easily surmised, but no doubt not widely known, or at least internalized. An investigative body should be established to look into bring back the Nuremberg Laws. I hereby nominate Dare for chairman of said. 17
Posted by Dan Dare on September 23, 2009, 01:54 PM | # Before continuing on with the analysis of the current status of Legrainism, I’d like to respond to a few of the comments made so far.
Simply that even the dimmest amongst the ranks of immigration enthusiasts will now be aware that there is simply no constituency for the economic argument. It is, as you say, over. I don’t agree however with your contention that the ‘race-replacement war’ has already been lost, at least in Europe. There is still much further to go before we can assume that.
On the surface it seems to me that Legrain’s condition is a function of at least three factors: careerism (quite probably the most important), social conditioning (LSE etc), and rootlessness during his formative years. Although born in Britain, his parents were French and, I believe, Estonian and he had a peripatetic childhood. I’ve noticed that many Industry stalwarts are either recent entrants themselves - Dhananjayan “Danny” Sriskandarajah until recently one of the leading lights at the IPPR being a case in point - or are members of some victim group or other. I’m not a psychologist, but as for Legrain, I suspect there may also be some deep-seated sense of victimhood that compels him to align himself with ‘the oppressed’ against the majority. It wouldn’t be a surprise to learn that he is a homosexual. It’s really a fascinating field. I’m looking forward to putting some of these specimens under a microscope after we take over.
Cap’n, for some reason you seem to take a perverse delight in misconstruing my comments. Do you do it on purpose? Is it a wind-up? I’m sure you’re not just a cloth-eared twerp, so there must be some other reason. What is it? As for the matter of intra-European (or intra-Eurosphere) migration that is almost irrelevant. As long as the bi-lateral flows remain roughly in balance, which they were until the EU expansion in 2004, there is absolutely no issue. In fact there are many cultural and economic benefits to be gained from such migration, provided it is restricted to exchanges between societies which are culturally compatible and of the same (high) socio-economic status and HDI level.
Such twaddle.
Oh unquestionably that’s the case Dasein. There are huge expenses that are a direct consequence of ‘coloured’ immigration which are simply ‘off the books’. As just one example consider the effect of the 2000 Race Relations (Amendment) Act with placed a statutory duty on around 50,000 public authorities to promote racial equality and eliminate discrimination. As a consequence these authorities all incurred expenses of one sort or another setting up to ensure compliance with the Act and also in staffing Equality and Diversity functions. If we assume that each authority has had to finance two full-time equivalent staff positions (and many larger organisations have literally dozens of such staff) that means around 100,000 new diversity-related positions were created that didn’t exist earlier, and none of the expense for these parasites ever appears in any central accounting. But there’s an even more important aspect of immigrant-related cost that almost never gets considered, and I’m not referring to social and cultural cost here. All discussion about the economic aspects of immigration centres around its fiscal effects (i.e. tax receipts and expenditures) and GDP (sometimes also GDP per capita). These are all concerned with revenue and expenses, what we might term the current account or the income statement in a commercial enterprise. The capital account (assets and liabilities) is practically ignored and yet this is the area of the national accounts in which the negative impact of immigration is perhaps the greatest. Some of the academic restrictionists (Coleman and Rowthorn in particular) as well MWUK do flag this as an issue, but as far as I know there has been only one attempt at quantifying the capital cost of supporting immigrants. In 2007 the Social Affairs Unit published a report by Anthony Scholefield which attempted to place a cost on the infrastructure and the ‘tools of production’ with which an immigrant must be equipped:
Scholefield estimates that the capital cost of the infrastructure that must be created for each new immigrant amounts to £141,000 (about $225K), or £282,000 for a family of four. He calculates that few if any migrants generate can ever generate sufficient added-value during their working lives to compensate for this capital cost. The full report can be seen here: 18
Posted by Beardy on September 23, 2009, 03:07 PM | # That’s a bloody good point Dan. 19
Posted by Beardy on September 23, 2009, 03:34 PM | # Of course the EGI equation of classic Salterism has two halves: This gives an extremely powerful and cogent economic/social theory that is grounded (unlike most of the shit taught these days by the ‘economics profession’), is actually rooted in hard and unassailable facts which are true today as they were 1000 years ago or 1000 years hence, true in the future Martian colonies and true in extra-glactical societies hence to be discovered ie actually has the stamp of ‘scientific theory’ not like the utter, utter bollocks that is called ‘modern economics’. Point No.2 above is often ignored, whilst No.1 is stressed - but as the theory goes both are of equal relevance.The point about uncontrolled low-skilled immigration hinges on (2) more than (1), as (2) is the real nation-wrecker, the real genesis of the Darwinian cock-fight to the death in which the weaker ethny (alas, excuse me for making the obvious and heavy-handed hint to self-reflect), literally has eyes torn out with shapened spurs, has its heart and lungs pierced by kicks and its entrails ripped out and spread on the harsh unforgiving sawdust, the blood coagulating in the heat of an indifferent sun.And the carcass is thrown to the mangy dogs to devour for good measure. 20
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 23, 2009, 05:25 PM | #
If you don’t mind I’d rather listen to Armor and Al Ross. Just joking .... Thanks for the explanations, and I do keep trying to see it your way (and Finn’s, and Dan’s, and der Hoff’s, and F. Braun’s since his recent transformation, etc.) — can’t quite do it yet, though. 21
Posted by danielj on September 23, 2009, 05:35 PM | #
Has anybody ever utilized the term (or leveled the charge of) “cultural impoverishment” against these migrant workers? It is like they aren’t even capable of considering the possibility that there is a culture on Earth that might be inferior to ours. What they are really saying then, is that every culture on Earth stands shoulder to shoulder in equality, except our own, and we must therefore be “enriched.” I wanna vomit. It is a blatant and brazen declaration of their intent to replace White founding stock wherever they may be found.
Excellent post by Beardy. 22
Posted by Al Ross on September 23, 2009, 06:41 PM | # Prospect Magazine, which promotes this immigrationist’s poison is owned by a splendidly-named Jew called David Hanger, while the opendemocracy platform employed by him is funded by George Soros. I would be surprised if no more enemy aliens lurked behind the scenes in the manner described so well by John Buchan in his excellent novel, Greenmantle. 23
Posted by Captainchaos on September 23, 2009, 06:56 PM | #
What’s wrong with “British Jobs For British Workers” and a full-employment economy? Will or will not those economic migrants make an ingress into the English genotype? We already know the astounding success with which niggers have accomplished said (50% !).
So it has possibly been lost in North America in your opinion? This is pretty straight forward, if one can beat one’s enemies in the field one is capable of dictating terms. The default position, the ‘next best option’, is accepting a managed decline. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on September 23, 2009, 06:56 PM | # And yet, Al, David Goodhart is the editor of Prospect:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/24/race.eu http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/may/17/christopher-caldwell-immigration-islam 25
Posted by BGD on September 23, 2009, 07:02 PM | # Re: Prospect - one mildly interesting thing is the Editor Goodhart has written a series of essays in there suggesting too much immigration and general diversity weakens the bonds within society and diminishes the willingness of the population to have a welfare state. 27
Posted by Drifter on September 23, 2009, 07:03 PM | # Further mass immigration equals a better life debunking: Pete Murphy believes there is a peak ideal population for our economy and that endless growth economics inevitably takes us downward along the right side of the curve.
28
Posted by Dan Dare on September 23, 2009, 08:22 PM | #
Judging by the reaction from some of the Prominenten in the High Priesthood of the MultiKulti, the liberal intelligentsia found David Goodhart’s thesis on ‘Diversity and the Welfare State’ (see GW’s link above) more than mildly interesting. 29
Posted by Captainchaos on September 23, 2009, 09:59 PM | #
Yet you adduce the latter two as justification for lack of rigorous commitment to protection of the genetic integrity of the English ethny.
It is to show that machine politics, judeoeconomics, philo-Semitism and instinctive dislike of niggers - in short: conservatism - has been, and will continue to be, ineffective; all of which will result in, yes, a managed decline - at best. To go beyond that is to venture into NS territory, and that is unconscionable for you because of the emotional investment you have in the “righteousness” of the destruction of Germany. Only I think you would be hard pressed to actually assert “moral” vanity is more important than survival. 30
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 23, 2009, 10:19 PM | # Outstanding comment above by Dan Dare — should go “above the fold” as a supplementary log entry. 31
Posted by Desmond Jones on September 24, 2009, 12:50 AM | #
What a pile of crap! Of course Lord Gavron has exercised editorial influence The New Statesman-founded by a Jew, “investigates” the Zionist lobby...too funny. 32
Posted by Southern Agrarian on September 24, 2009, 06:57 AM | # Some left-wing coastal academic elites propose ‘invigorating’ rural small-town White America by allowing hordes of non-White immigrants to settle there:
33
Posted by Dan Dare on September 24, 2009, 11:59 AM | #
Thank you for the kind comment Fred. I have done as you suggested, and will add the final two sections to the original posting with a note in a comment to announce their appearance. This mode of operation also has the considerable side-benefit of making the comments easier to navigate. 34
Posted by Matra on September 24, 2009, 12:02 PM | # And yet, Al, David Goodhart is the editor of Prospect Unfortunately, it was Goodhart who coaxed David Hanger to return to Prospect from another pro-race replacement magazine The Economist. Not long after that the magazine got a cash injection of £500,000.
One cannot help but wonder if the Goodhart immigration controversy hurt the magazine. As to Legrain’s book it was prominently displayed at the two Waterstones shops in Belfast back in March 2007. In fact it would’ve been impossible to walk in or out of either shop without getting an eyeful of the book. Given that Waterstones are a national chain they probably promoted it at all their locations. Legrain also had several interviews on TV and his book was widely reviewed in the broadsheets. Somebody was pushing this book. If you look at the cover in addition to a blurb from Tony Benn there is also one (at the top above the title) from Europe’s star libertarian Johan Norberg who like all prominent libertarians advocates open borders. 35
Posted by Dan Dare on September 24, 2009, 12:12 PM | #
If you are asking whether I am proud to consider George Frideric Handel a fellow Englishman, and happy that he chose Westminster Abbey to be his final resting place, the answer is yes and yes.
How calming it must be to dwell in a simple binary world in which no gradation exists between love and hate, or between genocidal megalomania and Jew-worship. 36
Posted by Captainchaos on September 24, 2009, 01:15 PM | #
Actually the two are closely linked.
How easily conservatives flit from churn to churn, always careful to make sure their own bread is buttered. Apparently Handel’s people were as irrelevant to him as the rankest evil of the attempted extermination of the German people by the Allies is to you, and the genetic integrity of your own people is as well. That you play fast and loose with ascriptions of genocide to Germans - though you know it to be a lie - and sweep the genuine article per the Allies under the rug really does say it all. No honor without loyalty. 37
Posted by Desmond Jones on September 24, 2009, 02:37 PM | #
‘Guardian’ editor apologizes for Jenin editorial Guardian editor condemns U.K. journalists’ call to boycott Israel
38
Posted by Dan Dare on September 24, 2009, 03:18 PM | # I have added a new section to the original post, concerning ‘Cultural Enrichment’. I will post the final section dealing with the benefits of diversity in a day or two, following a short trip. Cheers DD 39
Posted by Dan Dare on September 24, 2009, 03:37 PM | # I must say how impressive I’m finding the communal Jewdar apparatus here on MR, it’s almost as finely calibrated as that on Stormfront, which remains the gold standard in such things even in the post-Mu’adDib era. Jolly good show chaps, keep up the good work! Per Ardua ad Astra (that’s one specially for the Cap’n). 40
Posted by Guessedworker on September 24, 2009, 05:53 PM | # Matra: Somebody was pushing this book. It’s the publisher’s job to get the profile of each new launch as high as possible. Legrain publishes through Abacus, which is a branch of Little, Brown in the UK. The ceo is Ursula Mackenzie - not a tribalist, but a very well connected figure in the industry (she’s also chair of the Trade Publishers Council). However, to prove your point you really need to show the linkage. Actually, Waterstone’s website contains the following claim:-
http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/navigate.do?pPageID=100000002 That does not mean that someone didn’t pass the order down the tibal line. But where are the tribalists? Here is Waterstone’s central line management in full technicolour (not senior people, though): http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/navigate.do?pPageID=1044 This data, though incomplete, does not support your thesis. Let’s see you fill in the gaps. Desmond, Can you demonstrate that Goodhart is beholden to Hanger and employs Legrain under duress? Just saying it doesn’t make it so. Let’s see your evidence. Similarly, evidence, please, that the rest of Legrain’s media outlets are employing him under duress from tribal sources. You see, you are really only robbing our own people (who happen, for whatever reason, to agree with the Establishment) of their powers of decision. You are assuming that they would not favour a race-replacement screed. But all the evidence is that a considerable number of them would, for reasons we all understand perfectly well. The hook-nosed schemer behind the curtain might be there or he might not. But even if he is, you are not demonstrating that our own people somehow disagree with him and don’t believe fervently in race-replacement themselves. Where there is evidence of race-replacement favouritism going on, as there is in the case of Legrain’s successes, such as they are, it could not do so if Jewish coercion was the sole causative. Let’s try to think in more subtle and fruitful ways, and address the world as it really is. 41
Posted by Dan Dare on September 24, 2009, 06:33 PM | # Let’s hope the boys take it easy and don’t make the Enigma blow a gasket through brute-force encoding ‘Waterstone’ as Wasserstein. 42
Posted by Gorboduc on September 24, 2009, 06:37 PM | # Matters of musical nationalism. Plenty of other non-English musicians did that. When the music of Vivaldi and Corelli reached our shores they caused a sensation. English archives are full of music from foreign sources. The Italian Bassano dynasty came over in Henry VIII’s time and is still functioning today! What about John Cooper, who having studied in Italy, came back and proudly called himself Coperario? WHAT a pity English composers betrayed their genotype by writing Masses, motets, antiphons, concertos, sonatas, operas, madrigals, canzonets, oratorios, ricercars and fantasias! They should have stuck to those homegrown but restricted forms, the Voluntary and the Ground. Don’t forget Mendelssohn and his German pupil Prince Albert, who was a pretty good composer too! Should we have kept them and Gounod and Bruckner out? Are you going to bat on about “false consciousness” and go back and try and unpick and censor the whole bloody lot? Vaughan Williams studied with Ravel - which enabled him to express his English nationalistic insights with the greater clarity. Alas, German studies overwhelmed Sterndale Bennett and Hugo Pierson, but Pearsall, although an expat in Switzerland, was still a great English composer, despite besmearing his escutcheon disgracefully by writing a lot of Catholic church music - some very fine - for his friends in the nearby Abbey. this reminds me of about the only thing I’d be seriously critical of Handel for, his apparent support for ‘Butcher’ Cumberland You’ll just be in time to join a decent amateur choir for their Christmas Handel Messiah, or even their Bach Christmas Oratorio or their Charpentier Messe de Minuit (or are we being untrue to our English genotype in permitting these foreign fal-lals any foothold on our shore? 43
Posted by Matra on September 24, 2009, 07:20 PM | # GW: It’s the publisher’s job to get the profile of each new launch as high as possible. Legrain publishes through Abacus, which is a branch of Little, Brown in the UK. The ceo is Ursula Mackenzie - not a tribalist…This data, though incomplete, does not support your thesis. I didn’t say it was due exclusively to ‘tribalists’. As far as I can tell those Hanger convinced to invest in Prospect are not Jews, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a Jewish angle. When is the last time Abacus or Waterstones got behind an immigration control book or anything even remotely nationalistic? It is the Zeitgeist, though obviously British Jews and the USA with its Jewish dominated political discourse contributed mightily to this anti-national Zeitgeist. But others - big business, tranzi lobbyists, bureaucrats, lawyers, etc, and other not necessarily Jewish elements - also benefit from deracination, divide and rule domestic politics, free movement of workers, and the transfer of power from the modern nation-state to new international institutions. Big business (including the main book publishers) is as much the enemy as the cultural Marxist - the latter often funded by the former. I don’t know the extent of Jewish culpability in propagating anti-white sentiment in Britain - it is not exactly something that can be easily quantified. It is also hard to know if the non-Jews who use the anti-white language of Jews are true believers or if it is all just on the surface.
I’ve been in Waterstones in Belfast, Ballymena, Dublin and London. Though they each contain some local interest books and some specialise in particular subjects (travel, etc) the national/international politics and history book sections are pretty much the same. Anyone who lives near a Waterstones also lives near a copy of A People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn. 44
Posted by Dan Dare on September 24, 2009, 07:29 PM | #
45
Posted by Al Ross on September 24, 2009, 07:41 PM | # GW, the Little Brown firm is (via Hachette) a subsidiary of Lagardere Group of France and the man who sits atop this empire as Chairman is Raymond Levy, a tribalist methinks. However, day - to - day decision - making is, no doubt, local and the same goes for the German based Bertelsmann Group whose UK business is headed by a Jew, Gail Rebuck. 46
Posted by Gorboduc on September 24, 2009, 08:13 PM | # Handel came over here and later embarrassingly met his previous patron from whose employment he’d gone AWOL, and who a bit later had been brought to England too. BUT IT’S THE MUSIC THAT COUNTS! 47
Posted by Al Ross on September 24, 2009, 09:08 PM | # Allow me, please, to recount my experience of the Official British attitude to Britishness, not to mention the EU. Recently, I had to renew my passport at the British High Commission of the South East Asian country in which I’m currently a work permit holder. The local officer at the Consular Section was a non-Brit who informed me of certain rule changes in application procedure since my last passport renewal, including the necessity for me to present a passport photograph signed on the back by any Commonwealth citizen (besides a spouse or relative) who will vouch for the fact that I am the applicant that I claim to be and who has known me for not less than three years. Having endured the tiresome security at the High Commission’s building, the necessity for which was engendered by Muslim terrorists, I decided that it would be a pleasantly toothsome irony to ask one of my office staff, a Muslim, to affirm that I was, in fact, me by signing the back of the passport photograph. My preferred affirmation agent would have been an Irish citizen friend of mine but EU nationals are not as trustworthy to HM Govt as Commonwealth Muslims. 48
Posted by Captainchaos on September 24, 2009, 09:51 PM | # Dare:
The Japanese were not to enter Germany and compete with German men and women for employment, likewise for mates. I hope you’ll see the difference. Btw, the English once had a mutually beneficial relationship with Japan, which they terminated, which the Krauts then capitalized on - that was none too bright (on the part of the English). Gorboduc:
Gorbo, the reason I go to bat for you is I sense a reservoir of healthy instinct in your person; the reason I take the bat to Dare is to improve his, if that is indeed possible. All praise to the one art which perhaps above all inspires yearning for, and one can hope, gives us a window into the transcendent. Yet as with paintings, the constituent colors put on the canvas must be blended with care for the over all, and final effect, that is, not promiscuously; and of course it goes without saying the original colored paints are not to be mixed on the palette. So too with national cultures, for it cannot be forgotten the invaluable role which cultural distinctiveness plays in maintaining separate genetic heritages - the latter of which itself is so important in producing the full gamut of European cultural traditions we so treasure. Do not be too eager to mix the paints on the pallet though it looks good on the canvas! 49
Posted by Desmond Jones on September 25, 2009, 02:38 AM | # Guessedworker, Under the precautionary principle, a foundation of English common law, the obligation is yours and like Lord Jim, when your assurances are found wanting, will you walk in the midday sun, bowing to the judgment of your people? 50
Posted by Al Ross on September 25, 2009, 03:26 AM | # It is a grievous pity that the precautionary principle was not successfully invoked when Oliver Cromwell made his abysmally disastrous pro - immigration decision. 51
Posted by Gorboduc on September 25, 2009, 04:15 AM | # CC - from whence do you get the technical stuff about not mixing paints on the pallette? Where else do you mix them? Ever been in a painter’s studio? Don’t say yes, Bowden’s, please! I forgot to mention the Scottish concertos of the 1730’s by Barsanti or the fiddle concerto by Bruch based on Scottish tunes, or Telemann’s bouncy arrangements of Polish ones. Costeley - George Onslow - Greig -all continental composers with UK-type names. What about Chinese Chippendale? The Pantoum? The Rubbaiyat of Omar Khayyam (in, of course, Fitzgerald’s version)? Arnold’s Sohrab and Rustum? Morris dancing? Any more and I shall start on about the amazing output of first-rate Renaissance and Baroque music from 17th and 18th century South America, much of it by Indian, yes Indian, composers, or the prodigious later 18th century Brazilian sculptor Aleijadinho who was a) a half breed, b) of slave stock, c) a leper, and d) - perhaps the most damning disqualification of all - a Christian! You really should look these things up and confront them, and make them part of your reality. They might actually strengthen certain aspects of the case. How does Duguin’s Eurasianism sort with all this? What does not destroy us makes us stronger! 52
Posted by Bill on September 25, 2009, 04:45 AM | # British Conservatism - Where Now? Just landed via Prozium’s site. (Uppity Whites) Which got me thinking. It strikes me that the US and Britain are more or less at the same stage of awareness in the ‘get whitey’ stakes. Granted the US are looking at white Nationalism where we’re looking at British Nationalism, plus we’ve got the likes of the BNP and the US do not. British capitalist Conservative elites, have thrown their lot in with Liberalism, thus leaving high and dry millions who now join the once traditional Labour supporters who now have no place to go. Ex new Labour supporters are gravitating to the British National Party, (possibly en mass?) which begs the question where now British Conservatism? Radical white awareness (Prozium) in Britain, is still a fuzzy disorienting experience, which after a dose of Cameron will become full on - what the hells going on here? The pennies will soon begin to drop. Conservatism is dead, but the conservative just don’t know it - yet. So I ask, British Conservatism where next? 53
Posted by Al Ross on September 25, 2009, 05:02 AM | # Where next? Perhaps 1968 redux? In that year Enoch Powell’s misnamed ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech galvanized hundreds of London dockers to defy their trade union leadership’s Marxist diktat and march through what was then their city in support of the now ‘racist’ notion that the English deserve a country of their own. 54
Posted by Bill on September 25, 2009, 06:58 AM | # I was looking for something else (related) which I couldn’t find, but came across this. Waddya fink? http://www.boingboing.net/2008/10/16/howto-ride-a-london.html 55
Posted by Gorboduc on September 25, 2009, 07:16 AM | # Bill, this is absolutely f*****g priceless! EVERYONE should watch it! These days it would be “These two African students have been burying a victim in the fields. Now they need to get back to Brixton. The car they stole has has been burnt out and as there are are no other cars they can steal, they have to go home on a bus. They push in front of everyone else, and go upstairs to sit at the back, light up their joints, shout, and play their radios really loud. When the conductor comes up he decides not to bother with them but they decide to mug him…” Well it doesn’t need saying…. I can’d do it phonetically, but “the buses air alewizz punc-tu-aL” may be close, if untrue! So what were you looking for? 56
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 25, 2009, 09:40 AM | # That was a very nice film, Bill. I didn’t find it funny at all. I found it normal. Watching it, you had the same feeling you had watching, let’s say, a 1940 newsreel of the people in Hiroshima going normally about their business, and thinking to yourself, these people, these same folk I’m looking at, don’t know it but they have five years of normalness to live before unspeakable horror strikes them all down. The people in this 1950 bus video don’t know it but they have 15 years of normalness like this still ahead of them before the insane horrors of the Jewish revolt known euphemistically as “the Sixties” descend upon them, ruining their lives, replacing normalness with a kind of waking nightmare that won’t be undone or normalness restored in their lifetimes. What you feel watching this video is a sense of doom. 57
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 25, 2009, 09:50 AM | # In saying I didn’t find the video funny at all, I wasn’t responding to Gorboduc’s comment above, which I agreed with, but to the guy with the Jewish-sounding name (Doctorow) who posted it at the other site, who thought it funny and “incredibly patronizing.” This Jew, Doctorow, and ones just like him are a major cause of the slow version of Hiroshima we’re all living through as the replacement of the sort of life depicted in that 1950 video, a sort of life which was paradise on Earth compared to what we’re forced to live through now — forced largely by Doctorow and his friends who snicker and sneer at normalness and welcome and rejoice in the criminally insane, the nightmarish, and the evil. 58
Posted by Dasein on September 25, 2009, 10:22 AM | # The video did have some warning signs, though. 1:17-1:24 59
Posted by Gorboduc on September 25, 2009, 11:19 AM | # A few days ago I posted that Evelyn Waugh’s trilogy Men at Arms recorded his, and his hero’s, disillusionment with the UK establishment during the course of WWII. 60
Posted by a Finn on September 25, 2009, 11:49 AM | # Dan Dare made an important contribution, which might imply better future to this site. Still, I have to accompany CC (without giving credit to his national socialism etc.) that with those indistinct managerial solutions regarding Europeans and their inner flows in Europe, Dare’s vision becomes a slightly decelerated decline to Europeans. Qualitatively same kinds of calculations created the present situation, and it is only question of when the present trend would continue in full force. Only if Egi, ethnicities and communities (in opposition to loose individuals) are incorporated into the equations, permanent structures can be created. - How shall we employ what we know to direct our practical behavior so as to test these beliefs and make possible better ones? The question is seen as it always has been empirically: What shall we do to make objects having value (Europeans and European ethnicities; my addition) more secure in existence? - H. Rittel 61
Posted by Bill on September 25, 2009, 12:32 PM | # Al Ross on September 25, 2009, 09:02 AM
Al, if only! We have had 50 years to inwardly digest the warnings of Powell’s speech and still we do nothing - but grind out the political process. (vote) Incidentally, I cannot recall seeing anywhere where Powell indicated that he knew the deeper desires and aims of the architect’s programme of mass importation of aliens. Is Nick Griffin our Enoch Powell? It will be interesting to see how long it will take the millions who are about to vote for Cameron to wake up and smell the coffee. Interesting times 62
Posted by Gorboduc on September 25, 2009, 12:55 PM | # Someone should do a samizdat reprint of POWELL AND THE 1970 ELECTION (Elliott Right Way Books, Surrey, 1970) Contains 5 of Enoch’s speeches, some of his letters, breakdown of the opinion polls’ readings, voters’ appreciative comments, informed commentary by George Gale, plus academic bit by Maurice Cowling(!!) If the management wishes, I’ll make a copy available to them for scanning so you can download it. It was a poorly produced paperback, so it’s probably quite hard to get a 2nd hand copy. 63
Posted by a Finn on September 25, 2009, 01:30 PM | # Dare: “I’m not a psychologist, but as for Legrain, I suspect there may also be some deep-seated sense of victimhood that compels him to align himself with ‘the oppressed’ against the majority. It wouldn’t be a surprise to learn that he is a homosexual.” I wrote elsewhere approximately: “Modern totalitarian regimes use different methods than the old, less violence and force. In the core of the present Western system is science/ knowledge, production, consumption and all kinds of manipulative techniques, and these allow soft methods. Almost everything that is universally or particularly in humans or related to them; fears, needs, goals, desires, normalness, deviations, perversions, interests, advocacies, oppositions, free time, work time, status competion, spouse competition, natives, foreigners, men, women, children, pets, hobbies, democratic parties, ngos, places, spaces and environments, etc. etc. is manipulated and assimilated with the assistance of deep scientific and other knowledge to the system commercially, productively and bureaucratically in many ways. E.g. push and acceptance of gay rights, pedophile rights and other liberal rights happens at the societal level (apart from the needs and interests of gays, pedophiles etc.), because societally accepted gays, pedophiles etc. are commercially, productively and bureaucratically useful. They need restaurants, date services, lawyers, advocacy groups, registration officers, tolerance bureaucrats, marriage services, all kinds of counselings, magazines, tv programs, etc. This is one dimensional reductionist commercialization. E.g. European-Americans don’t have any intrinsic value in this system, they can be replaced by any other commercialized entities, like cheaper labor or immigrants that need more bureaucratic services than European-Americans. When everything that is in different humans is squeezed around the clock from them, their time, energy, desires, needs, oppositions, dissatisfactions etc. is used up safely, so people feel less need to resists the system and “elites”, despite the fact that the progression of liberalism in the end will destroy them all. Present system is self destructing dump, but it is fairly stable in the short term, satisfies people in many ways and makes the “elites” rich.” Additionally, “elites” strenghten and praise the minorities against the majority and weaken and disparage the majority, so that there is more closely power balance between them. Then “elites” have a decisive power over them, like a chairman in council assembly with his decisive vote, when vote is 50-50. They can also play the strenghtened minorities and weakened majorities against each other as is necessary in particular issues. “Elites” also fear that majority sets the rules for both the “elites” and minorities, if they have their normal power. This would take away large part of “elites’” power and depose them. Old Machiavellian methods. 64
Posted by Frank on September 25, 2009, 01:52 PM | # Gorboduc, if you do scan it, rapid share is one way to distribute it. There are several other similar sites too. 65
Posted by Gorboduc on September 25, 2009, 02:46 PM | # Frank, thanks, I didn’t know about that. Hope they’re not bothered by copyright problems… Even 10 copies would have an effect. 66
Posted by Bill on September 25, 2009, 03:51 PM | # Bus Stop - a bit of (nay) a lengthy ramble Earlier, I started a post to reply to those who wondered how and why I came across the posted bus video @ 10.58am 25.09.2009. After spending something like 45 minutes composing a reply drawing together disparate but relevant points, I suddenly lost it all to the ether. I don’t know what happened to my efforts but I was not a happy bunny. I’ve since replied separately to Al Ross at 9.02am so I will now reply to any others who maybe interested. Incidentally Al, I failed to mention that in the multi cult race replacement’s armoury they have a formidable array of weapons, high on the list is the weapon of incrementalism. The 40 years since Enoch Powell’s infamous speech, the multicultural architects policy of incrementalism, (softly softly catchee monkey) has paid handsome dividends beyond dreams. Such are the soporific effects of the gradual tightening of the noose, Conservatism just sighs hands up and tacks with the Left. (Leaving Conservatism further behind) We have done nothing to stop it and continue to blindly vote for the same old, same old. What a perfect scam! Now back to the video. I was looking in my mind for an image I remember from the ‘50’s, it is (I think) a government sponsored poster showing a London Transport double decker bus being driven by a smiley black face with teeth a’sparkling. The happy driver is a recruit from the colonies and is responding to the call for labour to solve the problem of servicing a booming post war British economy. As Prime Minister of the day Harold Macmillan declared - We have never had it so good. So I was looking for this image when I came across the bus video. Now, I’m a sucker for ‘50’s nostalgia so I watched the meandering of the London bus of 1950 (and it’s passengers) with increased interest. I thought, what’s all this about Alfie? As one commenter asked, for whom was this information film for? Who was the intended audience? There were many such films as this, sort of left-overs from the propaganda war years. I recall only recently, watching a British Transport Commission rail film of similar vintage on TV. The film depicted a country steam train battling through huge snowdrifts to deliver essentials to a beleaguered district in a wild location in Britain. It was the winter of 1962/3, the severest winter for years. The film crew battled equally heroically to stay with it, and recorded the gallant efforts of all concerned, included in the footage was a member of the film team and could just be seen. Astoundingly, this film crew member was located and invited into the studio discuss his work of that era. It was most interesting to hear his views, he revealed (quite openly) that this film unit (and others) were government backed propaganda units to provide encouragement to the populace in times of duress, it was pure Soviet stuff, filming the workers straining to achieve tractor targets. Having seen this film several time before - I was gobsmacked at this admission. However, back to the bus, I think this clip was/is a many headed monster. It was calling for tolerance of the host nation. (Be patient these people will soon catch on - don’t worry.) It was informing the enrichers of the way things were, just try and conform. It was the beginnings of the race relations social engineering industry and it is shown quite clearly here. Why should the voice-over make reference to the children and the two black men. “There now don’t be frightened, they won’t bite you.” Was the ‘agenda’ known by certain people at this time and were they commissioning other films of the similar ilk? Aside. I believe there was credence to the 1950’s mantra - Britain was short of workers. The economy was booming in order to provide the consumerist goods that had long been denied to the British people, they wanted their refrigerator, telephone, vacuum cleaner, pretty dresses, sleek automobile that they had seen on the latest Doris Day movie. Television had arrived and there was a screen in the corner enticing the viewer to all of those goodies seen on the big silver screen. Get now, pay later, consumerism had arrived and the Windrush had landed. IMO. The labour shortage could have been handled by a period of National Service and was all that was needed to bridge the swords to plough shares period. 67
Posted by Al Ross on September 25, 2009, 04:25 PM | # Thank you, Bill. I also found the 1950 bus video most interesting. 68
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 25, 2009, 05:03 PM | #
Powell and the 1970 Election by John Wood: (When ordering anything from Amazon go in through the Amazon link on the Vdare.com home page. Vdare.com will receive a tiny commission on the sale at no cost to you, and a place will be reserved for you in Heaven. Thank you.) 69
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 25, 2009, 05:06 PM | # Drat it, that Amazon link I posted doesn’t go to the right book. I’ll fix it — can’t right now, have to go somewhere. A little later, but it is there, I’ll post it. 71
Posted by Dan Dare on September 26, 2009, 04:30 PM | # I’ve added the final section on the Benefits of Diversity to the original post. It’s rather longish but hopefully will stimulate some lively commentary. 72
Posted by Guessedworker on September 26, 2009, 06:30 PM | # Bill: The labour shortage could have been handled by a period of National Service and was all that was needed to bridge the swords to plough shares period. Montgomery demanded a post-war standing army on the Rhine 500,000-strong. That was where our young men were meant to be, and that was why the Windrush delivered the first installment of what was only later coopted into biological warfare. When exactly I do not know. Possibly the first long-term decision was taken during Winston’s final innings, possibly during MacMillan’s. But the idealistic and very Jewish culture politics of the sixties were responsive to that decision. It preceded them. It’s interesting that Fred has picked 1989 as the date after which, in America at least, a publicly overt politics of race-replacement was instituted. If we go back another click on the historical scale we find that culture war had become hegemonic by 1981. That was the date of the first experiment with a rainbow coalition of minorities seizing power from the majority that I am aware. It was Ken Livngstone’s putsch in the Greater London Council. These were all landmarks along a road that was not understood by anyone in 1948 - not even the bad guys. 73
Posted by Guessedworker on September 26, 2009, 06:37 PM | # Dan, For your info, I’ve posted a link to your post on Legrain’s blog. 74
Posted by Desmond Jones on September 26, 2009, 10:58 PM | #
This is just pure nonsense. It can be only conceived as a blatant attempt to ignore the facts of the historical record. It is abundantly clear, in the writings of Chamberlain, Grant and Stoddard, the US restrictionists, the restrictionists in the white Dominions, even English liberals like Julian Huxley recognised it in his visits to the Jim Crow South, where this road led. It was also abundantly clear to the Jews, Boas et al in the US and Magnus Hirschfeld, Singer, Seligman, Ignaz Zollschan and Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg)in the UK and Europe, which is of course why they opposed it. How the owner, of a purportedly racially aware site, can ignore the thousands of words written about this very topic, many by acclaimed scholars like Kevin MacDonald, and write such a statement, boggles the mind. 75
Posted by Captainchaos on September 26, 2009, 11:16 PM | #
Not to mention Lindbergh, who made his appeal for the United States to say out of another World War explicitly on the grounds of the long-term biological health of our race. We should have listened, for what did it bring us? Fifty million dead Europeans, the loss of our homelands, a homeland for the Jews from which they are safe to run their international swindle as a result of our protection, slavery in mind and body to our Jewish masters. Truly it can be said, Only the Jew Won World War Two. 76
Posted by Desmond Jones on September 26, 2009, 11:55 PM | # The circumstances that motivated the passing of the Alien Act of 1905 makes it quite clear that mass immigration of the “Other” was fully and firmly rejected by the British public.
77
Posted by Dan Dare on September 27, 2009, 01:06 AM | # I’m fairly certain that Clement Attlee was as dismayed as everyone else when the Empire Windrush turned up with its unwanted cargo, and came to view its arrival as an unintended consequence of the BNA 1948. But the interesting thing is why successive governments from the late 1940s until the present day have never been able to directly confront the issue of coloured immigration, even though it has been obvious that the overwhelming majority of the electorate would have wished them to do so. Even though the political payoff would have been decisive, none of them ever had the bottle to grasp the nettle. Why is that, one wonders? No doubt some will point to the men behind the curtain, but we must surely be more nuanced than that especially since, as GW notes, they were still in the process of regrouping and didn’t re-emerge as a force to be reckoned with (in Europe at least) until the mid- to late-sixties. And GW, I would be greatly surprised if Philippe Legraine were to turn up here, it is far away from his comfort zone. Like Lurker I have often dropped unsupportive comments on his blog, but have failed to elict a response. He is what we used to call in earlier days an empty suit, long on vacuous pronouncements but short on actual content. 78
Posted by Bill on September 27, 2009, 03:17 AM | # Dan Dare - just above - September 27, 2009, 05:06 AM
Good question, to which no-one seems to be able to come up with an answer. I don’t know either, but let’s put the question another way, how come 60 million people have not pressurized successive governments to stop Mass immigration dead in its tracks all all through the years? Christ! we can’t even do it now and our backs are to the cliff-tops. OK, maybe that last bit was a bit OTT, it’s my frustration showing. It is not true anymore, there is resistance bubbling away - thanks to no-one but the BNP. The number of reasons given as to why this nation of 60 million people have shown no real resistance to their removal from this mortal coil is legion and truly mystifying, the theories that have abounded (and in more recent years) been discussed to death on such sites as this - and still we’re no nearer the answer as to the reason why. It would be pointless of me to go over those reasons once again here, and all too time consuming to boot. I revisited Raspail’s Camp of the Saints recencently, how prophetic his writing is. I commented the other day that we could be in the territory of Raspail’s tale of rabbits and headlights. Are whites the only people cursed with a concience? 79
Posted by Bill on September 27, 2009, 04:50 AM | # Guessedworker on September 26, 2009, 10:30 PM A bit of a Sunday morning ramble 1940’s-World WarII-Atlee-Labour government-Iron curtain-cold war-National Service-booming Britain-labour shortage. This is the world I was born into and cut my teeth on - by the the mid ‘50’s I was becoming aware. (maturing) As far as I can recall during the whole period of this time, the only black faces I ever saw belonged (in my mind) to the most colossal giants imaginable - in the form of American GI’s (1944?)- I can see them now. That was until, some years later, (1955) I witnessed a boat-train full of West Indian immigrants speeding through a country wayside station heading for London. An eye opener indeed. (I wrote about it here somewhere) If I remember rightly National Service was done away with in 1960, now, as I saw it, conditions in 1960 were not all that different from the late ‘40’s (Cold war-wise) and by that time the economy had more or less stabilised. (ok there might have been pockets of labour shortages) It is my contention that National Service could have (parallel to the economy) switched from military to civil purposes. It is interesting that as early as 1956 civilians were taking over some areas of NS (like storage) The NHS was also an area where nursing shortages could easily have been solved by NS. Anyway it is all academic and in the past. The Internet has provided me with an alternative viewpoint that would have never seen the light of day if (Internet) had not come about. In many ways I feel cheated, that my life has lived so many lies, lies that would have never surfaced had it been left to official history. Three cheers for the Internet! On a broader note, I think that Leftism, is an opportunist ideology that takes advantage of any circumstance(s) which it considers will further their cause. This post war era of unprecedented technological growth has been a god send to them, especially the present age of the computer and Internet communication. I would venture that without the technical aids now available to them they could not be is such an advantageous position as they are. I firmly believe that this way of life is about to reach the end of it’s shelf-life fairly soon, and who knows, it may even prove our savior. 80
Posted by Guessedworker on September 27, 2009, 05:22 AM | # Desmond, I asserted that the road through what could be termed immigration politics, culture politics, hegemonic politics and race politics was not mapped from the beginning. The “bad guys” knew what they wanted but they did not know how to finesse their way there. They made it up as they went along. Hence the general formula of putting leftist intellectuals together with the bankers and power elites. Hence, specifically, the setting aside of classical Marxism after the failure of class-warfare. Hence Frankfurt. Hence Adorno at the Radio Project. Hence the appropriation of Gramsci and the inventions of postmodernism and the social contruct. Etc, etc. Now kindly desist from this very boorish practise of leaping on some strawman associated with my commentary and noisily gunning it down. It is suggestive of a chip on the shoulder, Desmond, which I’m sure is a misapprehension on my part, and you are in fact far too good-natured to indulge in underhand behaviour. 81
Posted by Bill on September 27, 2009, 07:24 AM | # The media has been full of the discovery of Anglo Saxon gold recently found in Staffordshire. To say the media is in thrall about all of this leaves me puzzled. I thought the media is part of the cabal of the NWO and as such despise nationalism, and everything connected with it, history, roots, tradition, culture and it’s people. So why do the media have these orgasms at such times, football success, Olympic success, anything World war against Germany, Harry Patch and his comrades, Remembrance Day, our troops in Afghanistan - the list is extensive and then they turn and rabidly accuse of racism.. In my previous post I said the Left is opportunist - is this just another avenue of deception and opportunism (and humbug)? The media excel at this double speak. 82
Posted by Dan Dare on September 27, 2009, 01:24 PM | # Bill, your mention of the boat-train brought to mind the remarkable scenes in John Schlesinger’s 1961 doco ‘Terminus’ which depicts the arrival of just such a train at Waterloo, presumably from Southampton. The train draws in and one is astonished to see that every face at the carriage windows is black. The platform becomes crowded with hundreds of disembarking West Indians, many attired in trademark pork-pie hats and zoot suits. They are quite firmly corralled by BR staff while the luggage is unloaded, perhaps because of unseemly scenes on earlier occasions before such precautions were introduced. Eventually they are let loose to collect their belongings and make way out to their new life in the capital. This occurs about 22 minutes into the film, and provides a jarring contrast with the ‘normalcy’ and order of the earlier scenes in which no dark faces are to be seen. When the West Indians suddenly appear in such numbers, almost out of nowhere it seems, the sense of menace is palpable and the feeling that something very alien and potentially uncontrollable has landed is inescapable. I’m unsure whether it was Schlesinger’s intention to create such an impression or not. Probably not. Terminus appears on DVD in Vol. III of the British Transport Films Collection, ‘Running a Railway’ and is well worth looking up. The BFI is doing a superb job of re-issuing many classic documentaries from the 30s through the 60s on DVD. There are a great number of clips on their Youtube channel including one from ‘Terminus’ not though unfortunately, the one described above. 83
Posted by A middle-aged, pipe-smoking , tweedy, Beardsman on September 27, 2009, 01:48 PM | # Dan Dare, 84
Posted by Bill on September 28, 2009, 03:11 AM | # Once in a while I call in at just to see what’s going down in this ...erm…well…I don’t know how to categorize it so I’ll let the reader form their own opinion. Anyhow, the reason I’ve posted this is because there is a simple explanation as to what the liberal consensus is all about, ok, I know regular posters here are well up to speed and beyond but to those who maybe calling looking for answers - this is for them. 85
Posted by Bill on September 28, 2009, 06:10 AM | # Steady the Buffs http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/index.php/writers/arrow-straight/237-where-are-our-generals 86
Posted by Dan Dare on September 28, 2009, 05:59 PM | # A new sighting to report. Our chap has emerged from cover and put in a cameo appearance on Radio 4, chatting with Kenan Malik about the BNP. Mr. Legrain has not to date been a prominent fixture on the political Rentaquote circuit, so this may be another indicator that the Immigration Industry is fast approaching sunset status, at least for the more thrustingly upwardly-mobile amongst its luminaries. Perhaps a new career direction is beckoning as a general-purpose media pundit and universalist libertarian talking-head. As one door closes, another opens. All in all though, not a totally gripping performance it must be said. Recommended for committed groupies and Legrain completists only. Click though from the link to access the podcast. 87
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 28, 2009, 07:02 PM | # I just read the Green Arrow editorial linked in Bill’s comment (above, 10:10 AM) and I don’t understand it. I don’t understand what’s wrong. I had the same feeling after reading Lee Barnes’ views about the BNP needing to change drastically. Why? And whyever now, right after it’s won the biggest political victory on Earth?????? Right after it’s fired the shot heard round the world??????? Why suddenly is everyone in it down in the dumps as if it’s finished and will soon need to go on life-support unless radical changes are made????? I just do not get it. What’s wrong with continuing along exactly the same path that’s just seen the party take off like a rocket????? The same strategy won’t work again, is that the fear? Well why not try it first, and see??? What in the world is causing all this pessimism over there???? BNP supporters should be dancing in the streets and shooting off fireworks! This is like post-partum depression where the woman delivers a baby, the happiest event of her life, and instead of being overjoyed, promptly feels hopeless and miserable. 88
Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 28, 2009, 07:17 PM | # Bill, I was mildly shocked some weeks ago when you yourself posted a comment expressing pessimism about the BNP’s prospects for further advancement. It shocked me somewhat because it came from you of all people, as stalwart a man as they come, or such is my feeling about you. Your type doesn’t break, doesn’t bend, and doesn’t give up, and it doesn’t give in to ill-founded pessimism. Therefore your pessimism had to be founded. Suddenly one had an unpleasant feeling. I didn’t like thinking about it. So I didn’t. But that you did express it comes back to me. Has the BHP peaked? Is that what you pessimists over there are all are saying? Why in the world would it have peaked??? It’s just taking off!!!! 89
Posted by Bill on September 29, 2009, 03:32 PM | # Fred above 11.17pm. As I see it Believe it or no, this started off as a brief reply to your above. Before, during and since the MEP elections there has been some flip flopping by the BNP, in addition, the clunking fist of EHRC won the discrimination claim without a blow being landed - despite previous assurances of preparedness from the top man. My main source of contact with the BNP these days is Simon Darby’s blogsite. The main website is ok for the newcomer/beginner but banal for the awakened and could be trawled from anywhere, it is small beer for an awakening readership – This is a must for urgent attention. Simon Darby seems mainly concerned with getting the media to like him, and is constantly bemoaning the fact that they don’t, still the BBC have assuaged this rejection by inviting Nick Griffin to appear on BBC’s flagship programme - Question Time. I’m aware that the last thing Simon wants after an exhausting day is to start blogging, but a lot of his supporters much appreciate the sharing of his thoughts. The leadership remain bullish and an air of confidence (outwardly) exudes. However, for some time I have detected an undertow of unease among committed supporters - an unease I can readily relate to. In the post election euphoria the leadership is perceived by some to have taken their eye off the ball, one only has to read Simon Darby’s blog to sense that the centre of gravity has shifted to Brussels. Some members are asking with furrowed brow, was it wise of Nick Griffin to enter these elections, who is there now to look after the shop back home? - There’s a muttering of a questioning of priorities and a perceived sense of drift. Maybe it’s all an anti climax from the heady days of a few distant weeks ago, or relaxing in order to recharge flagging batteries, either way, some are saying this is not the time. The lack of big hitters at the top means the job of shaping the big picture and running the shop is spreading the jam too thin - and it’s beginning to show. It’s no secret that I’ve always thought the BNP’s main strategies have been a distraction, not being explicit as to what is going on has cost them dear in time and progress. But heck, who am I to judge, how would I know what forces of pressure maybe operating behind the scenes? It looks a though the BNP will have to reappraise some of the central thrusts of their strategy, and with an election looming there’s not much time. No flip flopping next time. As mentioned, there is also criticism of their website content - banal and no beef? There’s no doubt in my mind the fall-out from the crushing blow of the EHRC has disorientated the rank and file – maybe the leadership too. I have no suggestions as to how to cure this. When a guy like Green Arrow resigns from the memberships and starts a new website and says what he said - it’s time to take note. Just look at the response from readers. On a broader note, postmodern liberal politics is now the only game in town, nothing means what it says on the tin anymore, and it is into this arena that the BNP now find themselves. Loyalty, tradition, principle, vision, belonging, nationhood, moral values, the whole panoply of Euro Christian tradition has been trashed and tossed out of the window, and in truth, the only political response by politicians of all stripes is to flip flop and be all things to all people - whatever works as magician Blair once said. The BNP are now dipping their toes into this primordial soup. FWIW, I would suggest they forget the next election and consolidate what is and start planning for the next election for when Cameron goes belly up. You know it makes sense, the last thing the BNP want is to get seriously involved in the total mess of what will be. It will be men of principle who will eventually win this contest. (Just look at Brown’s unutterable utterings this week for chrissakes!) After 11years of shafting the middle class with ankles clasped - he now say he will be nice to them. Conclusion. It matters not one jot what I think, the situation in this country worsens by the hour, by the day. I salute the courage of the BNP from Nick Griffin down to the humblest tea-maker, and as long as they remain the only beacon of hope in our nation they will continue to go from strength to strength – the latent force is there just waiting to be tapped into. It is 1938 and I’m a fly on the wall, how we now define victory is my main question. PS. As I have pointed out many times previously, there are enumerable non related external issues lurking in the wings – which could develop and take this whole business in any number of directions. 90
Posted by Dan Dare on September 30, 2009, 02:50 PM | # Philippe Legrain has added a rare new entry to his blog entitled The economic benefits of migration. There’s not much too it:
If this is intended as a response to our discussion here, it is a spectacularly lame one. This newly rediscovered pamphlet is in fact simply an extended regurgitation of earlier claims and assertions already dismissed above. There is, however, one line of argument that Legrain continues to doggedly pursue almost everytime he surfaces; Legrain’s usual argument runs along the following lines: “…If it is a good thing for people to move from Liverpool to London when their labour is in demand, surely the same applies to those moving from Warsaw and Manila?” This is obviously questioning the legitimacy of nation-states and their sovereign right to determine who shall and shall not be permitted to reside in their territory. Elsewhere on his blog Legrain includes a piece entitled Buiter’s brilliant blog (emphasis added):
Buiter is a big cheese in the global economic establishment and, like Legrain, a somewhat rootless individual for whom transnationalism is part of the credo. He is currently a professor in the European Institute at the LSE, where Legrain is also a visiting fellow (the latter is not quite as grand a position as the title and Legrain’s self-promoting blurbs would have us think). Buiter has a blog at the Financial Times, and it will be this particular entry that Legrain refers to when praising Buiter’s case for nation-states to be ‘open clubs’.
Little wonder then Legrain should consider Buiter an ideological soulmate. Doesn’t do harm either to butter up a potential benefactor. 91
Posted by Dasein on January 26, 2010, 03:45 PM | # A new report from Migration Watch UK addresses the argument that Third Worlders are needed to prop up the pension system.
...
[IMG]http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx249/Aletheia14/bp1_24_graph.jpg[/IMG] Next entry: Turkish Gov’t Blackmails Bisexual Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky Previous entry: What it is to be human, part 2 |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Jemsaphiemi commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/24/12, 04:55 PM. (go) (view) 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) 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 A Middle-Aged Beardsman on September 23, 2009, 04:31 AM | #
When talking about ny supposed ‘economic benefit’ due to immigration, the only revelant metric to consider is the actual productivity (as measured in the compensation received annually by the immigrant).In simple terms, any immigrant who can only earn less than the average per capita income of the indigenous worker actually lowers the GDP per capita (the only real definition of national wealth) of the nation.Thus it’s not a very good idea for a government that wishes to boost incomes and the public good (paid for by taxes of course), to import floor-wipers, waitresses, nannies and cabbage pickers by the million.
Of course all of the above is just very basic elementary economics (that is the only economics actually worth a damn, simple logical, tautological mathematical identities and equations as expounded by Adam Smith et al.).
In his execrable book Mr. Legrain was apparently completely unaware of the basic logical underpinnings of the subject he is supposedly an expert in (THAT speaks volumes about the quality of modern economics education), and repeats guff about floorwipers and nannies making the country ‘richer’ ad nauseam.
Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned the pernicious effect of taxation. In any modern western welfare state such as Britain where taxation reaches levels as high as 50% of GDP, and very expensive interventions such as health, education and housing are afforded *universally as of right*, it is exceedingly obvious that the floorwipers, (whom Mr. Legrain hails as saviours of Britain), are a huge burden on the British taxpayers as they only put peanuts into the system, yet draw out as least as much as yer typical British professional.
milton Friedman pointed this out - and he’s supposed to be the patron saint of ‘The Economist’.