Majorityrights Central > Category: Immigration

We are down to 80/20 per cent.  But read on.

That headline news and other key points:

■ White was the majority ethnic group at 48.2 million in 2011 (86.0 per cent). Within this ethnic group, White British1 was the largest group at 45.1 million (80.5 per cent).

■ The White ethnic group accounted for 86.0 per cent of the usual resident population in 2011, a decrease from 91.3 per cent in 2001 and 94.1 per cent in 1991.

■ White British and White Irish decreased between 2001 and 2011. The remaining ethnic groups increased, Any Other White background had the largest increase of 1.1 million (1.8 percentage points).

■ Across the English regions and Wales, London was the most ethnically diverse area, and Wales the least.

■ 91.0 per cent of the usual resident population identified with at least one UK national identity (English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, and British) in 2011.

■ The number of residents who stated that their religion was Christian in 2011 was fewer than in 2001. The size of this group decreased 13 percentage points to 59 per cent (33.2 million) in 2011 from 72 per cent (37.3 million) in 2001. The size of the group who stated that they had no religious affiliation increased by 10 percentage points from 15 per cent (7.7 million) in 2001 to 25 per cent (14.1 million) in 2011.

■ Most residents of England and Wales belonged to the White ethnic group (86 per cent, 48.2 million) in 2011, and the majority of these belonged to the White British group (80 per cent of the total population, 45.1 million). In London in 2011, 45 per cent (3.7 million) out of 8.2 million usual residents were White British.

■ Twelve per cent (2.0 million) of households with at least two people had partners or household members of different ethnic groups in 2011, a three percentage point increase on 2001 (nine per cent, 1.4 million).

■ Of the 13 per cent (7.5 million) of residents of England and Wales on 27 March 2011 who were born outside of the UK, just over half (3.8 million) arrived in the last 10 years.

■ Nearly 4.8 million residents held a non-UK passport that was either an EU passport (2.3 million) or a foreign passport (2.4 million).

The full ONS report on ethnicity is here (pdf).

One quote from that report:

The 2011 Census introduced a question on national identity for the first time.  This was due to an increased interest in ‘national’ consciousness and demand from people to acknowledge their national identity.  National identity is multi-dimensional, so the 2011 Census respondents were allowed to tick more than one national identity.  91% of the population identified with at least one UK national identity (English, Welsh, Scots, Northern Irish and British).

English identity, either on its own or combined with other identities, was the most common identity respondents chose to identify with, at 37.6 million people (67.1%)  English as a sole identity (not combined with other identities) was chosen by 32.4 million people (57.7%)

Well, the population of England given in the Census is 53 million (Wales 3.1 million).  On that basis we were actually at 61% in March 2011.  But that is very unlikely to include a satisfactory total for illegals or for legal, non-white non-respondees to the Census.

We will minoritise within a decade by a strict reading (ie, excluding Scots, Welsh, N.Irish, and Irish admixtures as fully English).

The DNA Nations - 2020 Update

A reading through of this update of a preliminary document of the DNA Nations concept to provide the basic specificatory structure to follow up for those who care for the curation of our diverse kinds of people. While our focus is on European peoples, curation for the preservation of our kinds - genus, species - and potential coordination on the basis of genetics, the concept does not preclude negotiating with mixed kinds, does not prescribe violence, exploitation in any way shape or form and does not preclude non-Europeans from curating their kinds for preservation and working out the means for their coordination with European kinds as well

The DNA Nations - 2020 Update

An implicit union of unions and coalitions thereof based on DNA criteria.

Euro-DNA Nations

James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes sovereignty through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under the circumstances, they must be largely implicit (for example, regarding laws which prohibit realtors from mentioning race to buyers or sellers). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities should be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association.

This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Rather than trying to overthrow the the liberal zeitgeist of our epoch, Bowery maintains that we ought to hold liberals to their principles. We will respect and grant their valuation of freedom to go/and or be associated with whom they like and we as European peoples expect the same freedom of choice to go/ and or associate with whom we like.

As far as European Americans and other European diaspora go, Bowery has, since his initial proposal for the laboratory of the states platform, concluded that rather than state-sized units, county-sized political units are more optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes.

I would argue that the initial state is rather a step toward unionization – a virtual and rules based association, though not made formal as a political action group to begin, just an informal union of unions based on voluntary DNA groupings.
 
Furthermore, Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly Western characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this Western characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur as well.

This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen state/county-sized ecologies of European diaspora derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses WN on the task of coordination.

We wouldn’t really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence.

There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a nation of European descended peoples is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, nations of European peoples are to hold up to the growing power of China, they will need to be large.

Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller States/Counties, both freely chosen human ecologies and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing a mutual larger manifestation as well.
Given the anti-White hegemony that European peoples are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of European peoples sovereignty.

By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing autonomous, sovereign nations of European peoples, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other WN nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front.

There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of sovereignty for European peoples. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship.

Nor does it mean antagonizing non-Europeans. We may extend the DNA Nation concept and its freedom of association to them as well. But just as the conscientious are concerned for the preservation of genus and species, pervasive ecology, so too is it perfectly legitimate to look after our European kind.

For whom it may concern, the indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always).

However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, WN would seek to re-establish our traditional territories as European, particularly those in Europe, but would also seek to secure sovereign territory in North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims.

Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate WN of in its largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory.

The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for sovereignty from non-native European coercion, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction.

Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible.

If you wish to express a wish that you might one day be a part of this union of unions that is the Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular category/union as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership.

The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided.

Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised.

Daniel Sienkiewicz

READ MORE...

I received a mail this morning from one Friendrick requesting a “position statement” on the argument for the dissolution of white America presented by the science correspondent of Reason Magazine, Ronald Bailey.  Bailey has a pretty impressive CV, and obviously considers himself expert in matters of ethics as well as science.  But he is also a liberal, and the argument he has written is a wholly liberal argument, not an ethical or scientific one.

It is an argument relying on a particular reading of 20th century American immigration history.  Its principal thrust is that the definition of white America already expanded from “Nordic” during the 20th century, and will continue to expand in the 21st to include Hispanics (he means Mestizos).  Obviously, one could respond to this in equally historical terms, standing on the ground of the righteous white American deploring the effects of that expansion.  But that’s not intellectually aggressive enough, I feel.  One has to get at the faux-virtue of liberal principle and undo it by more powerful ethical arguments.

Bailey’s guiding principle is tolerance ad infinitum in the face of coercive change, and the “good” that diversity does to expand said tolerance.  It is the job of white America to deracinate to be tolerant.  Bailey writes of “the ever-broadening inclusive tolerance of the American social project” without ever stopping to consider whether peoples and races have the right to life, or the right to express their own interests, or the right of consent, or the right to self-defence, or whether it is intolerant to deny such rights solely in respect to one people and one race.  In the politics of the unfettered will such ethical considerations are assiduously ignored or, if they can’t be ignored, hurriedly buried beneath a flurry of weak and easily rebutted arguments.

I have responded to Friendrick’s invitation by visiting Reason and the thread to Mr Bailey’s article, and posting what is, I hope, a suitable ethical and even scientific argument.  Whether it qualifies as a position statement I don’t know.  But it will be interesting to see if any advocate of endless tolerance can undermine its position.

I doubt it somehow.

My reply is reproduced below the fold.

READ MORE...

A Pee-Cee news report, with comments switched off, is here.

No to 70 million

Responsible department: Home Office

Over the past ten years the government has permitted mass immigration despite very strong public opposition reflected in numerous opinion polls. We express our deep concern that, according to official figures, the population of the UK is expected to reach 70 million within 20 years with two thirds of the increase due to immigration. While we recognise the benefits that properly controlled immigration could bring to our economy and society, this population increase, which is the equivalent of building seven cities the size of Birmingham, will have a huge impact both on our quality of life and on our public services yet the public has never been consulted. So we call on the government to take all necessary steps to get immigration down to a level that will stabilise our population as close to the present level as possible and, certainly, well below 70 million.”

So reads the immigration e-petition posted on the Downing Street petitions site by Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch.  It is doing a brisk trade.  Only two petitions so far have scraped together the 100,000 signatures that triggers a House of Commons debate. The government allows a full year for this total to be reached.  The immigration petition did it inside a week.

Of course, it’s weak tea stuff.  Sir Andrew is involved in the balanced migration campaign, which only seeks to match immigration numbers with those emigrating.  But it’s a start, and the explosive success of the e-petition is not an endorsement for balanced migration.

Some time in the next two years the government will have to make time for a debate on the 70 million issue.  The debate itself will be no less controlled than the EU debate of a few days ago.  Nothing will come of it. It is inconceivable that there will be another large-scale rebellion among Tory MPs.  But the petition could easily be several hundred signatures strong by then.  It will feel very lonely in the “we love migrants” camp.

I have signed the petition.  Every loyal Brit should do so.

I was fourteen years old at the end of July in 1966 when, with my parents, I took my seat at Wembley Stadium to watch England win the World Cup for the one and only time.  I’ve seen the match and, especially, the goal replays on TV so many times since, most of my memories of the actual game have been blotted out.  But one memory that survives is driving away from the ground afterwards with the team page from the Daily Express’s World Cup Final Special pressed against a rear window of the car, so the residents of north London would get the message, if they had not already done so.

Without ever considering the fact, of course, I had just witnessed twenty-two white men playing football in front of 94,000 white spectators, and now we were edging through the traffic in a Wembley populated by, as far as I recall, white people, my people.  To the south-west, in Greenford and in Southall, there was an enclave of Indian immigrants, to be sure.  But Wembley was still ours, and there seemed no reason to think it would ever be otherwise.

That was four decades ago.  Here is the situation today as explained, partially anyway, by Andrew Neather and recorded for us by the South Wales BNP activist Roger Phillips:

The video is on the BNP’s website.  A long thread is already appended, with comments like: “Slough is exactly the same, Reading and Maidenhead are due to follow” ... “And its exactly the same in South London, e.g Balham, Tooting, Lewisham, right through to Bow, Leyton and Walthamstow in East London” ... “Bradford Dewsbury large parts of Leeds…the list goes on” ... “We have two areas, here in Glasgow, called Govanhill and Pollokshields, both predominately Muslim, so much so, that it is unsafe to be there after a certain time of night.”

About Wembley and, more generally, London, one BNP member notes:

In actual fact Wembley is part of the London Borough of Brent, a borough with a population in excess of 200,000 people. An interesting fact about the London Borough of Brent is that it consists of around 20 wards - with not a single ward having a native British majority. In that respect it is like the London Boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Newham - both having populations above 200,000, with not a single ward between them in which native Brits can be claimed to be in the majority! Add to to that other London boroughs, such as Westminster, Soutwark, Haringey, Ealing, Redbridge, Camden and Harrow - in which native Brits are now in the minority - then it will not surprise you to learn that Greater London (population 7.5 million) will become the first major city in Europe within five years whose native population form an ever diminishing minority!

And what should be the proper response to this political crime?  Well, possibly not the BNP’s realpolitik.  First, for me, mourning for what has been done to our people and our land.  Second, a deep, cold anger that nothing can placate.  Third, an unbending determination to undo it all - absolutely all of it, so that nothing, no detail however small, will speak treachery to posterity.  Not the people who did this to us, not any part of the political structure they created, not the human tools they employed ... none of it must remain in place.  This isn’t simply about our genetic continuity.  This is about the completeness of our political victory, too.

UPDATE - 4th November 2009

A new school of cinéma vérité appears to be emerging among BNP activists.  This time it’s Peckham in South London going on Joburg, and the thread promises further visions of the MultiCult.

READ MORE...

by Dan Dare

Readers may recall the brouhaha that erupted several months ago when Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, announced his intention to commission a study of the economic aspects of an amnesty for illegal or ‘irregular’ immigrants.  Hundreds of thousands such migrants are suspected to be present in London, as well as Britain as a whole. Boris was roundly scolded for his troubles by political leaders across the spectrum, including his own party leader, David Cameron. Nevertheless Boris pressed ahead and the study, prepared by specialists at the LSE, appeared in final form on June 16th.  It is titled “Economic impact on the London and UK economy of an earned regularisation of irregular migrants to the UK”.

Unsurprisingly, the report reaches the conclusion that the overall economic effect is positive, and recommends that Boris and the GLA should just get on with their plan. More interesting than the anodyne conclusion, however, is the additional light that the investigation sheds on the scale of illegal immigration into Britain. It indicates that there were between 417,000 and 863,000 irregulars present in Britain as of 2007, with a central estimate of 618,000.  The report states that around two-thirds of this estimate consists of around 400,000 failed asylum seekers, which can actually be confirmed through inspection of the Home Office’s quarterly statistical reports on asylum.

READ MORE...

A fissure appears to be opening between the views of some national governments in Europe struggling with recession and those of the more detached and strategically-inclined EU Commission.  Among others, Greece, France, Spain and now Italy have adopted some strict measures to discourage immigration.  But Italy’s populist center-right coalition, which includes the Northern Leagues, has gone a good deal further than the others, even criminalising those who house illegals.  On Thursday the senate, Italy’s upper parliamentary chamber, endorsed a vote in May by the lower house.  Unmoved by the left’s inevitable comparison with Mussolini’s racial purity laws, and by criticism from human rights groups and the Vatican, the senate voted 157 in favour and 124 against to bring the package of measures into force.

They include:

1. Illegal immigration becomes a criminal offence punishable by a fine of between 5,000 and 10,000 euros and immediate expulsion.

2. Anyone caught housing an illegal immigrant could face jail.

3. Unarmed citizens patrols will assist the police by mounting patrols on the lookout for public order offences.

4. Parents will have to prove their legal status by presenting their passport or residency permit when they declare the birth of a child.

The European Commission, meanwhile, is looking for ways to strike at least some of these provisions down.  It has announced that it will examine the new law to determine whether it complies with EU norms.  “Automatic expulsion rules for entire categories are not acceptable,” it says.  The Commission is probably miffed because it has only recently opened the first of several African migration offices, this one in Bamoko, the capital of Mali.  The plan is to bring in 50,000,000 + Africans over the next few decades to counter the ageing European demographic.

If national governments will only now address the ageing issue, the Commission’s race-replacement scheme could be in terminal difficulty.