Majorityrights Central > Category: Immigration

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.

The Establishment’s tale:-

The men, women and children - the youngest of whom was a five-day old baby girl - were evacuated from their homes in the Lisburn Road area of Belfast on Tuesday. They spent the night in the City Church, near Queen’s University, before being moved to a council leisure centre. Last night [WED] around 20 families were in temporary student lodgings arranged by the local authorities.

Racial attacks had been intensifying in the area for several weeks, and came to a head on Monday when youths targeted an anti-racism rally by hurling bottles and making Nazi salutes.

As Romanian families arrived at the leisure centre clutching their belongings, they told of the terrifying spate of attacks. One man said a 10-strong gang broke into his house and made threats to kill. “They made signs like they wanted to cut my brother’s baby’s throat. They said they wanted to kill us,” he said.

The blogger’s tale:-

And you will read that these immigrants are required to do the work that the lazy people of Belfast will not do and that again is a lie. Their women are ferried on mass into the City Centre every day, where they spend their time begging. And God only knows what their men do. But it is not work because there is hardly any work and daily there are reports of job losses throughout Northern Ireland.

No, these people are brought in to dilute and undermine the unity of the people of Northern Ireland, the same way that the colonisers are being used throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. To deny us the right to be ourselves.

The commenter’s tale:-

READ MORE...

Seasoned MR readers might remember that we’ve featured a couple of posts about the English accoustic folk duo, Show of Hands.  I was much taken by the simple trust for and faith in their own English people that Steve Knightley and Phil Beer display.  But I’m posting the video of their number The Flood from the 2001 album Cold Frontier for a different reason.

A Lewes resident during the floods of 2000, I recognised straight away Steve Knightley’s descriptive account of “the Southern Chalk downland ... soaked after weeks of hard rain” and “streams that were dry since the war, they’re flowing again”.  But it was what followed that surprised me.  Here is Knightley linking the flood we saw with climate change and desertification, African boat people, the Sangatte crisis of 1999-2002 and most remarkably and presciently, the debt crisis of today.  The central theme to all of this is the “cost of the flood” that “everyone round here is counting”.

Naturally, this conjunction of folk music and protest of social issues would have moved Knightley and Beer - men of my age - in their youth.  But how refreshing to encounter it today allied to an overarching concern for the real people of this country.  The more I hear of these two guys, the more I find to agree with and admire.