Majorityrights Central > Category: Immigration

My friend Tadeusz Korzeniewski has suggested that we engage in an exchange of letters, by way of exploration of one another’s views.  I have no idea what will come out of that, if anything.  But it is too interesting a prospect to be neglected.  So here is my opener, on the subject suggested by Tadeusz.  Replies will be added to the page, not to the comment thread - that is for readers with their own thoughts on the matter at hand.

Dear Tadeusz,

Your suggestion is that we choose as our subject the appearance of a Polish diaspora in Britain.  A brave choice.  I certainly don’t have a great number of positive things to say about it.  I don’t think you will find many patriotic Englishmen who do.  But there are those among the bien pensant classes and, of course, the shrinking band of Europhiles and outright devotees of libertarianism and economism, as well as the usual haul of thoughtless little sleepers who parrot any media mantra, who will tell you that east European immigration (because, obviously, all east Europeans are Poles) is “not a problem” and even “a benefit”.

Well yes, east Europeans are, at least, white and Christian (nominally, anyway).  They seem refreshingly, unusually like us.  And some of the girls can be very appealing.  They drink and swear and dance, and then they can be laid.  To the English ethnic sensibility, this is an understandable species in a way.  They can “assimilate”, in a way. 

Obviously, as a matter of ethno-nationalist principle, it’s very different.  All our peoples must live sovereign and free, and that means alone, on their own ancestral soil.  Europe’s peoples must grant one another this most essential collective freedom, because sovereign possession of territory is, and has always been, the guarantor of life itself.  We have no business in each other’s lands.  Is not Polish history a long and painful testament to that?

The present-day story itself is lacking in Polish tragedy, but it has its victims.  The million-fold young Poles and eastern Europeans generally who, since 1st May 2004, have come to Britain, and travelled in even greater numbers to Germany, have deserted their own needy economies and treated ours like some low-rent, mud-free Klondyke.  They have created enormous resentment in East Anglian towns such as Peterborough and Boston.  They frequently live in gang-houses provided for them by migrant-worker agencies.  Rumours abound that they sleep several to a room, and know nothing of the always rising costs of owning an English house and raising an English family.  English workers simply cannot compete on the subsistence earnings the incomers are so willing to accept.

It is said that local employers recruit directly in Poland, the jobs never being advertised to prospective English workers; and that whole workforces are recruited and actually paid in Poland, the employers exploiting loopholes in EU law to avoid employment taxes in Britain.  The whole deal is topped off with constant praise for how “polite”, “hard-working” and “skilled” the incomers are, while the English men and women they have replaced are routinely dismissed as “lazy” and “uneducated”, and are left to rot on state benefits.

The underlying narrative is that life in the old Soviet bloc countries of eastern Europe has remained economically harsh, and workers still understand what it means to do an honest day’s work for what, by Western European standards, is a pittance.  They are only too grateful, we are told, to take up “the jobs British workers will not do”.  British society, on the other hand, is written off as having become decadent and uncompetitive in the global economy.  Our people have come to expect the good things in life without having to work for them.  Europhile politicians and financial journalists, whose own jobs are not at risk in the new neoliberal universe, regularly reinforce this message.  Some have the gall to lecture the English unemployed to the effect that if they don’t like it, they are always free to go and find work for slave-labour wages elsewhere in Europe, as if to be decanted from home and family into the life of a characterless economic cypher is an acceptable station for any human being.

It is true, of course, that the eastern European workers are an economically productive cohort.  Migration is a filter for IQ, and the quality of first-generation migrants is higher in all sorts of ways than the average for their country of origin.  Higher, in this case, than the average for the natives too.  But by the same measure the eastern Europeans have come with rather more than the average loading of competent criminal gangs.  The least of it involves metal theft: stealing manhole covers, stripping lead from church roofs and power-cabling from railway lines.  Multiple accident insurance fraud is another little game.  Armed robberies of soft targets like petrol stations and jewellers are also a favoured pick and, naturally, the drug trade has benefited substantially from “skilled eastern European labour”.  The very worst of it has been the smuggling and prostitution - sexual enslavement, actually - of innocent and brutally used eastern European girls hidden away in inner-city whore-houses.  Undoubtedly the most novel and multicultural felony has been the provision of rather more willing eastern European “brides” for the purpose of a passport scam, usually involving Asian fixers and African “husbands” willing to part with a few hundred quid for a quick I do.  Not the hardest work a hard-working eastern European girl could find to do in opportunity-laden Britain.

The whole “hard-working” narrative took a bit of a knock from about the middle of the recession - well, perhaps not the “hard” part.  We began to hear about penniless, unemployed eastern Europeans living rough in parks and public spaces, “skipping” supermarket bins and hunting the edible wild-life to extinction.  The sight of regal swans gracing the urban river landscape has become a thing of the past on some East Anglian rivers.  In contrast, alcoholism, at which eastern Europe has always excelled, has become a rather more commonplace feature of town-centres.

Now we are told the recession is over.  But nine out of every ten new jobs is being taken by immigrants of one hue or another.  Our kids struggle to enter the workforce at all.  Only half of graduates find non-menial work.  Of the others many are serving internships - generally without pay, just to have a chance of a permanent job at some point in the future.  It is, of course, an utter betrayal of the young, to add to the long, long list of betrayals we have suffered in the grand cause of maximum corporate freedom.  The politicians, together with the businessmen who have wallowed in its profits and the liberal Establishment which has found it so convenient and personally inexpensive, can never make amends for what they have done.  Tumbrils and old maids with knitting needles will not make amends.  Only mass repatriation, ruthless and complete, will make amends.

As for the eastern Europeans, they do not escape without a cost to their humanity.  Like all new migrants, they have brought upon themselves and their children a ceasura they do not yet understand.  The subtle rewards of peoplehood, of life among kind, of natural belonging and warmth and understanding have been replaced in them by becoming a stranger in another man’s land, and by the coldness and disinterest he feels for them.  This is the true wage that the neoliberal system pays its migrant workers.  Its materialism has become theirs, and its power to commodify human lives has commodified them.  Until they go home they are merely labour, another commodity to place alongside goods, services, and damned capital.

Yours,

GW

Nick Griffin addresses EU Parliament, calling to account criminals behind EU immigration policy and their deceptive terms:

The first chapter of another of my books that will never be written.  A fiction today.  But one hopes that one day the important parts of it will be fact.

Chapter One

“The Court will hear your opening statement if you please, Mr Truscott-Brown,” announced the presiding chief justice in perfectly fluent but by no means native English.  For that was to be the only language spoken in the room during the next three days.  No translators would be whispering into microphones, no one in Court would be hurriedly adjusting his or her earpiece to catch some mangled phrase.  This was an entirely English, or British, affair except that it was taking place at the Hague before one judge from Alsace, another from Heidelberg, and a third from Uppsala, all of whom had forgone the privilege of hearing the proceedings in their native tongue.

“Thank you, your Honour,” came the reply in ringing received pronunciation.  George Truscott-Brown QC OBE, lead advocate for the plaintiff, eternal renegade and inveterate fighter of lost causes, peered over his glasses at the unknown quantity which was the bench.  He steadied himself inwardly and, with a final, ever so slightly uncertain pat of the neat rectangle of papers on the table in front of him, began his work for the day.

“Learned judges will be fully aware that this is a complex and, in some quarters, controversial action which presents a number of tests for the 1948 Convention.  If the plaintiff is successful at this review, a subsequent plenary hearing may set precedent in several areas of high significance for the jurisdiction and practise of the ICC and to future interpretation of Article 2.

“Mindful, therefore, of the profound responsibility which would weigh upon the trial judges, it is our intention, at the kind invitation of the Office of the Prosecutor, to present you with the greatest possible wealth of evidence and legal argument within the time available to us.  It is our firm belief that all of the former will be ruled admissable and the latter applicable, and that your Honours will be led to the only possible conclusion that the Court must grant the Prosecutor leave to investigate the complicity of those individuals named in the Court papers.”

READ MORE...

Paul Weston’s blog: http://paulweston101.blogspot.co.uk/

Liberty GB: http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/

Hat-tip to Morgoth

Free Movement of People: Bulgaria and Romania

From 1 January 2014 the transitional controls on free movement included in the accession treaties and adopted by the UK and seven other Member States when Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU in 2007, will end.  From that date Bulgarians and Romanians will have the freedom to live and work in those eight Member States (and in Spain, which has only had transitional controls on Romanian nationals).

… There has been a lively debate in the UK about how many Bulgarians and Romanians will come to the UK after 1 January 2014 and the British Government has announced it is looking at the rules governing social security claims as a consequence of this and future EU enlargements.

Do you want over a million Romanians and Bulgarians moving to crowded, bankrupt Britain?

Spain and Italy have not had restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians. So let’s see what has happened there. Currently there are about 920,000 Romanians and 170,000 Bulgarians in Spain. In Italy there are about 997,000 Romanians and over 70,000 Bulgarians. Britain has much more generous benefits and more jobs than Spain or Italy, So the absolute minimum number that will be moving here will be well over one million. Probably it will be closer to two million.
Now, let’s look at some other figures. Unemployment amongst Romanians and Bulgarians in Spain is 36.4% – that’s about 396,760 immigrants who are unemployed. So we can expect somewhere in the region of 400,000 Romanians and Bulgarians to be claiming benefits for housing, council tax and unemployment here in Britain.

READ MORE...

I coined the term Pervasive Ecology and hypothesized that it provides a context of the broadest utility that one may take in White advocacy because it may be universalized but not foundationalized.

READ MORE...

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...