Majorityrights Central > Category: Immigration

Last night I found myself explaining the facts of MR life to Birch of GNXP (see latter part of thread).  He had visited us armed with his co-bloggers’ rather puerile and, probably, resentful smear that we are a WN site - meaning a racist, hating sort of operation obsessed with race, race and nothing but race.

I don’t know whether I adequately dealt with this brickbat.  If not, I point the GNXPers and our own readers to the Telegraph today.  It offers a more wistful and eloquent reply by the splendid Charles Moore.  There, I think, one can hear the authentic voice of a mild and much put upon “majority”.

Moore himself concludes:-

There is, at heart, a simple reason why immigration has more than doubled under Mr Blair.  It is because Labour wants it.  Its current policy states: “Controlled and managed immigration is essential to the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom and the health of the public services.”  This sentence sounds reassuring, but actually it is saying that mass immigration is a good thing. I do not believe that most British voters accept this.  It is high time it was submitted to a clear electoral test.

Alright, Moore’s little survey is completely unscientific.  Politically, it is not very deep.  It does not peel back the layers of blank slate egalitarianism which underpin Labour’s creaking model of Man, nation and race.  But it does shine a light into corners where party polling cannot and

venture.  We, of course, do.  It is our function to examine as best we can the sometimes hidden, oftimes ignored will and interests of the majority.

This is something that GNXP fundamentally opposes.  It is something, actually, that almost the entire political establishment of the western world opposes - along, as we know, with most of academia,  the mainstream media, etc.

They, though, are not in the slightest concerned to answer the question which Moore places in the mouths of those he encountered in the rain of St Leonards: “What can we call ours?”

“WN” or not, race-obsessed or not ... we are.

There’s been another survey showing a disintegration of Dutch national feeling. The survey found that 32% of the Dutch wish to emigrate and that only 51% feel proud of their country.

Why such negativity? According to the researchers, people complained about “political developments, multiculturalism, over-population, criminality and socially distant people.”

What makes this situation especially interesting is that The Netherlands has always been held up as a showpiece of liberalism. It is what we are all meant to be heading toward. And yet multiculturalism has already been so destructive of a sense of Dutch national community that a third of the population wants to leave.

READ MORE...

... Spain’s annual influx of immigrants vastly exceeds expectations. The government reckons between 800,000 and 1,000,000 ‘indocumentados’ - most of them Latin Americans and Moroccans - arrived in Spain last year…

One million illegals.  In one year.  To an ancient European state with a population of forty million.  And this is merely the upper end of a government estimate - government estimates on immigration not being known for over-statement.

The story, circularised by the Independent’s E-Mail Newsletter, is truly alarming for all Europeans.  The Spanish government is granting legal status to these people once they have been in the country for three years.  After that they can go anywhere in the EU.

But the most staggering aspect of the influx is not its size but the feeble and supine surrender of Spain’s politicians, both Conservative and Socialist.  How “unfortunate” that their liberal laws force them to set the migrants free.  How sad and, frankly, inevitable that by their rules they must accept undocumented migrants’ claims to come from countries which, of course, never have a repatriation agreement with Spain.  How regrettable that in all of this not a moment’s consideration can be spared for the interests and desires of their own people.

This situation is not supportable.  Something is going to break.

To be simultaneously Queen of the Britons and Head of the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth has come to Britain is a schizophrenic occupation.  Evidently, though, for the Sufferer it is made less onerous by the incapacity to see any conflict therein.  One side of the divide is, after all, cast down into the mud.  It hates, or so they say.  The other is graced by expedience and favoured by the conviction that liberal sanctimony is the measure of all decent men.  Much of the expedience, never forget, consists in the sure knowledge that the latter choice will assist the corporate survival of the Monarchy itself.

READ MORE...

“The plan I came up with was to invite theatres across the country to read the play and discuss it afterwards, to have a debate so there was more understanding about the whole issue.  I was proceeding with these plans until last night, when I received a request from the author.”

Neal Foster, actor-manager, Birmingham Stage Company.

That request from Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, the author of the play, Bezhti, was made from hiding because of death threats against her by fellow Sikhs.  They, fearing that Neal Foster’s defence of liberal values might result again in their religious sensibilities being offended, then called him on the phone.

“They said I would be shot if I continued with plans to stage the play,” he said. “I have taken them seriously.”

READ MORE...

“Sadly, community leaders have been unable to guarantee to us that there will be no repeat of the illegal and violent activities we witnessed on Saturday. It is now clear that we cannot guarantee the safety of our audiences. Very reluctantly, therefore, we have decided to end the current run of the play purely on safety grounds.”

Stuart Rogers, executive director, Birmingham Repertory Theatre.

“We congratulate the theatre for making its decision after we exercised our democratic rights to protest. There are no winners and no losers. The end result is that commonsense has prevailed.”

Kim Kirpaljit Kaur Brom, spokesman for the Sikh protesters.

And the question left behind amid the bricks and broken glass:  Will a longer exposure of Sikhs to British law and the British way of doing things make the slightest difference to the way they do things?

Naturally, the issue is being spoken of purely as one of free expression, thus proving that we do not possess the freedom of expression requisite to do full justice to it.

READ MORE...

Keith Windschuttle is at it again. Not content to be merely the bad boy of Australian frontier history, this time he is going to earn the ire of Australia’s multiculturalists by defending the legacy of the White Australia Policy (WAP).

Speaking of immigration restrictions, I have found the work of two US libertarian theorists Hans Herman Hoppe (see here and here) and Murray Rothbard (see here) quite illuminating here, even if their libertarian theory seems a bit pie-in-the-sky at the moment. Still it does provide some useful thought experiments.

It seems to me that the rival ideas here reflect essentially two views of human nature and political community. On one side are the ‘universalists’ who acknowledge no legitimate human political entity other than the individual or ‘humanity’ and on the other side are the ‘tribalists’ who see as innate the human desire to club together into distinct (but usually dynamically evolving) intermediate associations. Some tribalists may praise these associations (“tribal idealists”) others merely warn that they are ignored at one’s peril (“tribal realists”).

READ MORE...