Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:01 | #

GW, I’ll put together some lengthier comments later but I was puzzled by your remark about ‘a growing labour shortage’ and the proposition that the necessary labour will need to come from the old white dominions.

This seems counter-intuitive on two vectors. First, and very obviously, Briatin has over 8 million people of working age who are economically inactive. There is a complete reserve army of labour waiting there in the wings.

Second, it is not that long ago that the manufacturing sector in Britain’s economy was as relatively large as say Germany’s. Millions of (mainly) men have been displaced into other sectors of the economy, frequently for lower wages. In my own home town Metropolitan-Vickers used to produce electrical switchgear for export world-wide and employed over 35,000 people. The site is now a shopping centre. My own first job was in the ICT (later ICL) factory at West Gorton which was the largest computer manufacturer in Europe and second only to IBM in world-wide sales. It’s a housing estate now and ICL is part of Fujitsu.

This same scenario is repeated countless times all over the country. The labour is there, it has simply been displaced in less socially-productive activities, prominent amongst which is the warehousing, distribution and retailing of Chinese made goods.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:30 | #

The sin of intellectuals is that they are hardly ever men, or women, of the deed.

In order to take, and hold power, first comes the deed.

A mind without a body, is like a jellyfish adrift in an ocean, rootless and adrift.

A nationalist movement led by thinkers alone will go nowhere.

Thought and deed must be linked.

The BNP is not anti-intellectual.

The problem is that most intellectuals are by nature unable to deal with the rough and tumble that goes with being a member of the BNP, and therefore cannot cope with the politics of nationalism.

There is, as Dan Dare pointed out, no labour shortage.

There are 8 million people who are inactive labour in the UK.

That is because the ‘intellectuals’ wanted to make Britain a financial services and services industry dependent economy, and destroyed our manufacturing base.

That put millions out of work.

We do not need ‘white labour from the dominions’ what we need is to create a British manufacturing and industrial base in the UK that attracts skilled ex-pat British people who have fled the country to return and re-deploy their talents and skills in the UK.

This is why I will argue for a change in our ‘Voluntary Repatriation Policy’ in the future.

I believe we should not waste a single penny paying any immigrants to leave - we simply stop all future immigration and deport EVERY SINGLE ILLEGAL etc without a penny.

Then we use that money to issue business loans and to start up their own businesses in the UK, and hence we get our skilled people back and that money can be used to invest in rebuilding our national economy.

The only thing that matters is that we ensure that the indigenous British people remain in perpetuity the demographic majority in the UK - and we do that by removing the 2 million illegals, demanding integration from those who are here instead of colonisation and removing them from the country if they refuse to do so and by imposing social policies that encourage the families of indigenous British people to have more children.

There is no labour shortage, there is a work shortage.

Thats why we must create a British manufacturing and industrial base to get our people back into work.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:06 | #

Fred - the key to forcing ethnic birth-rates lower is to eliminate the import of foreign spouses from eg the subcontinent and to shut down the refugee channel.

The BNP has already committed to do both, as well as to eliminate the race relations legislation.

These and similar related measures are set out in full in the manifesto.

As far as discouraging miscegenation with the remnant ethnic population I’d suggest that is something that can be most effectively dealt with through public education (propaganda) and peer pressure. Thirty years ago there were strong social taboos against such behaviour and ‘mixed’ marriages were accordingly vanishingly rare.

Posted by Andy Neather on Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:26 | #

In fact the rise to industrial greatness of the USA was accompanied by the strictest regime of tariffs on impoted manufactures.
The descent of the US economy has more or less mirrored the impostion of ‘neo-liberal’ policies.
GW, I had thought better of you - I had never realised that you’re just another of those globalist neo-liberal shills such have run economic policy in this country for the past 60 years - and run it into the ground.
I’ve come to the conclusion that theories of Ricardo and Smith on free trade are utter bullshit - the tragedy being that ‘our’ elites have hitched the wagon on this bullshit.Where have they got us? a massive and persistant trade deficit that will never be paid off, similar for the fiscal deficit, one third of the workforce econmically inactive, persistant housng shortages and low growth.
I’ve long formed the opinion that ‘free trade’ and ‘free immigration’ are the two terrible twins of the 2nd rate mind.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:52 | #

Not so good.  “Integration” is what you’re seeing every time an English girl passes you in the street with a Nigerian boyfriend on her arm.  That’s “integration” par excellence.  Is that what we want?  It’s what we want less of, not more of.

##

I favour Cultural Integration not Racial Assimilation.

What you define above is Racial Assimilation, not Cultural Integration.

I want the indigenous British to increase their numbers as a community, as well as ensuring all naturalised citizens are made to Culturally Integrate into a homogenous British culture - and we thereby end Colonisation and Multi-culturalism.

Those that refuse to culturally integrate into British Culture are colonists and must be removed from the country.

That means they can keep their own unique ancestral traditions and religions in the private sphere and live in their own communities as they wish, but they must adopt and adapt to our ways in the public sphere. This means they must accept that they are minorities in a majority British culture and cease keep pushing for extra rights and making demands on the majority - and stop pushing for the majority community and culture having to change to adopt and adapt to their ways.

The Tyranny of the Minorities must end, and the rights of the majority protected.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:37 | #

Fred: I don’t quite understand this “dearth of intellectuals” criticism

It’s structural to post National Front intellectualism.  The old nationalism was fascistic and race-spiritual, and drew freely on the full gamut of 19th and early 20th Century writings in that vein, as well, to some degree, as the still-developing thought of the European New Right.

A pretty good place to grasp the nature and scope of the former canon is here, one of the sites maintained by Troy Southgate:

http://www.rosenoire.org/

When John Tyndall began the task of turning the BNP towards electorability the ideological centre of the movement was hollowed out, and everything was centred on the core nativist propositions.  As a result the BNP today is something of a widow - nativist sentiment without nationalist philosophy.  In my opinion, this has produced a party that does not believe in the necessity of ideas ... believes it can succeed without them (Inevitablism) ... and is wholly focussed, therefore on the political effort, and has no place for thinkers in its formative process.

I would be delighted to learn that this is an entirely wrong summary.  But I fear that it is entirely right.

Dan: I was puzzled by your remark about ‘a growing labour shortage’ and the proposition that the necessary labour will need to come from the old white dominions.

First, never mind what is BNP policy now.  The imperatives are to get the child-births per woman back to replacement level, and to reclaim our land from foreigners and their issue.  The former certainly requires a good deal of intellectual heavy-lifting.  Understandings and expectations have to be repaired.  Human nature has to make a reappearance.  Life has to be naturalised.

Mothers + babies + home-making where stood workplace cyphers + childlessness + nurseries will create a large labour demand.  Repatriation on a (much, much) larger scale than anyone wants to publicly admit to will also create a labour demand.  We are talking in the multiples of millions here.  I would guess well in excess of the eight million you mention.  If there are enough unemployed British males to fill that demand, then I accept your point.  But I don’t believe it.  There might be half that number of able-bodied and work-capable men currently lying on the scrap-heap.  Englishmen, Scots and Welshmen currently domiciled in the former colonies are the only group we can call upon.

Regarding the manufacturing base, that will be rebuilt by British enterprise - which resides in its citizens, not its government.  The old Thatcherite nostrum that government can only create the conditions but can’t do the work itself is wholly true.  By the way, I do work for Chinese businesses as well as businesses in the EU and elsewhere in the world.  The latest round of steel increases is of the order of 20% in Europe and 30% in China.  At current Sterling rates against the USD it is already possible to compete with Chinese manufacturing on a like for like basis, given the turnaround time, stocking requirements, capital tie-up and quality issues with the latter.  Selective attention to manufacturing cost bases would substantially tip the balance - I am confident of that.

Andy,

Everything I propose grows out of my understanding of our nature and psychology as Europeans and Britons.  The economy is a field of individual struggle.  That is made easier when there are natural riches in the environment to harvest, but ours ran out long ago.  The one remaining resource is our human capital. That is why I am proposing to release it into its own hands, and not treat it as a hopeless basket-case ripe only for shielding from the real world.

We have to go out there and fight, Andy, and we can do it, too.  Don’t just love our people because they are ours.  Have faith in them.  There is no more creative and adventurous people on the surface of this planet.  Let us be true to ourselves.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:48 | #

Lee,

Multiculturalism is good, given our circumstances as a demographic in crisis.  Why would you want integrationism?

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:03 | #

Lee: The only thing that matters is that we ensure that the indigenous British people remain in perpetuity the demographic majority in the UK - and we do that by removing the 2 million illegals, demanding integration from those who are here instead of colonisation and removing them from the country if they refuse to do so and by imposing social policies that encourage the families of indigenous British people to have more children.

My love is uncompromising.  I have not forgotten who we are.  I do not want to see foreign populations domiciled in my ancestor’s England.  The pain is too great.

The argument for repatriation, Lee, is here:-

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/to_do_what_we_must_to_remain_who_we_are/

Critique it on grounds of political expediency today, if you will.  But you will not do so on moral grounds.  We can act morally and recover everything that is ours, and that is my desire.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:14 | #

GW – I’ll pass over the remarks about natality etc since otherwise we are in danger I’m afraid of entering into a discussion about the merits or otherwise of a rutting contest.

It seems to me that the notion of a looming labour shortage as a likely consequence of the re-industrialisation of Britain is a chimera. I don’t believe that anyone would be in favour of a return to the days when hordes of interchangeable drones were employed at subsistence wages in factories to produce cheap and cheerful consumer tat. The Chinese et al welcome to that. There is more than enough under- or mis-used labour sloshing around the UK to accommodate any conceivable expansion of UK manufacturing.

No, what I’m more interested is in Britain reclaiming its place as the workshop of the world but in ‘sunrise’ sectors that are by definition capital- rather than labour-intensive. The model that Britain should follow is the German one, in which high-quality products of excellent design produced in state-of-the-art facilities fundamentally sell themselves across the world and demand for which is to all intents and purposes price-inelastic.

I agree that ultimately economic success is more dependent upon individual enterprise rather than government fiat but an economy like the German one or even the French – both of which are far better balanced than the British (or the American) – will not come about without a certain of measure of dirigisme. To leave such a necessary transformation to the vagaries of the market is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:24 | #

And GW, you mention steel as a sector in which the UK might currently have a competitive edge, but isn’t the British steel industry at present effectively Indian-owned?

As is of course one of its most prestigious motor manufacturers, one of the few that still retains global brand recognition

When it comes to making investments decisions on where future production facilities might be placed, or present ones expanded, where, and in whose interests, do you think those decisions will be made?

Rhetorical questions of course but ones that need consideration nonetheless.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 28 Apr 2010 23:05 | #

Dan,

Actually a serious economic plan would not begin with picking outcomes (like steel).  It would begin at the beginning which is capital investment.  At present capital allocation is achieved through the stock market activity of shareholders and institutions.  I would like to see the market (actually the trading houses who perform capital allocation tasks at great cost to all of us) weakened in this respect, and the greater share of its role in capital allocation transferred to banks - but banks operating under very strict government investment rules.  In other words, we move from a free market economy to a political economy, as you are intimating.  But we do it not at the productive level, but the investment level.

A second major change I would like to see is the switch back to corporate ownership and the involvement of owners at board level.  The sins of short-termism, out-sourcing and obscene directorial remuneration are in large measure a consequence of institutional ownership or the withdrawal of owners from executive involvement.

I would also like to see a change to remuneration practises, whereby the tax system favoured occasional remuneration in the form of (British-made) goods, house-extensions, anything but holidays abroad, frankly.  The purpose would be to attract and incentivise staff, allowing them to plan their employment and their life and connect the two more intimately and for the longer-term.

A fourth idea is to incentivise savings and investment.  Economies grow when an adequate share of its production is saved and invested.  Quite a high proportion of liquid cash remuneration must be saved to that end.

And so on.  No shortage of possibilities.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 28 Apr 2010 23:57 | #

GW, with respect, your response above is off at a tangent. It concerns fiscal and not industrial policy.

Reform there is equally necessary but without a vision for what UK plc’s future business plan will entail I’m afraid its just window dressing and verges on the irrelevant.

We first need to focus on what it is we will be doing not how it will be financed or managed.

Pick ten, a dozen, twenty strategic industries and set ourselves the task of (re)claiming world leadership in those.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:40 | #

Dan,

A few other ideas are listed in the lead article:

The English economy needs not isolating protectionism but relief from the burden of specific cost factors.

Foremost among these is the cost of debt-servicing. I understand if the BNP cannot be seen to intend to end the banking dynasties control of issuing our currency. But that is the revolutionary step, nevertheless, leading to the one-time abolition of all debt - household, private, business and corporate, institutional, public and national.

The banks have to be destroyed and reformed, and the currency has to be issued by our own government and be pegged to a basket of leading currencies.

In addition to targeting the cost of money, we need to target the costs of land, transport, energy and employment through the tax system. Maximising international competitiveness is a much more effective model than protectionism.

So in addition to a fiscal revolution with an emphasis on savings and investment, and including currency replacement and gross debt cancellation, my intervention would take the form of business cost subsidy, part of which would be recovered through increases in pre-tax profits.  What businesses did with the flow of investment capital and international competitiveness would be up to them.  I would not seek to create one type of economy - say a knowledge economy or a service economy or whatever.  I would aim to empower the people to act in their self-interest because that is the most powerful tool of all.

This is not the same as a free market.  It is freer, unless one is a banker or a stock-broker, a land speculator or a massively over-remunerated CEO.

As an aside, it would interesting for James to take a look at the property aspects of Distributism and let us know what he thinks.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:49 | #

Gaius ain’t no Gaius Plinius Secundus then, Fred.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:55 | #

The elites are not unreachable.  What wealth do they hold that we cannot take from them?  Most of it comes, ultimately, from the business of selling us our own currency with interest.  But we can end that deal in toto.  And we can regulate their bank assets, shaping them to serve the people’s economic lives.

They are not unreachable.  Actually, they are highly vulnerable.  All that is required is a government of steadfast nationalists.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:32 | #

In a previous life I managed a sales force GW and it quickly became clear that the way to control a person’s behaviour was through the manipulation of his renumeration package.

I understand your appeal to self-interest above and do not discount it, but suggest that enlightened self-interest is a necessary but not sufficient pre-requisite for economic prosperity. Somewhere along the way leadership has to enter into it and that can only come from a dedicated political cadre with a long-term vision.

I hate to sound like a stuck record but neither the market nor the invisible hand of self-interest will provide that leadership, except in the sense of meandering off in a variety of different and unrelated directions.

If the French, for example, had relied on the market there would be no TGV nor an Airbus Industrie (whatever they call it these days). Similarly, if the state government of North-Rhine Westphalia had not taken a controlling interest in Volkswagen or the central government had not strong-armed Commerzbank and others to bankroll Daimler-Benz it’s unlikely that either concern could have risen to present global prominence under their own steam alone.

There are plenty of successful role models to emulate GW, we don’t have to re-invent the wheel on this.

Posted by MGLS on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:18 | #

The only thing that matters is that we ensure that the indigenous British people remain in perpetuity the demographic majority in the UK - and we do that by removing the 2 million illegals, demanding integration from those who are here instead of colonisation and removing them from the country if they refuse to do so and by imposing social policies that encourage the families of indigenous British people to have more children.

Assimilation means racial destruction.  In the long run, amalgamation is inevitable when different groups live together.  If the post-1948 immigrants and their descendants are not repatriated, it means the death of Britain.  Assimilation of the non-British population currently in Britain means the racial extinction of the British people.

I favour Cultural Integration not Racial Assimilation.

What you define above is Racial Assimilation, not Cultural Integration.

When two groups live in the same territory, racial assimilation is inevitable.  Those who pretend otherwise are either ignorant of racial realities or are duplicitous.

I want the indigenous British to increase their numbers as a community, as well as ensuring all naturalised citizens are made to Culturally Integrate into a homogenous British culture - and we thereby end Colonisation and Multi-culturalism.

Those that refuse to culturally integrate into British Culture are colonists and must be removed from the country.

In the short term, Balkanization and multiculturalism are preferable to assimilation and integration as a stopgap to keep intermixture as low as possible.  Whatever encourages separation and division between the British and non-British is good.  Ultimately, repatriation is required in order to achieve racial survival in Britain.

If the BNP assumed power and did what Barnes advocates, it would fail to stop the racial destruction of the British people.  One can only hope the other BNP members and officials have a better understanding of racial issues than Barnes does.

“If the British could leave India the Indians can leave Britain. If the Dutch could leave Indonesia the Indonesians can leave the Netherlands. If the French could leave Algeria the Algerians can leave France. If the Europeans could leave Africa and Asia the Africans and Asians can leave Europe.” -Richard McCulloch

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:36 | #

“If the British could leave India the Indians can leave Britain. If the Dutch could leave Indonesia the Indonesians can leave the Netherlands. If the French could leave Algeria the Algerians can leave France. If the Europeans could leave Africa and Asia the Africans and Asians can leave Europe.”

All very good points, but what McCulloch fails to make explicit is that the Dutch, French and Europeans didn’t “just” leave.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 07:56 | #

When two groups live in the same territory, racial assimilation is inevitable.  Those who pretend otherwise are either ignorant of racial realities or are duplicitous.

#

Really, seeing as Jews are still Jews, both genetically and religiously and culturally, after 2000 years out of their Middle East homeland and after living in many different nations for over two thousand years destroys that argument doesnt it.

As the Boers in South Africa are still white are 350 years in Africa also destroys that argument.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:09 | #

My love is uncompromising.  I have not forgotten who we are.  I do not want to see foreign populations domiciled in my ancestor’s England.  The pain is too great.

The argument for repatriation, Lee, is here:-

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/to_do_what_we_must_to_remain_who_we_are/

Critique it on grounds of political expediency today, if you will.  But you will not do so on moral grounds.  We can act morally and recover everything that is ours, and that is my desire.

###

The issue is not about morality, is it is about legality.

Any political party with a programme to forcibly eject legitimate all naturalised citizens from their nation based on their race with a programme of state enforced ethnic cleansing will end up in the Hague and be prosecuted for crimes against humanity or will be prosecuted in their own countries when an alternative regime takes power.

After the Restoration of the liberal regime, will come the prosecutions.

We have seen that in Argentina, in Spain and across the world where Fascist regimes have been in power, then become ‘democracies’ and then the prosecutions begin. 

Therefore anyone promoting that policy is either ;

1) mad

2) a purist who wants other people to do their dirty work for them

Though of course most of those people who promote that sort of policy do so from the confines of an internet forum based on anonymity, as opposed to a public platform in an election.

Those who want others to commit their crimes for them, so they can evade the price for their crimes, are simply gutless weasels.

The only revolutions that last, are lawful revolutions.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:18 | #

If the British could leave India the Indians can leave Britain. If the Dutch could leave Indonesia the Indonesians can leave the Netherlands. If the French could leave Algeria the Algerians can leave France. If the Europeans could leave Africa and Asia the Africans and Asians can leave Europe.”

They didnt ‘leave’ - they withdrew.

The British Empire collapsed due to being bankrupt after the war and the British people that ran the Empire in India withdrew.

The Dutch Empire withdrew from Indonesia.

The French Empire withdrew from Algeria.

The Europeans, Boers, have not left Africa. They are still there.

All those Empires were over there, whilst the immigrants are over here.

Withdrawing from a nation you have conquered and colonised, is different from kicking out people your leaders have invited in.

When the Nationalist movement divests itself of the fantasy of creating all white nations via democracy, legality and consent then it will be far stronger than it is today.

The longer people persist in clinging to the idea you can create an all white nation in any other way than via war, conflict, murder and chaos is the moment the idiots that support that sort of idiocy cease dragging down nationalist parties from gaining mainstream support.

I have noticed that most of those people that support the use of war and chaos to create an all white nation are the ones least likely to volunteer to do so, the least physically and mentally equipped to actually do so and the ones most likely to grass up their comrades to the police in the event that they ever tried to do so.

Posted by Andy Neather on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:28 | #

GW,
    The fact is that since WW2 the British economy has failed and failed miserably, and the rate of failure has only increased with the further adoption of ‘neoliberal’ economic policies.
Just look where we are.Our fiscal deficit is enormous and quite frankly unpayable - a Greek style situation looms.The IMF men will come in, demand their pound of flesh (shades of Healey-Callaghan 1976) and this will lead to decades of economic stagnation and mass unemployment (the massive unemployment and consequent loss of output we suffered from the mid 70s right through to present - think of all the houses that were never built and their effect on property prices and the chain effect on reproductive rates), were really the effect of IMF demands to deflate the economy and not Maggie’s evil as commonly supposed.And we’ve got no more oil to bail us out.
  Think back to the 1930s - a decade often maligned for mass unemployment.At that time the government, actaully had the guts to through out the traditional ‘free trade’ dogma and instituted tariffs.Did you know that Britain had its highest ever rate of industrial growth in the 30s?, I think not, it is not the ‘received wisdom’ you know.It was at that time that most of our great light and precision engineering firms were developed, the backbone of the phone and electrical systems were laid down, electronics and elecrical engineering was developed as was the motor and aircraft industries, house building was rampant.
  What the f*ck have we done in the past 30 years except import wogs and inflate a property bubble with borrowed Oriental money?

Posted by Bill on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:09 | #

Observing the daily round of deceitful election media spin, it is obvious that non mention of mass Third World immigration is a central plank of media strategy designed to bamboozle the electorate into to thinking that it is the EU (Polish) immigration that is at the core of of discontent.

I watched with incredulity a travesty of balanced reporting from BBC’s News Night last night when again, no mention, (not even a hint) of the existence of Third World (non EU) immigration even exists.

Apparently, our hospitals and care homes would simply cease to function were immigration to be stopped.  Shades of Esler’s who would empty our bedpans…?

The media’s constant emphasis on EU Polish immigration, to the exclusion of all other is suckering the simple British people into channelling their anger against the EU migrant.

This tactic is amazingly successful, it seems the media only have to throw the ball into the long grass and off we go chasing like mad March hares.  Why isn’t anyone countering this travesty of reporting?

The media are getting away with murder.

It is gratifying to see that Brown’s Rochdale spat has illustrated beyond doubt that the establishment view the masses as nothing but low animals.

Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:12 | #

Found this on the BBC Gordon brown blog.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/gordon_browns_remarks_your_rea.html

1858. At 11:04pm on 28 Apr 2010, JobyJak wrote:

FACT 1: Currently there are at least 1.5 million Eastern Europeans in this country who have entered via the open door policy that Brown and Blair implemented in 2004.

FACT 2: There are currently less than 300,000 Brits working in Europe, the vast majority in Western Europe.

FACT 3: France, Germany, Spain and Italy opted out of the open door policy fearing an influx that would drain resources.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Germany:

In 2008, there were 1,688,370 Turkish citizens (889,003 males and 799,367 females) in Germany which accounted for 25.1% of Germany’s foreign population and thus the largest ethnic minority. Overall, the number of German residents with origins in Turkey is approximately 2,812,000 or approximately 3.4% of Germany’s population. Also, estimates suggest that there are now over 4 million people of Turkish descent living in Germany. (and that’s just the turks!)

France:

As of 2006, the French national institute of statistics INSEE estimated that 4.9 million foreign-born immigrants live in France (8% of the country’s population) The number of French citizens with foreign origins is generally thought to be around 6.7 million. According to the 1999 Census conducted by INSEE, which ultimately represents one tenth of the country’s population. (Ranked by the largest national groups, above 60,000 persons).

Spain:

The National Statistics Institute has just published the lastest figures corresponding to the number of foreign residents living in Spain. According to the study, 8.4 percent of Spain’s population is non-Spanish.
3.69 million foreign residents live in Spain. In 2004 the total population rose by 770,000 and currently stands at 43.97 million inhabitants.

Italy:

Officially, at the end of 2008, foreigners comprised 7.5% of the population or 4,800 000 persons,[26] an increase of 470,000 since the previous year. In some Italian cities, such as Brescia, Milan, Padua, and Prato, immigrants total more than 15% of the population.
Italy now has an estimated 4 million to 5 million immigrants — about 7 percent of the population.

and UK:

Of the 1.42 million total number of immigrants who arrived in the UK since May 2004, 427,000 were people registering to work from the eight former Eastern Bloc countries which joined the EU in 2004, with the vast majority coming from Poland.

BUT

British emigration towards Southern Europe is of special relevance. Citizens from the European Union make up a growing proportion of immigrants in Spain. They mainly come from countries like the UK and Germany, but the British case is of special interest due to its magnitude. The British authorities estimate that the British population in Spain at 700,000.

I think there is an underlying reason why western europe welcomes immigration.. can you think of one?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:43 | #

So, Lee, piecing your opinions together on the browning of our England ...

First, you are saying that there is nothing unusual or unique about Jews that equips them for a life in diaspore (ie, they are not the most ethnocentric and racially aggressive group in the world, with a religion that is predicated on supremacism) but, on the contrary, are an example we can follow.  We must become like Jews - not in exile, of course, but in our own ancestral land.  However, we may not behave like Jews behave in Israel.  No, we must confront our ongoing dispossession and dissolution with the same determination to survive that Jews exhibit ... notwithstanding the aforementioned fact that we are not the most ethnocentric people in the world, our religion is distressingly universalist, and the only times our race instituted throrough-going supremacism in its dealings with other races was when ... but we mustn’t go there, because that would put people off!

Well, you see what I mean.  It doesn’t really add up.  Jews are Jews, evolved for diaspore, dreaming of a godlike and G-d-granted rule over a defeated and deracinated mass that was the nations of Man.  Europeans are, well, European ... normal, only human, evolved for territorial possession.

Second, you are saying that a nationalist government would be morally aghast at any suggestion that it should act for the salvation of our people ... that it could not be done politically anyway, only by civil conflict.  And those who say conflict is necessary are moral cowards who would not raise a hand in anger themselves.

So, it has not occurred to you that those of our children who survive those relentless but always smooth negroid moves on our women will do so as the most despised rump imaginable.  We are hated, damn it, by populations that are low on the IQ and high on the tribal aggression.  Of course there will be war and bloodshed.  Do you think bringing Africans and Asians into Europe can be forever peaceable.  The only guarantor of peace is territory.  So the aggressors on our territory have to leave.

In any case, their presence here is a crime against humanity.  We - were - not - asked!  We have the right - and a duty - of collective self-defence.  Do you seriously think it is good or even necessary to abrogate that in favour of making like the Jews?  Of course not.  You are just exhibiting symptoms of accomodationism with the liberal zeitgeist.  As long as we all acknowledge that ... all acknowledge that involvement in the political world carries implications for revolutionaries, we can forget it.  But we will never forget what Nature, morality, freedom and justice tell us we must, in the end, do.  The MultiCult must be ended and reversed in toto in all the living spaces of European Man, England, Scotland and Wales included.

Posted by MGLS on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:11 | #

Really, seeing as Jews are still Jews, both genetically and religiously and culturally, after 2000 years out of their Middle East homeland and after living in many different nations for over two thousand years destroys that argument doesnt it.

As the Boers in South Africa are still white are 350 years in Africa also destroys that argument.

No, it does not.  If different races are occupying the same territory, it means they have only recently come into contact and the process of intermixture is not yet complete.  Racial destruction is the inevitable consequence of multiracialism.  It may take generations or centuries before the process of intermixture and assimilation is complete, but it is in nonetheless inevitable.  Once extinction happens, it lasts forever.

When the Nationalist movement divests itself of the fantasy of creating all white nations via democracy, legality and consent then it will be far stronger than it is today.

The longer people persist in clinging to the idea you can create an all white nation in any other way than via war, conflict, murder and chaos is the moment the idiots that support that sort of idiocy cease dragging down nationalist parties from gaining mainstream support.

You start with financial incentives for voluntary repatriation and then move on to other measures to induce people to leave.  Use both the carrot and the stick.

dragging down nationalist parties from gaining mainstream support

Winning elections for the sake of winning elections is not the ultimate objective.  The survival of the British people is.  It is pointless to vote in a so-called “nationalist” party that is so watered down that it will not work to preserve the British people.

If Barnes’s thinking is representative of that of the BNP leadership, you can stick a fork in the party.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:52 | #

Dan,

OK, let’s clarify the areas of agreement.

National capitol projects, where they arise, self-evidently carry the imprimateur of government planning ... even ownership in the example of the issuing of currency.  So, major infrastucture (ie, transport and energy) and public services investment fall within this category.  But as a general principle, the effect of government upon industry and commerce must be to increase freedom to pursue the profit principle.  That is what makes success in business, and success is what delivers tax revenue.

Strong tax revenue and public spending control, let it be said, are the only means to prevent a government which issues its own currency from abusing that power, just as governments over-borrow now, and thereby losing the confidence of the international system on which our ability to trade as a nation depends. 

Economics is not rocket-science.  There only a couple of absolutes.  One is international confidence, from which nations with floating currencies cannot shelter.  The other is free enterprise, which governments cannot out-perform through planning models.  The task of government is to pursue both.

You appear to want some fairly corporatist, even Bennite intervention.  My response is two words: MOD procurement.  Government is bloody useless, and that is an unchanging fact.  However, as I said at the outset, it can deliver strategic advantages through the tax system, the regulated banking sector, etc.  The package I am proposing to that end would not be the least revolutionary step ever taken by a nationalist government.  Fiscally, it goes a great deal further than present BNP policy.  The ideas about currency, capitol allocation, ownership, remuneration and savings would change the way we live and work quite fundamentally, ending globalisation without nationalisation.  The reliance on the free Briton as the engine of prosperity stands in a very British tradition dating back over five centuries to the days of Henry VII.  It, and not socialist intervention, is our tradition, and I commend it, so to speak, to the nation.

Posted by BGD on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:12 | #

With regard to capital investment and the available lines of credit is the social credit movement not now worth a second look? This part of the broad movement (if such it ever was) seemed to languish in relative obscurity after its brief pre-war heyday.

Both to support the manufacturing base regeneration issue as well as many others. Much of the British and Australian sides of this movement (On Target and Bloomfield Books in UK and Australian League of Rights )seem to be dying off with their original members but COMER in Canada is still going strong and there are various grouplets elsewhere such as in the UK James Robertson, James Gibb “The Money Bomb” Stuart) etc

FWIW It’s also one of Baron’s drums I’ve noticed here too.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:27 | #

Andrew,

Neoliberalism it ain’t.  I don’t get your point.  Are you sure you are aiming at me rather than some imaginary target off in the Thatcherite past?  Does it not mean anything to you that I want us to issue our own currency and cancel debt at all levels, reform the banking system and give it the bulk of share capitol allocation in place of it present preoccupation with gambling?  Look at what I am suggesting.  This is a revolution, and you are taking issue with it because it predicates wealth generation on the nature of the European, meaning on free enterprise.

I have not said anything at all about wealth distribution, and perhaps that silence is what you are really reading things into.  But the reason for that is that it is another debate.  But OK, what are your ideas?  Not on the detail but the principles.  Is there such a thing as social justice?  Is nationalism essentially economically social?  What is the best way to avoid poverty?  Does state aid corrupt, and over what term?

And this one, which is the real spoiler ...

If a nation issuing its own currency must be solvent over, say the medium-term, ie not spend more than its tax receipts (or, to use the common formula, to build a healthy surplus in the good years), how can social considerations outweigh consideration of wealth creation?

These are questions for you to answer, Andrew, before we can enter into a debate.  It’s not enough to reify Maggie Thatcher as a symbol of all that is evil and the South-Wales miners as a symbol of all that is good and betrayed.  We are thinking people, and it is incumbent upon us to look through all that.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:36 | #

First, you are saying that there is nothing unusual or unique about Jews that equips them for a life in diaspore (ie, they are not the most ethnocentric and racially aggressive group in the world, with a religion that is predicated on supremacism) but, on the contrary, are an example we can follow.  We must become like Jews - not in exile, of course, but in our own ancestral land.  However, we may not behave like Jews behave in Israel.  No, we must confront our ongoing dispossession and dissolution with the same determination to survive that Jews exhibit ... notwithstanding the aforementioned fact that we are not the most ethnocentric people in the world, our religion is distressingly universalist, and the only times our race instituted throrough-going supremacism in its dealings with other races was when ... but we mustn’t go there, because that would put people off!

### Errr no actually, you said that not me. Though the idea of us adopting the Zionist Democratic model for ourselves in Britain is very appealing. 

Well, you see what I mean.  It doesn’t really add up.  Jews are Jews, evolved for diaspore, dreaming of a godlike and G-d-granted rule over a defeated and deracinated mass that was the nations of Man.  Europeans are, well, European ... normal, only human, evolved for territorial possession.

## Oh yeah, Jews cannot be Nationalists - christ almighty what planet are you from. Turn on the news. Israel is the most nationalist and ethno-centric nation on the planet.

Second, you are saying that a nationalist government would be morally aghast at any suggestion that it should act for the salvation of our people ... that it could not be done politically anyway, only by civil conflict.  And those who say conflict is necessary are moral cowards who would not raise a hand in anger themselves.

### Spare me your facile ‘I wanna be a stormtrooper ’ crap. The only revolutions that last are democratic revolutions. Idiots dream of violent revolutions.
 

So, it has not occurred to you that those of our children who survive those relentless but always smooth negroid moves on our women will do so as the most despised rump imaginable.  We are hated, damn it, by populations that are low on the IQ and high on the tribal aggression.  Of course there will be war and bloodshed.  Do you think bringing Africans and Asians into Europe can be forever peaceable.  The only guarantor of peace is territory.  So the aggressors on our territory have to leave.

## No. War is not inevitable, it can be defused by democratic actions. Those with stormtrooper fantasies and dreams of war - are those who have usually never fought in one. Keyboard warriors make shit soldiers.

In any case, their presence here is a crime against humanity.  We - were - not - asked!  We have the right - and a duty - of collective self-defence.  Do you seriously think it is good or even necessary to abrogate that in favour of making like the Jews?  Of course not.  You are just exhibiting symptoms of accomodationism with the liberal zeitgeist.  As long as we all acknowledge that ... all acknowledge that involvement in the political world carries implications for revolutionaries, we can forget it.  But we will never forget what Nature, morality, freedom and justice tell us we must, in the end, do.  The MultiCult must be ended and reversed in toto in all the living spaces of European Man, England, Scotland and Wales included.

## Self defence does not mean we have a right to wage war. We have a right to change our society through the law, and we will do so. I am proud of the fact that as European we are people of the intellect, you fetishise the same thuggery you despise. You hate immigrant violence and then want us to mimic it in our politics. Foolishness beyond belief. We are more evolved than that. You are as bad as the enemy you fear. We want to take European man to the stars, you want to turn him back into a territorial ape.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:42 | #

Really, seeing as Jews are still Jews, both genetically and religiously and culturally, after 2000 years out of their Middle East homeland and after living in many different nations for over two thousand years destroys that argument doesnt it.

  As the Boers in South Africa are still white are 350 years in Africa also destroys that argument.

No, it does not.  If different races are occupying the same territory, it means they have only recently come into contact and the process of intermixture is not yet complete.  Racial destruction is the inevitable consequence of multiracialism.  It may take generations or centuries before the process of intermixture and assimilation is complete, but it is in nonetheless inevitable.  Once extinction happens, it lasts forever.

## Are you an idiot. The Boers have been in Africa 350 years and they are still white, still have their own identity, culture and religion. They havent been misceginated, nor have the Jews. You are talking bollocks mate.

  When the Nationalist movement divests itself of the fantasy of creating all white nations via democracy, legality and consent then it will be far stronger than it is today.

  The longer people persist in clinging to the idea you can create an all white nation in any other way than via war, conflict, murder and chaos is the moment the idiots that support that sort of idiocy cease dragging down nationalist parties from gaining mainstream support.

You start with financial incentives for voluntary repatriation and then move on to other measures to induce people to leave.  Use both the carrot and the stick.

### Oh are you gonna wave the stick big man. Twat. Another keyboard warrior posturing in his jackboots whilst typing on the internet. Great. Just what we need.

  dragging down nationalist parties from gaining mainstream support

Winning elections for the sake of winning elections is not the ultimate objective.

##Christ almighty are you really this thick. WITHOUT POWER WE CANNOT CHANGE THE LAW, REVERSE THE SITUATION AND TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK. Winning elections allows us to save our people. We have had not one nationalist party take power in Europe EVER without a democratic mandate since before WW2. We live in a democracy. Spare me your insane Nazi wank fantasies.

The survival of the British people is.  It is pointless to vote in a so-called “nationalist” party that is so watered down that it will not work to preserve the British people.

## Go and and vote for ‘Ze Hitler Fetish Party’ then moron. People like you are either reds, morons or nutters - either way we can do without you.

If Barnes’s thinking is representative of that of the BNP leadership, you can stick a fork in the party.

#You aint welcome in the BNP. Fuck off and set up your own Hitler cult dickhead.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:50 | #

Here is quick primer for those who think National Socialism is a variant of Nationalism.

National socialism is the worlds greatest oxy-moron.

It was not nationalist, and never socialist.

The National Socialists abandoned socialism when they purged the Strasser brothers and sold out to the capitalists in Germany that worked with the same Capitalists in the US and UK to wage a war. And not they werent jewish capitalists - they were good old Anglo-Saxon White WASP capitalists in Germany, the US and UK.

National socialism was international pan-aryanism. It was an imperialist ideology that invaded foreign nations and killed as many Nationalists as the Communists.

In fact the primary victims of the Nazis were Nationalists from every nation they invaded.

http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/2008/06/milner-group-balfour-declaration-and.html

   
In response to the comments from Bert Rustle on the Fall of Rome and the new book from Patrick Buchanan, the quotes below come from the book The Anglo-American Estalishment by Caroll Quigley , and it demonstrates the arrogance and insanity of the political Establishment in the lead up to WW2 and their duplicity in the issue of Palestine ;

This event of March 1936, by which Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, was the most crucial event in the whole history of appeasement. So long as the territory west of the Rhine and a strip fifty kilometers wide on the east bank of the river were demilitarized, as provided in the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pacts, Hitler would never have dared to move against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. He would not have dared because, with western Germany unfortified and denuded of German soldiers, France could have easily driven into the Ruhr industrial area and crippled Germany so that it would be impossible to go eastward. And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe. In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism.

- The Anglo-American Establishment

In his posthumously published 1982 book The Anglo-American Establishment, Carroll Quigley, Ph.D. in history from Harvard and a professor of history at Georgetown, revealed that the Balfour Declaration was actually drafted by Lord Alfred Milner, who was the head of the Rhodes-Milner Round Table Groups that Cecil Rhodes called for in his will to be “Churches for the extension of the British Empire.” Milner was the trustee of Rhodes’ will and both Milner and Rhodes were self-described British race-patriots.

The recipient of the Balfour Declaration, Lord Rothschild, was also a close friend of Rhodes and was at an earlier time the trustee of Rhodes’ will. Here is what Quigley wrote:

“This declaration, which is always known as the Balfour Declaration, should rather be called ‘the Milner Declaration,’ since Milner was the actual draftsman and was apparently, its chief supporter in the War Cabinet. This fact was not made public until 21 July 1936. At that time Ormsby-Gore, speaking for the government in Commons, said, ‘The draft as originally put up by Lord Balfour was not the final draft approved by the War Cabinet. The particular draft assented to by the War Cabinet and afterwards by the Allied Governments and by the United States. . .and finally embodied in the Mandate, happens to have been drafted by Lord Milner. The actual final draft had to be issued in the name of the Foreign Secretary, but the actual draftsman was Lord Milner.”

Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:54 | #

Fred, the concept of race-replacement has been gently introduced on the BBC Gordon-is-a-moron thread.(Well, it’s not REALLY called that: I’m referring to a sort of proto-punk hit song over here of about 1979)

(2439) At 09:31am on 29 Apr 2010, ANDY wrote:

Labour spokesmen always use the line that ‘One million Britons have moved out to European countries, balancing out the one million coming in’.

Thanks Andy.

At bottom the problem isn’t “How many people are there going to be in the UK?”
but “What’s the proportion of ethnically British people that are going to be left in the UK in say, 20 years?”
The Labour lot seem happy with the possibility of the British race’s being REPLACED in a few years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/gordon_browns_remarks_your_rea.html?page=6#comments
 
I couldn’t pitch it any stronger, they wouldn’t have allowed it to stand.

Posted by MGLS on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 12:35 | #

## Are you an idiot. The Boers have been in Africa 350 years and they are still white, still have their own identity, culture and religion. They havent been misceginated, nor have the Jews. You are talking bollocks mate.

I’m going to repeat a sentence: It may take generations or centuries before the process of intermixture and assimilation is complete, but it is nonetheless inevitable.

### Oh are you gonna wave the stick big man. Twat. Another keyboard warrior posturing in his jackboots whilst typing on the internet. Great. Just what we need.

I am talking about economic, legal, and social incentives and pressures for repatriation.

##Christ almighty are you really this thick. WITHOUT POWER WE CANNOT CHANGE THE LAW, REVERSE THE SITUATION AND TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK. Winning elections allows us to save our people. We have had not one nationalist party take power in Europe EVER without a democratic mandate since before WW2. We live in a democracy. Spare me your insane Nazi wank fantasies.

I said winning elections itself is not the ultimate objective.  Winning elections is a means to an end.  That end is the survival of the British people.  I never advocated “Nazi wank fantasies.” Obviously you have to win elections in order to achieve the goal of preserving the British people.  However, it is pointless to water down the party simply to win an election when you will not act to achieve the ultimate goal after being elected.

Watering down the party for the sake of winning elections is exactly what the Republican Party and conservative movement have done in the United States over the last few decades.  They have failed utterly and miserably and accomplished nothing despite winning numerous elections.

## Go and and vote for ‘Ze Hitler Fetish Party’ then moron. People like you are either reds, morons or nutters - either way we can do without you.

Clearly the survival of the British people is not your ultimate goal.  You’d prefer to do anything you can to win an election and then once in power preside over the death of Britain.

#You aint welcome in the BNP. Fuck off and set up your own Hitler cult dickhead.

I desperately hope people like you are few and far between in the party.

Posted by MGLS on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:09 | #

Unlike Barnes, in this speech Arthur Kemp calls for paying for repatriation (in addition to stopping immigration, deporting illegal immigrants, and enforcing the law on asylum seekers).  Kemp then says the party reserves the right take whatever steps are necessary if those policies are insufficient.

Posted by Andy Neather on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 15:00 | #

I’m fairly certain we will witness racial civil unrest in Britain in the near future (a reflexive backlash from the English against their disposession), but I seriously doubt that the ‘Powellite Wars’ will come to pass.As I’ve said before, all yer average English punter actually cares about is:
Football
Beer
Drugs (most particularly cocaine)
EastEnders
Big Brother
Jordan
Jade Goody
X- Factor

etc etc, in no particular order.Meanwhile the pakis are all studying assiduosly getting the best jobs and buying up all the houses.
  Anyway, why all the sturm und drangen over forced deportations.Isn’t Dr. Shockley’s scheme of paying the ethnics a substantial bounty for a ball-snip or tube blockage a much better plan?

Posted by Gary on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:13 | #

Lee John Barnes,

MGLS is right.  Amalgamation is inevitable when two different groups live together.  You see this all throughout history.  Take a look at Latin America.  The vast majority of the people there are a mixture between Spaniards, Portuguese, Indians and Africans.  Moreover, in both contemporary Britain and America miscegenation rates are high.

The only way amalgamation doesn’t occur when two different groups live together is when there are extensive social controls that prevent it.  For example, in South Africa there was apartheid.

Posted by Gary on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 16:22 | #

Lee John Barnes,

Do you really not understand this?

Posted by Barnesy is a gormless twat on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:06 | #

I am proud of the fact that as European we are people of the intellect, you fetishise the same thuggery you despise. You hate immigrant violence and then want us to mimic it in our politics.

Yeah, that’s the bind English “ontological nationalists” (whatever that means) find themselves in when triangulating against the “gangsterism” of the filthy NS Krauts.  What a pity it is that way back when the always morally upright English didn’t give the loathsome Krauts a free hand.

We want to take European man to the stars, you want to turn him back into a territorial ape.

This is a brilliant idea, as the mongrelization of the English by subhuman nigger-apes will in no way effect the ability of the former to colonize Mars.  And once the Limey has stuck his flag in the red planet, any concern for living space on good old earth will have been obviated.  No wank fantasy that, Barnesy.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:32 | #

A request to Mr. Barnes:

Please use the ‘quote’ function to make your posts easier to read. There is a meta-tag above the comment box otherwise you can place the quoted text inside HTML tags as follows:

... quoted text text goes in here ...

Your contributions here are highly appreciated but the lack of proper formatting sometimes tends to obscure the message.

Thanks.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:01 | #

You start with financial incentives for voluntary repatriation and then move on to other measures to induce people to leave.  Use both the carrot and the stick. - LJB

Hear, hear.

And the BNP’s proposals for repealing the race relations legislation, disbanding the equality and diversity industry and giving preference to ‘locals’ in the allocation of social housing forms a very large and visible stick that sends a clear message “Go away, you are not wanted here.”

It seems to me that the BNP’s current approach is a judicious blend of carrot and stick. The only missing item appears to be a commitment to reserve public sector jobs for ethnic Britons.

As Dasein notes above, the repatriation policy has been getting exposure in the MSM (it’s mentioned in today’s Guardian as well) but the tone is rather defensive when it comes to how the scheme will be financed. I would be like to see a more aggressive approach which includes a claim that the scheme could be at least partially self-financing. Something along the lines of the following that I posted on another venue; I like to have Lee’s reaction on this point:

... But how might the financial picture look for a ‘normal’ migrant, one wonders. The point is accepted that £5000 is not a large enough carrot to induce many of those who represent the largest drain on public funds to return home, but what might the magic number be?

To scope this out I decided to indulge in a little role-play, and imagine myself as Mohammed, a relatively recent migrant employed as a pot-washer on minimum wage at one of the tens of thousands of “Indian” curry emporia up and down the country. Munira, like most Bangladeshi women is a stay-at-home Mum, in this case looking after little Faisil and his three other school-age siblings. And there’s another one on the way, but we won’t account for that in this present analysis.

Now Mohammed of course is here to do one of those jobs that local people won’t do, at least not for the kind of wages that he would be prepared to accept(£5.80 per hour, the statutory minumum). Being a fiercely independent type, no way has Mohammed come to sponge off the rest of us, but the friendly folk at the local Citizens Advice Bureau and the JCWI have convinced him that he is entitled to it and offer to assist with making the application.

And so we find ourselves on the very helpful online ‘Benefits Advisor’ thoughtfully provided on the Directgov website. Anyway, to cut a long story short, the system responds that Mohammed is entitled to claim a total £468 per week in benefits, including income support, child tax credit, housing benefit, council tax relief and child benefit. Other bits and pieces like free school meals, NHS ‘Healthy Start’ vouchers, and so on round it out to £500, or £26,000 p.a., the cash amount which is passed over to Mohammed and his family from public funds.

So that’s the direct cash benefit, what about other benefits in kind? Of these the most significant will probably be the cost educating the four nippers. A quick browse of school budgets indicate an average cost of around £3500 per pupil per year, equating to around £38500 for the eleven years that most children will spend in school.

For Mohammed’s brood then we have an educational cost of £154,000 to be borne by other taxpayers, since Mohammed himself will pay little if any income tax over the course of his working life.

Totaling this all up, over a twenty-year period Mohammed’s presence amongst us will cost the taxpayer over £600,000. The big question then, how big an inducement would be needed to persuade him to return home to Sylhet where on even his present minimum wage he could like a king, in a sunny climate and not have to put up with the nasty, racist British. £50K, £100K? Even the latter represents an r.o.i. that financial speculators would kill for.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:25 | #

Amalgamation is inevitable when two different groups live together.  You see this all throughout history.  Take a look at Latin America.  The vast majority of the people there are a mixture between Spaniards, Portuguese, Indians and Africans.  Moreover, in both contemporary Britain and America miscegenation rates are high. - Gary

No they’re not. Even in the US only around 2% of whites are involved in inter-racial marriages. In the UK the figure is slightly more than 1%.

You are succumbing to the establishment propaganda which seeks to portray miscegenation as normal, inevitable and kewl, and in so doing you are unwittingly aiding their cause.

And ‘amalgamation’ is not inevitable; it depends entirely upon the social mores in effect at the time. In most societies around the world miscegenation is strongly tabooed. It is only in the liberal west that it is tolerated and even promoted, principally as a weapon in the crusade against ‘racism’. Once the messaging is changed there is no reason to suppose that western society will not take up again the social mores that were the norm forty years ago, before the time of ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’ directed by one Stanley Kramer, and released by the Columbia Pictures studio founded by the Cohn brothers.

Posted by Andy Neather on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:04 | #

Dan Dare,
          Even a ‘2%’ rate of miscgenation over the course of generations (we are speaking hundreds of years here), will lead to a mongrelized population in a space of time that is considered ‘brief’ with respect to the history of settlement of these islands.Mass non-white immigration is a phenomenom only 60 years old at the most (the vast majority have come here in the last 30 years or so), whilst it has been scientifically proven that there is a genetic continity of over 8,000 years on this island.
- And you must consider that a majority of births in England are to immigrant mothers.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:47 | #

- And you must consider that a majority of births in England are to immigrant mothers.

No they’re not. Why do you insist on parroting this nonsense?

Things are dire enough without people spouting easily-refuted bogus claims and reckless assertions. Stick to the demonstrable facts, which the enemy can’t then rebut.

Posted by Gary on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 22:43 | #

Dan Dare,

You wrote:

No they’re not. Even in the US only around 2% of whites are involved in inter-racial marriages. In the UK the figure is slightly more than 1%.

Yes they are.  You are making the mistake of only going by interracial marriage.  Cohabitation and interracial dating are immensely more prevalent in America and Britain than interracial marriage.

According to the following study 35.7 percent of white Americans have dated outside their race:

Yancey collected a sample of 2,561 adults age 18 and older from the Lilly Survey of Attitudes and Friendships, a telephone survey of English- and Spanish-speaking adults conducted from October 1999 to April 2000. He found that 35.7 percent of white Americans had interdated, along with 56.5 percent of African Americans, 55.4 percent of Hispanic Americans, and 57.1 percent of Asian Americans. Men and those who attended racially or ethnically integrated schools were significantly more likely to interdate.

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2005/USAttitudesTowardInterracialDatingAreLiberalizing.aspx

From Ian Jobling:

Twenty-four percent of American college students today report having dated interracially and half say that they are open to interracial dating. Of course, interracial dating is only one form of interethnic dating, as members of the same racial group can be of different ethnicities, so these statistics underestimate the prevalence of interethnic sexual attraction. Besides, a 1988 study found that nearly half of Hawaiian men of white, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, and Japanese ethnicity reported that they were more likely to date outside their group than within it.

http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/articles/articles/against_genetic_similarity_theory/

From n/a of race/history/evolution notes:

Of 2280259 children born to Non-Hispanic White women, the racial breakdown of fathers is roughly:
89.23% Non-Hispanic White
5.46% Hispanic
3.18% Non-Hispanic Black
2.13% Non-Hispanic Other Races

Of approximately 2217946 children fathered by Non-Hispanic White men, the racial breakdown of mothers is around:
92.76% Non-Hispanic White
4.12% Hispanic
0.96% Non-Hispanic Black
2.17% Non-Hispanic Other Races

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/04/natality-data-rates-of-interbreeding.html

Posted by Gary on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 22:46 | #

Dan Dare,

From Wikipedia:

As of 2001, 2% of all marriages in the United Kingdom are inter-ethnic. Despite the UK’s having a much lower proportion of non-white population (9%) than the United States, the frequency of mixed marriages is as common.

More:

According to the UK 2001 census, black British males were around 50% more likely than black females to marry outside their race. British Chinese women (30%) were twice as likely as their male counterparts (15%) to marry someone from a different ethnic group. Among British Asians, referring mainly to South Asians, males were twice as likely to have an inter-ethnic marriage than their female counterparts. As of 2005, it is estimated that nearly half of British-born African-Caribbean males, a third of British-born African-Caribbean females, and a fifth of Indian and African males, have white partners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage#United_Kingdom

Posted by Gary on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 22:48 | #

Dan Dare,

Interethnic relationships have been so common in Britain over the years that today over half of Brits have recent immigrant ancestors:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1097043/How-British-Figures-half-migrant-blood-families.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3816282/Half-of-Brits-have-immigrant-ancestors.html

Posted by Gary on Thu, 29 Apr 2010 22:51 | #

Dan Dare,

You wrote:

In most societies around the world miscegenation is strongly tabooed. It is only in the liberal west that it is tolerated and even promoted, principally as a weapon in the crusade against ‘racism’.

Not true.  Interracial and interethnic relationships are not just common in the liberal West.  They are common in every multiracial and multiethnic society.  From Ian Jobling:

In non-Western societies with peaceful or moderate levels of conflict, the rate of ethnic intermarriage is in the 10 to 20 percent range. A study of ethnic intermarriage in Beijing found that those of Mongolian or Manchu ethnicity had out-marriage rates of about 90 percent.

http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/articles/articles/against_genetic_similarity_theory/

Posted by Dan Dare on Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:30 | #

Gary - inter-ethnic is not the same as inter-racial.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:43 | #

The Dutch didn’t “just” withdraw from Indonesia. They were forced out at gunpoint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Surabaya#Death_of_Brigadier_Mallaby

Ditto the French in Algeria.

The FLN estimated in 1962 that nearly eight years of revolution had cost 1.5 million dead from war-related causes. Some other Algerian sources later put the figure at approximately 1 million dead, while French officials estimated it at 350,000. French military authorities listed their losses at nearly 18,000 dead (6,000 from non-combat-related causes) and 65,000 wounded. European-descended civilian casualties exceeded 10,000 (including 3,000 dead) in 42,000 recorded terrorist incidents. According to French figures, security forces killed 141,000 rebel combatants, and more than 12,000 Algerians died in internal FLN purges during the war. An additional 5,000 died in the “café wars” in France between the FLN and rival Algerian groups. French sources also estimated that 70,000 Muslim civilians were killed, or abducted and presumed killed, by the FLN.

Posted by PF on Fri, 30 Apr 2010 03:10 | #

Gary wrote:

A study of ethnic intermarriage in Beijing found that those of Mongolian or Manchu ethnicity had out-marriage rates of about 90 percent.

Lets think logically about this.

Given Beijing, these people are marrying Han Chinese. The difference between Mongolian and Han chinese is *not* representative of the genetic distance that our new polyglot pseudo-nations are going to have to span in order to achieve unity. Not only does unity have to be achieved with our black elements, but also with our asian elements, for this pretend paradise of racial mongrelization to come about.

Interethnic relationships have been so common in Britain over the years that today over half of Brits have recent immigrant ancestors:

The data behind these articles may be true. Yet given that England is now the target of race-replacement level migration, statements like this have a political context which they otherwise wouldnt. The acknowledgment of past contributions of immigrations has an implicit and thinly veiled purpose - to insinuate that more would be better.

The comment is not factually wrong, but it represents an argument against the existence of the British nation. More simply stated it could be said thus: “We are already partly mixed ...whats wrong with mixing entirely?” There are three replies which should meet this question.

1) Immigrants are of different quality, so to treat immigration as a monolithic concept would appear to be a foolish approach, based on a convention of language.

2) The problematic and not-firmly established positive benefits of immigration are all likely to have diminishing returns, as the social capital is gradually destroyed by the onslaught of newcomers. So in this sense, “less is more”, with immigration.

3) More importantly than 1 or 2, the positive benefits of immigration have not been established. Victoria Beckham is part german - and? Is the implication there that British beauty comes from germany? The implication is that Britain should cast off its notions of peoplehood and national existence in order to suck up talent from all neighboring genepools.

Machiavelli had a maxim, which always comes to my mind when I read this sort of thing. Its what I think of when I read about all the imported intellectuals, doctors, and geniuses who have overtaken the upper-tiers of all western universities, so that the universities and colleges are 40%+ foreign.

It is better to lose a war with your own soldiers, than to win a war by using mercenaries.

A little thinking will reveal that the same reason big Mach advised medieval Princes not to use mercenaries, is the reason why the American political/academic/medical establishment should have had the sense not to be greedy and overreach the abilities of its own founding populace. Now we have a chaotic Tower of Babel, alienating for all participants.

If we only produce 600 geniuses who can be neurosurgeons, than thats our fucking limit. Thats how I see it. We dont deserve more. Life doesnt work that way. We may have less universities and less talented people, but the coherence and unity would more than make up for the lost “human capital”.

Posted by Andy Neather on Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:59 | #

Dan Dare,
            What I wrote is based strictly on the evidence.I remember full well an ‘official survey’ telling us that ‘25% of births in England and Wales are to immigrant mothers’, furthermore the survey said ‘in London the figure is over 50%’.
Now, I did perform an extrapolation, making the wholly reasonable assertion that there are at least as many 2nd and 3rd generation non-British mothers as ‘immigrants’.

Posted by Gorboduc on Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:27 | #

About the British leaving India, leaving aside their withdrawal from Africa, and the Dutch and French withdrawals from their overseas territories:

Surely there can be no parallel between what happened in India and Pakistan in the late 1940’s and what some people are projecting for Britain in the near future.

The British withdrawal was that of a disciplined soldiers’ retreat, ‘flags flying, drums beating, bullet in the mouth’.

It had been prepared a long time in advance: the lon-expected orders had come from home. It was the withdrawal of military and cvil administrative machinery.

Of course some chose to stay: well-settled civilians, some traders, some officials and managers, plantation owners, mission staff.

A diplomatic corps remained in place.

The Asians and Africans here are not subject to the same disciplinary structures as were the UK personnel. India and Pakistan aren’t going to send long-awaited final instructions which hundreds of thousands of people are going to obey with quasi-military discipline.

Those who could just be seen as forming some sorts of organised cadres, the little shop-keepers and Post Office managers, the school teachers, transport staff and health workers and their very numerous families are not going to receive the call “Return!”

So how is the great exodus to be accomplished?

Who REALLY thinks the “Out of my way! !‘ve got an AK-47!” approach is worth considering eben for a millionth of a second?

Posted by Gary on Fri, 30 Apr 2010 23:00 | #

Dan Dare,

Gary - inter-ethnic is not the same as inter-racial.

No shit.  I never said that it was.

Since you obviously have no response to the points that I raise and can only nitpick I must declare victory (even though I desperately wish that I was wrong about what I say).

Some further information that I found:

The mixed race group is the fastest growing ethnic minority group in the UK and is expected to become the largest by 2020.

Britain has one of the highest rates of interracial relationships in the western world.

If government watchdog figures are right, mixed race Britons will overtake Indian people to become the UK’s largest ethnic minority group within 25 years, reaching 1.24 million.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/the_p_word/newsid_10000000/newsid_10000900/10000910.stm

The remarkable rise in mixed-race Britain is shown in a major new report that shows young people are now six times as likely to be mixed-race as adults and the rate is increasing by the year.

...

The shift is likely to be most dramatic in London, where more than one in four children in inner-city primary schools is already of mixed race.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jan/18/race-integration-study