As Labour luxuriates in its eleven point poll lead, quietly hires electoral staff, mobilises the unions, and hits one more time on its main donors, does anyone really think that Gordon Brown - that man of “Stalinist ruthlessness” - won’t name the day next week?  And does anyone really think that Young Master Bland can defeat him?

Probably not many, if one is honest.  But there’s no doubt that, from a nativist POV, a change would be better than more Brown.  Yes, I know that Establishment politics is for the benefit of the Establishment.  None of the traditional parties will willingly challenge the historical dynamics of globalism, economism, social liberalism, population change et al.  But we’ve seen enough of Labour to know that we do not want another decade like the last.

Meanwhile, the gauche, Nu-Tory idiocies that so alienated grassroots support in the shires seem to have been sidelined.  Nothing concentrates the political mind like nearness to power.

So today we have two tempting tax carrots dangled before us: on Stamp Duty and on Inheritance Tax.  It’s a beginning.  Inheritance Tax is a particularly pernicious attack on family wealth and, at 40% on estates over £300,000, highly disruptive to the white middle-class.  There is the view, of course, that disruption is exactly what’s needed to wake people up.  But it doesn’t work like that.  Capitalism has been remarkable effective in raising living standards.  The white middle-class doesn’t lose its comforts through the loss of the parental home.  It is simply pressed that bit further into the mold of the wage-slave.

By contrast, George Osborne’s proposed tax on non-domicile earnings - NDs proliferate in the utterly deracinated and globalised financial sector - is a genuine nationalist proposal.  Not that he knows it, of course.

I am waiting, therefore, to see what other election goodies Bland Dave has in store this week.  Besides tax, the policy areas the party faithful will demand to be addressed are immigration, pensions, law & order, Europe, the family, and house-building.  If they really want to be populist, the Midlothian Question can be added to the list. 

So here’s what would make me vote Cameron, notwithstanding my previous utterances about the fellow.

1. An immigration moratorium; a genuine border force; a determined beginning to the repatriation of illegals.

2. As the baby-boomers eye retirement, a holistic vision for pensions and social care provision for the elderly.

3. The depoliticisation of the police (and the de-Marxisation of the civil service); a new programme of prison-building in acknowledgment of the sociobiological facts of life viz-a-vis our vibrant new countrymen.

4. A referendum on the dratted Reform Treaty.

5. Recognition in the tax system of the contribution made by marriage towards a stable family life.

6. Protection of the Green Belt and cancellation, of course, of Brown’s latest housebuilding outrage.

Finally, English votes for English laws would be a long stride towards the needed break-up of the British state.  I’d really go for that.  And to top it off, some stuff on civil liberties - starting with the repeal of the ban on hunting with dogs.

I would be interested to know what our Canadian regulars make of Connie Fogal’s civil libertarian, anti-globalist Canadian Action Party.  I’ve just been perusing their website, which is very impressive ... not least for its journalism.

Here’s the front end of a two-part feature article titled: The Metamorphosis and Sabotage of Canada by Our Own Government.  It is informed and detailed journalism of a calibre we do not see nearly often enough.

Of course, the Party is condemned to a narrow platform because it is operating within the existing liberal political milieu, so whether the radicalism can be summoned to really change things remains to be seen.

Introduction

The North American continent is being transformed from three sovereign nations Canada, USA, Mexico) into one regional corporate power base, the North American Union. Unlike the creation of the European Union, there is no public political/ academic discourse on the merits, or pros and cons of a North American Union building up to a vote within each nation as to the wish of the people to join such a union. Instead the union is being created by stealth, is already well on its way to fruition, and is being imposed on us by our own elected representatives and government with no opposition.

The driving force is corporate. The Chief Executive Officers of the most powerful corporations operating in the three countries want this union and have been working for some time devising their strategies and goals. Their facilitators are first, unelected officials and bureaucrats who move easily between corporations and government; second, former elected officials like John Manley , former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada; third, the heads of the three nations, Martin, Bush, and Fox; and finally, the governments and the rest of the elected members who apparently just rubber stamp what is put in front of them by the unelected officials- few questions, if any asked.

The ultimate enforcement mechanism for the North American Union is a police state.

The tools for the police state are “anti-terrorist” laws which, in themselves, are a ruse to strip the citizens of civil liberties in order to prevent dissent against the police state.

The Orwellian justification is “security”, “safety”.

READ MORE...

All this talk about the evils of “preemptive war” among Ron Paul supporters has goaded me to post a nuance that should be obvious to all reasonable men:

Just as with individual self-defense, there are cases where it is justifiable to pull the trigger first.  These are not normal circumstances but clearly the law allows for them as must all reasonable men.

However—and here’s the rub—when one wrongly appeals to the “preemptive defense” argument, the punishment of the perpetrator must be more severe than it is for honest aggression.  Indeed the punishment must be severe enough to cause the perpetrator to, in the future, prefer honest aggression to such subversion of legitimate defense.

Clear enough?

By Tomislav Sunic

From the European and American media, one can often get the impression that World War II needs to be periodically resurrected to give credibility to financial demands of one specific ethnic group, at the expense of others. The civilian deaths of the war’s losing side are, for the most part, glossed over. Standard historiography of World War II is routinely based on a sharp and polemical distinction between the “ugly” fascists who lost, and the “good” anti-fascists who won, and few scholars are willing to inquire into the gray ambiguity in between. Even as the events of that war become more distant in time, they seemingly become more politically useful and timely as myths.

German military and civilian losses during and especially after World War II are still shrouded by a veil of silence, at least in the mass media, even though an impressive body of scholarly literature exists on that topic. The reasons for this silence, due in large part to academic negligence, are deep rooted and deserve further scholarly inquiry. Why, for instance, are German civilian losses, and particularly the staggering number of postwar losses among ethnic Germans, dealt with so sketchily, if at all, in school history courses? The mass media—television, newspapers, film and magazines—rarely, if ever, look at the fate of the millions of German civilians in central and eastern Europe during and following World War II. [1]

The treatment of civilian ethnic Germans—or Volksdeutsche—in Yugoslavia may be regarded as a classic case of “ethnic cleansing” on a grand scale. [2]  A close look at these mass killings presents a myriad of historical and legal problems, especially when considering modern international law, including the Hague War Crimes Tribunal that has been dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Balkan wars of 1991-1995. Yet the plight of Yugoslavia’s ethnic Germans during and after World War II should be of no lesser concern to historians, not least because an under­standing of this chapter of history throws a significant light on the violent break-up of Communist Yugoslavia 45 years later. A better understanding of the fate of Yugoslavia’s ethnic Germans should encourage skepticism of just how fairly and justly international law is applied in practice. Why are the sufferings and victimhood of some nations or ethnic groups ignored, while the sufferings of other nations and groups receive fulsome and sympathetic attention from the media and politicians?

READ MORE...

The following letter was submitted to VDARE and published there in edited form today:

As one of the builders of the computer industry who saw his 35 year career destroyed by H-1b visas, I appreciate the irony of the fact that I just got back from the Ron Paul rally in Seattle, making this the first chance I’ve had to comment on on Peter Brimelow’s important interview with Ron Paul.  I’m a firm, if skeptical, supporter of Ron Paul for the simple reason that he really is the best hope for peaceful solutions to our fundamental problems.  As harsh as the loss of my career has been, on me and all those like me who built the information industry to see its fruits reaped by foreigners with arranged marriages and intact clan support structures, the public choice rent seekers Paul opposes, create greater problems for all of us.

It’s good that Brimelow got Paul to answer some tough questions; particularly regarding H-1b visas, but the bigger problem is illustrated by what I experienced during my trip to Seattle, in its suburbs where I spent 2 days.  I spent the weekend touring the coast of Puget Sound south of Seattle, through Tacoma.  At one point I was having trouble believing what I was seeing, so I started counting cars as they went by.  Out of the 20 cars, NOT ONE had a white male in it and white females were no more frequent than one would expect in east LA:  Not exactly the original intent of what the preamble of the United States Constitution referred to as “our posterity”.

So you see, I’ve got bigger concerns than the loss of my livelihood to some hundreds of thousands of H-1b visa holders wielding questionable diplomas from Indian paper mills in jobs frequently handed to them out of ethnic nepotism.  That is small potatoes compared to what has happened to places like the suburbs of Seattle.  As much as I appreciate Brimelow’s accurate emphasis on the impact of H-1b visas on people like me, his failure to talk about Randall Burns’ idea of auctioning off citizenship and/or visas to discover the value of residence was the most glaring omission of the interview—particularly to the more faithful and thoughtful readers of VDARE.

Ron Paul is, after all, a market ideologue.  Paul’s failure to understand that the value of residence, from whatever source—be it the welfare state, as Paul contends, or liquidation of more general social capital as seems to be the case, can be determined by the market (at least within some reasonable approximations given widely held assumptions that Paul shares) is Paul’s most glaring intellectual failure but it isn’t his worst intellectual failure.  Paul’s worst intellectual failure is his failure to recognize that public choice rent seeking has a private counterpart.  Specifically, property rights beyond subsistence property rights, are made possible by government.  Hence use fees for property rights beyond subsistence should be under a use fee for that governmental service.  Note, this use fee is not a “tax” in the normal sense due to the reciprocal nature.  We can argue over the amount exempted as “subsistence” and the rate of the fee, but we should have the correct argument!  If such use fees were paid, incompetents like Bill Gates would not simply hire tens of thousands of ever cheaper programmers to write more software that doesn’t work in ever more convoluted ways.  He would simply go out of business due to a more level playing field created by the removal of subsidy of Microsoft’s monopoly property rights.

But as I said, this is small potatoes compared to what the government is doing by collecting taxes to create a huge political football for special interest rent streams.  As “the least of evils” goes, Ron Paul is the closest thing many of us have seen to a “good” candidate in our lifetimes—even if he further damages some of us.

James Bowery fixes computers for his neighbors and does odd jobs in the rural Pacific Northwest.  Until the H-1b invasion, he was a leader in computer networking starting in 1974 at the PLATO network where he developed many firsts.  During that time he also provided the first iterative solution to the Tower of Hanoi problem when in 1977, helping his then friend, Ray Ozzie, with his homework assignment.  Ray had thought the professor said “iterative” rather than “recursive”.  Ray’s professor was rather surprised at Ray’s presentation of an iterative solution.  Mr. Bowery’s father, Robert W. Bowery, won first place in the National Clean Plowing Championships 2 years running in the late 1940s.

Every day now a clutch of immigration stories appear in the mainstream UK press.  The silence is slowly, irrevocably breaking.  Loyal feeling, where it exists, is making itself heard and will not be silenced again.

Over the last two or three days we have, starting with the Daily Mail, heard that:-

If the BBC’s worried about immigration, can we have an honest debate about it?

Ever since New Labour won the election in 1997, there has been a lively debate about immigration in this country, and it has not made a blind bit of difference.

Poles, other East Europeans and illegal immigrants have made a bee-line for our shores in increasing numbers.

Some newspapers, such as this one, have pointed out what is happening, but the tide has flowed on. The think-tank MigrationWatch has ably made its case without any obvious effect.

A few politicians have spoken up, but their warnings have not been heeded - or, if they have, nothing has changed. The Tories have picked up the issue and then dropped it. At the moment they are wondering whether to pick it up again.

We are told that 25 per cent of babies born in this country have at least one foreign-born parent. Within a few years, several cities will have a nonwhite majority.

And here, from the Telegraph:-

One fifth of schoolchildren from ethnic minorities

One in five children educated in English schools are now from ethnic minorities, official figures show.

The number of Asian, black African, black Caribbean, eastern European and Chinese pupils is thought to have doubled in the last decade.

In some parts of the country they outnumber white British pupils. Growing numbers of schoolchildren also speak languages other than English at home, it emerged.

One in eight school children do not speak English as their first language, rising to one in seven for primary school pupils.

According to statistics by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, almost 22 per cent of primary school pupils are from ethnic minority families, compared to 20.6 per cent last year.

Numbers have also grown in secondary schools where almost 18 per cent of the student body is now non-white British. In at least five areas - London, Birmingham, Leicester, Luton and Slough - white British children are now outnumbered by those from other ethnic groups.

And again from the Daily Mail:-

200,000 immigrants to enter Britain EVERY year as numbers soar by 30%

The number of people migrating to the UK will increase by 45,000 a year, according to new official figures published today.

Experts at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said their estimates had increased to 190,000 a year compared with 145,000 in calculations issued two years ago.

Changes to the way migration is estimated would also lead to earlier migration totals being “revised” later this year, it added.

READ MORE...

Radio talk show host suggests his cohost means to hunt down Ron Paul supporters and kill them like mad dogs.

Bring it on!

When folks who advocate the importation of an Asian “cognitive elite” make their case, they usually do it in opposition to the importation of a third world underclass.  It is interesting, therefore, that when Senator Durbin “justifies” the attachment of the DREAM Act mini-amnesty to the Defense Authorization Bill, he does so by pointing to supporters within the Defense Department—two of them actually—one of whom is so obscure he doesn’t even rate a Wikipedia entry, and the other of whom is a Chinese American:

whose Wikipedia entry says of him:

Chu is one of the least publicly recognized of the civilians appointed to The Pentagon under President George W. Bush.

You have to wonder if these guys really think that by recruiting the children of illegals into the military they can create a military that is more loyal to the military than to the people of the US the US military will be killing when the people of the US finally take up arms against the traitors?

UPDATE: This most recent reanimation of the DREAM Act is dead again after Congressmen got enough calls like the one I placed to my Congressman telling his staff that I hadn’t participated in “the process” in 15 years after I had led a grassroots effort to successfully change Federal Law and became alienated from “the process”, but that if my representative voted for the DREAM Act I would do everything in my power to make sure he wasn’t reelected.  In my case, the staffer didn’t sound like a foreigner but he was none too happy with my call.  Traitors, you see, really like giving away our land to foreigners.  Its what makes them who they are.