No to 70 million

Responsible department: Home Office

Over the past ten years the government has permitted mass immigration despite very strong public opposition reflected in numerous opinion polls. We express our deep concern that, according to official figures, the population of the UK is expected to reach 70 million within 20 years with two thirds of the increase due to immigration. While we recognise the benefits that properly controlled immigration could bring to our economy and society, this population increase, which is the equivalent of building seven cities the size of Birmingham, will have a huge impact both on our quality of life and on our public services yet the public has never been consulted. So we call on the government to take all necessary steps to get immigration down to a level that will stabilise our population as close to the present level as possible and, certainly, well below 70 million.”

So reads the immigration e-petition posted on the Downing Street petitions site by Sir Andrew Green of MigrationWatch.  It is doing a brisk trade.  Only two petitions so far have scraped together the 100,000 signatures that triggers a House of Commons debate. The government allows a full year for this total to be reached.  The immigration petition did it inside a week.

Of course, it’s weak tea stuff.  Sir Andrew is involved in the balanced migration campaign, which only seeks to match immigration numbers with those emigrating.  But it’s a start, and the explosive success of the e-petition is not an endorsement for balanced migration.

Some time in the next two years the government will have to make time for a debate on the 70 million issue.  The debate itself will be no less controlled than the EU debate of a few days ago.  Nothing will come of it. It is inconceivable that there will be another large-scale rebellion among Tory MPs.  But the petition could easily be several hundred signatures strong by then.  It will feel very lonely in the “we love migrants” camp.

I have signed the petition.  Every loyal Brit should do so.

… against the pathological left, anyway.

I have spent a few days discussing golf and football with a dozen or so folk at the Telegraph online.  They were hardly committed sports fans, unless you count screaming “racist” at every slightly “incorrect” white man a sport.  Perhaps they do.

They are certainly not very sporting themselves.  They never answer questions.  With the more capable anti-racists who gather at British Democracy Forum to plague BNP members I always felt that the wriggling was at least partly strategic.  But now I think the lot of them are probably constitutionally incapable of answering anything.  The answers just aren’t there.

The same feeling that the multiracialist ideology can’t answer the questions of the present-day runs through this article in the Guardian today:

Far right on rise in Europe, says report

Study by Demos thinktank reveals thousands of self-declared followers of hardline nationalist parties and groups

The far right is on the rise across Europe as a new generation of young, web-based supporters embrace hardline nationalist and anti-immigrant groups, a study has revealed ahead of a meeting of politicians and academics in Brussels to examine the phenomenon.

Research by the British thinktank Demos for the first time examines attitudes among supporters of the far right online. Using advertisements on Facebook group pages, they persuaded more than 10,000 followers of 14 parties and street organisations in 11 countries to fill in detailed questionnaires.

The study reveals a continent-wide spread of hardline nationalist sentiment among the young, mainly men. Deeply cynical about their own governments and the EU, their generalised fear about the future is focused on cultural identity, with immigration – particularly a perceived spread of Islamic influence – a concern. ...

The rest of the article is worth a browse.  The original Demos report, which is less lurid in tone than the article above, is here.

READ MORE...

As some of our readers will already know, something odd happened at 7.00pm on Saturday evening when an article by Alasdair Palmer was posted at the Telegraph on-line.  I say an article, but in fact all that appeared was a headline reading “For overcrowded England, there is no turning back” and a picture of Oxford Street in all its usual, crowded vibrancy.

The semi-finished nature of the post plainly invited suggestion.  A sense of abandon spread through the right-wing badlands, and some extraordinarily plain-spoken suggestion followed, the great preponderance of it pointing out that, yes, there is a turning back.  It’s called repatriation.

The moderators snipped around the edges a little but they could not deal with the sheer volume of racial loyalty without turning it into a bloodbath.  They withdrew.

On Sunday morning Palmer’s article finally appeared.  It was about the National Office of Statistics report last week, which updated the immigrant numbers and brought home the full horror of the situation.  “Should we be worried by the prospect of 70 million people living in Britain in 2027?” wrote Palmer.  The answer had been there on the page for at least twelve hours.

The comment total at the time of writing this post is 1354, spread over 55 pages of Disqus format.  Too much to read in toto.  But I do recommend a quick browse just to get a feel for a freedom that exists nowhere else in the MSM.  It should now be possible to say anything content-wise at the Telegraph.  This is important.  To change public opinion, to lead public opinion, is going to require a great deal of such freedom.  It has to be worked at, routed out, made serviceable everywhere, eventually.

Drew Fraser speaking to an audience in Stockholm in August this year about his essay on “the bio-cultural evolution, present predicament, and future prospects of the invisible race.”

As conceived by Guardianoid.

From Nature Neuroscience:

How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality

Abstract

Unrealistic optimism is a pervasive human trait that influences domains ranging from personal relationships to politics and finance. How people maintain unrealistic optimism, despite frequently encountering information that challenges those biased beliefs, is unknown. We examined this question and found a marked asymmetry in belief updating. Participants updated their beliefs more in response to information that was better than expected than to information that was worse. This selectivity was mediated by a relative failure to code for errors that should reduce optimism. Distinct regions of the prefrontal cortex tracked estimation errors when those called for positive update, both in individuals who scored high and low on trait optimism. However, highly optimistic individuals exhibited reduced tracking of estimation errors that called for negative update in right inferior prefrontal gyrus. These findings indicate that optimism is tied to a selective update failure and diminished neural coding of undesirable information regarding the future.

“Parallel Party Structure” to Be Formed,” said the headline on BNP Ideas website.  It wasn’t what most of us were expecting.  The pre-meeting articles at BNP Ideas talked about setting up not only a new party but a think-tank.  Party policy was written about.  Given the entrenched position of Griffin in the BNP and the huge financial and legal problems his party faces, there seemed no likelihood that tonight we would be looking at the status quo.  But here we are.

Or nearly.  BNP Ideas has this to say:

A parallel party structure, tasked with building up supporters, a database, a leadership core and making overtures to other nationalists and parties along with creating all the essential elements required to run a party, is to be formed in terms of a majority decision taken at today’s BNP Ideas conference in Leicestershire.

... Mr Brons said he felt the time was not appropriate for the creation of a new party, and that it was better to rather create a parallel structure which could step in to pick up the pieces should the BNP’s current infrastructure collapse, or, if a certain minimum of signed up supporters (Mr Brons said 1,500 would be a suitable figure) was obtained, in which case a new party might become viable.

Less than that, Mr Brons said, and a new party would “nose dive” which would give the Griffin-controlled BNP an undeserved victory.

... Finally, the meeting was asked to vote on three specific proposals: to stay in the BNP and seek to replace Nick Griffin by legal internal means; to create a new party; and to create a parallel structure.

A handful of people voted for a new party, but the vast majority of those present voted to create the parallel structure. The organisation will take into consideration all of the proposals made by delegates, and further announcements will be made on this website in due course.

The Zurich team can. From Orbis 2007, a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide, they pulled out all 43,060 TNCs and the share ownerships linking them. Then they constructed a model of which companies controlled others through shareholding networks, coupled with each company’s operating revenues, to map the structure of economic power.

The work, to be published in PloS One, revealed a core of 1318 companies with interlocking ownerships (see image). Each of the 1318 had ties to two or more other companies, and on average they were connected to 20. What’s more, although they represented 20 per cent of global operating revenues, the 1318 appeared to collectively own through their shares the majority of the world’s large blue chip and manufacturing firms - the “real” economy - representing a further 60 per cent of global revenues.

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

READ MORE...