Majorityrights News > Category: Immigration and Politics

Seems probably.  Shouldn’t even be possible to contemplate it.  But this is Boris Johnson.  He is an open borders activist.

It’s being presented as a geopolitical stratagem (as if concerns about China’s intent on India matters a solitary damn to the true people of this land) and also a time-limited settlement plan (as if they will ever willingly return home).  Our defender is the Indian Home Secretary, apparently?

Ministers plan to relax immigration rules to make it easier for thousands of Indians to live and work in UK as government seeks closer ties with India to counter China influence
  Indian citizens could more freely live and work in the UK under new mooted rules
  Immigration curbs are a key point that could dominate UK-India 2022 trade talks
  Cabinet is said to be split over possibility of loosening border controls for India

Ministers are plotting to ease immigration restrictions that could help thousands of Indian citizens both live and work in the UK more easily in 2022.

The move is said to be a key point that could dominate trade talks that are due to commence between the two countries in Delhi later this month.

International trade secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan is primed to dangle the offer in front of Indian representatives as part of a Government plan to curb China’s growing influence in the region.

One senior government insider explained that ministers generally accepted that a ‘generous’ visa offer would be the necessary counterbalance in any trade talks. 

Ms Trevelyan is said to be backed by Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, but will likely face pressure from Home Secretary Priti Patel who does not support the move, reports the Times.

As part of the plans, Indian citizens could be offered similar visa deal to those given to Australians - allowing young workers the right to live and work in Britain for up to three years.

Other mooted options include slashing visa fees for Indian students, and allowing them a temporary stay in the country after graduation.

Of absolutely no surprise to anyone outside Westminster, it now emerges that the British government has had no idea how many migrants came from the 27 European Union member states:

EU immigration to the UK was underestimated by more than 1.6 million between 2012-2020, it has emerged, after the ONS revised its methodology to produce new figures that dwarf previous estimates.

Previous immigration figures were based on surveys contributing to a model known as Long Term International Migration (LTIM), which now appears to have wildly missed the mark.

The new technique, called Rapid, is based on actual tax and benefits data instead, and “has the benefit of removing uncertainty”, said the ONS. It reveals that in many years of the last decade the number of EU migrants was more than, or close to, double previous estimates.

“The statistical narrative is just completely different to what we thought,” Madeleine Sumption, director, Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, told The Telegraph.

In the year ending March 2019, for example, 410,000 are now assumed to have arrived, as opposed to the 186,000 previously estimated, up a substantial 120 per cent.

I often find the comments under the line more instructive than the journalism, so here is one that explains what it all means:

EU Survivor
24 Jun 2021 10:28PM
In the years prior to the Brexit Referendum, the leave campaigners argued that the immigration figures massively underestimated the true picture, and cited NI numbers issued as evidence that there must have been far more immigrants than admitted to.

This was denied by those pushing the remain side of the argument, including the then Government led by Cameron.

We now hear that looking at tax and benefits, the figures were massively underestimated.

While this is suggested as new information, following a new methodology, it appears to me that there was a form of corporate wilful negligence in avoiding using such a system previously, when it was clear it would demonstrate more accurate, and far higher levels of immigration.

So, despite all the claims from remainers of false information from the leave side - the remain side had been providing and I believe lying about the levels of immigration for years.

For Remain read government.  For government read corporate whores.

Since its inception in 2005 Conservative Home has become an “indispensable read” for Tory party members and MPs, particularly those of a centrist persuasion.  These days it is edited by Paul Goodman, who maintains a rigorous guard against any suggestion (and I mean any suggestion) of nationalist critique among the commentariat, while allowing hating lefties free range to attack all and sundry for any backsliding on ethnic suicidalism.  It is not entirely clear how Mr Goodman would feel, say, should ethnic suicidalism ever grip the gentlefolk of Israel.

But today someone let Richard Ritchie, not a Jew but Enoch Powell’s archivist, to post an abridged version of a 16,000 word paper he has authored.  Its subject is the parliamentary history of immigration.  Cue a deadly bunfight below the line, but a bunfight which has lacked the usual viciously partisan moderation.  One can’t help wondering what all those so so respectable centrists are thinking as they peruse the thread.  How to survive the conniptions, probably.  No doubt order will be restored tomorrow.

The population of London has declined by 700,000 over the course of the lockdowns.  Bad news for neoliberals and Treasury officials who need to borrow against GDP.  Good news for the native Brits but also for BAME race hucksters.

There seem to be no official figures on it, but the assumption is that the two main components in that reduction are middle-class natives who have moved to quieter and safer towns, and East European migrant workers who have returned home (not only from the UK - there has been an exodus from Holland too, and probably the rest of Western Europe).  Population rises across Eastern Europe attest to that fact.  Bogdan and Yana will have to find something else to do, although both of them doubtless have been given the right to remain here under the Brexit deal, and will hustle back if the cab business and the nail-bar open again.

Long-term, London’s economic future depends on whether the middle-class exodus is permanent, ie, whether home-working is now a fixture and the office is expensive and superfluous.  If the middle-class does not return to office work it won’t need leafy, gentrified streets on which to live, and if it doesn’t need those it won’t partake of the city’s cultural and gastronomic pleasures.  The city itself will morph by degrees into a cross between Kinshasa and Chittagong, which will drive the multiculti-minded pols totally nuts.  Queue bussing policies, rural public sector housing policies, and endless ministerial anxiety over the “racist” British countryside.

Meanwhile, yesterday the Telegraph ran a photo essay on London in the 1960s.  Was it really better than today, they asked?

The Future of Germany is Unclear

Red Pill Germany 28 Nov 2020

UPDATE: Abby Martin’s Lawsuit Over Israel Loyalty Oath Mandate in US

By Grégoire Canlorbe, American Renaissance, October 30, 2020:

       

Frank Kemp Salter is an Australian academic and researcher. Most of his career was at the Max Planck Research Centre for Human Ethology, in Andechs, Germany. He is best known for writings on ethnicity and ethnic interests. He studies political phenomena using conventional methods and the theories of behavioral biology. He has written about hierarchy (Emotions in Command, 1995), indoctrination (Ethnic Conflict and Indoctrination, 1998, edited with I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt), ethnic altruism and conflict (Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism, 2002, Risky Transactions: Trust, Kinship and Ethnicity, 2004), and genetic interests (On Genetic Interests, 2003). In a review, Jared Taylor called On Genetic Interests “a vitally important contribution to our understanding of the significance of race and ethnicity in human affairs.” Dr. Salter has also been an adviser to Australia’s populist One Nation Party.

Grégoire Canlorbe: You write about the biological underpinnings of the obedience to one’s superiors in a hierarchy, especially in a bureaucracy. Please tell us more about this.

Frank Salter: In writing Emotions in Command, I observed command-giving in many organizations, from the military, to courts and parliaments, to nightclub doormen and theatrical rehearsals. The methods and observational categories were very much in the ethological tradition of Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, whom I later joined as a colleague at his Max Planck Research Centre.

I expected to find dominance, and did, but I also found friendly behavior. Effective leaders take care to soften commands and bind subordinates to them through generosity and fairness. In doing this, they are helped by what I called the “dominance infrastructure,” this being the organization’s set of rules backed by inducements and punishments. My observations confirmed part of Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy: that it is a rule-governed hierarchy. Being rule governed, with obedience largely ensured by the dominance infrastructure, administrative positions can be filled by a wide range of personalities. Domineering behavior or brilliant leadership have negative and positive effects respectively, but are not required for the organization to function.

       

It was the discovery of the affiliative component of hierarchy that led me to search for an “affiliative infrastructure.” That search led me to study ethnic ties, which can bind large populations. I wanted to know if there such a thing as an “ethnic infrastructure”?

Grégoire Canlorbe: A popular claim by J. Philippe Rushton is that there are racial differences in ethnocentrism, with the least genetically heterogeneous ethnic groups being the most ethnocentric. Do you agree?

Frank Salter: Philippe Rushton’s theory was not the basis of my research into ethnic kinship. Instead, it was William Hamilton’s theory of inclusive fitness, which is generally accepted in ethology and evolutionary biology. The theory states that kinship bonds promote the reproduction of shared genes. Hamilton extended his theory to ethnic groups. I’m not aware of the finding you describe (that variations in genetic homogeneity and the degree of genetic similarity predict the level of ethnocentrism), though it has a certain plausibility. What I am aware of is that the degree of genetic homogeneity is related to solidarity, a sense of social cohesion; or, to put it differently, conflict increases when society becomes more genetically diverse. That finding, which is compatible with Hamilton’s theory, has been repeated again and again. The work of the late Tatu Vanhanen is an excellent example.

Nonetheless it seems that a more diverse society can actually lead to greater ethnocentrism: not at the level of society taken as whole, but at the level of the different ethnic components of society. As you can see in the case of America especially (and this is a universal trend in the West), white majorities are now increasingly ethnocentric, but it clearly doesn’t compare to the very high ethnocentrism of black or Latino minorities. This is an issue the media and the universities don’t understand, and never talk about.

READ MORE...

INTERVIEW

Ruuben Kaalep: “The Intermarium has to be a voluntary alliance, not like the EU”

Visigrad Post, NOVEMBER 16, 2020

Reading Time: 11 minutes

Interview with Ruuben Kaalep, member of the Estonian Parliament and member of EKRE, the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia: “We need to be able to play on the global stage, and for that we need to put our forces together and support each other. But the Intermarium has to be a voluntary alliance, not like the EU.”

At the end of summer, Ruuben Kaalep came to Hungary at the invitation of the Hungarian nationalist party Mi Hazánk (Our Homeland). Ruuben Kaalep is one of the main advocates for the Intermarium project, a political and geostrategic plan aiming to regroup the Baltic countries, the Visegrád 4, Ukraine, Croatia, Slovenia, Belarus, Moldova, and Romania, forming a kind of a triangle between the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, and the Adriatic Sea.

Although this list changes from time to time, sometimes including other Balkan countries, the Scandinavian countries, or even Austria, the Intermarium’s aim stays the same: to coordinate cooperation among the countries of Central and Eastern Europe — with the notable exception of Russia — in order to protect the interests of the region.

For its supporters, the project is the best way to preserve the way of life, security, and independence of the CEE countries, by “freeing them from Western domination and protecting them from Russian imperialism.”

The Intermarium project is not a new idea, although its revival gained visibility after the Maïdan revolution and the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which the advocates of the Intermarium perceived as new Russian aggression necessitating regional cooperation to avoid such a thing in the future.

One hundred years ago, the post-WW1 reborn Polish state was dreaming of rebuilding the great Polish empire connecting the Baltic and the Black Seas, known as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, able to contain Russia. This Międzymorze — “between-seas” — project of the Polish elites also included countries such as Hungary, Yugoslavia, Finland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania, making it the first modern project to bring together the CEE countries. Placed between Russia and the West, cutting off the Balkans from the rest of Europe, this geopolitical project always had many critics in both Russia and the West. Nowadays, if the Intermarium is mostly a little-known, pan-nationalist project, advocated mainly by Ukrainian, Balt, Croatian, and Polish political groups, the Three Seas Initiative can be seen as an implementation of Intermarium’s basic idea.

Intermarium has bigger ambitions than the announced goals of the Three Seas Initiative (gathering Baltic countries, the V4, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, and Bulgaria) which is built on an energy and transportation cooperation scheme aiming to guarantee energy independence of the CEE countries from Russia while being financed by the USA. For the advocates of the Intermarium project, the future of the region should lie on the rejection of three main enemies: Russia, NATO, and communism.

Ferenc Almássy met with Ruuben Kaalep while he was in Hungary in order to discuss his advocacy of the Intermarium project.

In red, a version of the Intermarium, gathering Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belorussia, Ukraine, Moldova, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia.

Ferenc Almássy: You are member of the Estonian Parliament, but you are, can we say, a nationalist? Can you accept this epithet?

Ruuben Kaalep: Absolutely. A nationalist is what I am. It’s the main thing for me.

Ferenc Almássy: So how is it possible that in Estonia, nationalists are part of a governmental coalition?

READ MORE...