The link between excessive incompatible immigration on the one hand, and this sort of OUTRAGE befalling the host country on the other, is so crystal-clear to me that I can’t conceive how so many on the other side of the immigration debate miss it entirely. In the interest of politeness and out of respect for this excellent blog-site, that’s all I’ll say. I’ll not use some of the choice epithets that are roiling my brain just at the moment. I’ll simply add that these people don’t belong in brave, good little Belgium and never did, and what let them in was the Tranzi plague now infesting Europe with an illness that will prove more deadly to the ancient nations of the mother-continent than the Black Death of the 1300s. Tranzis and those who sympathise with them have let a tiger out of its cage, which they won’t be able to control or put back in. Haider, Le Pen, and Fortuyn wanted to get this tiger back in its cage but were called Nazis for wanting that and Fortuyn was killed for wanting it. Far from controlling this tiger, the Tranzis will instead be devoured by it in the end, along with all that it is devouring right now.

Living in London, seeing the demographic effect of immigration in this city, and the restrictions on anyone who questions its effect (especially if they appeal to Britain’s traditional national and yes, racial, identity), I have pretty much concluded that the West is lost (especially the “Anglosphere”, continental Europe has a few minor uprisings which may, one day, succeed).
The Euro-elites are convinced that they need masses of third world immigrants to fund their pension schemes. They want Turkey in the EU for the same reason. Any opposition to these policies is considered racist, and anti-racism is a religion. It goes way beyond PC over here, we are talking jail for some dissenters, even for mild statements.

The Lott situation is very similar. Even questioning the value of the Civil Rights Movement brings out the long knives. The propositions that a) segregationists may have been standing for some principles, like freedom of association and b)that the movement’s success in ending de jure segregation led pretty directly to some bad things, like forced busing and the resultant white flight, are simply beyond the pale. No, the CRM is America’s Shining Moment. Even allowing oneself to question, however cautiously, its unmitigated good is to be evil, vile, disgraceful. The corrolary is that American history is evil, vile, disgraceful, and only 1964 did we realize our evil ways. It is no coincidence that the following year the legislation that would change America’s demography was passed by Congress.

“It is no coincidence that the following year the legislation that would change America’s demography [the disastrous 1965 Immigration bill] was passed by Congress.” — Mitchell Young

Yes, but we can unpass it! And by God — with God’s help — we will!

I am sort of hoping that things get completely out of hand and super-oppressive towards whites, so when I am the right age I will be in the right place to take over the Western world in the name of classical civilization. If you guys are correct in the direness of the current rise of liberalism, then with any luck I will be able to rule the world in no time at all. After all, we here dedicate a lot of our time to researching every cultural trend, but the general population will stand by and take the destruction of their society bit by bit, until the realize the full extent of the damage. Then, boy will they be mad.

I’d like to ask Mitchell Young a question. In the U.S., there is a tendency among some on the right to attribute the loss of will to defend the country from the ethno-cultural undoing brought on my mass third-world immigration to several factors: the earlier immigration that weakened the Anglo majority; the cultural and political influence of Jews; and the Civil Rights movement. But in Britain, there was no great 1880-1920 immigration; the Jewish population is far smaller in relative terms and seems more assimilated and significantly less influential than in the U.S.; and there was no comparable racial problem, though you did have the colonial problem.

So here’s my question: What is making the ancient country of Britain, which has always had a strong national/ethnic core identity, give up its identity so easily, especially as regards to immigration? In America it’s more understandable. In Britain, it’s harder to understand.

And the same goes for the ancient nations of the continent. What has happened to them? What are they so passively letting this happen?

It seems that there is a startling relation between the amount of tradition, success, and modernization and liberalism. Italy, for example, has always been a successful nation, but since it holds such strong traditions (and doesn’t even give people a fair chance like the US and Britain), but does not suffer from the same problems as we do. There is still a general relationship between the level of tradition and the level of liberalism in western countries.

My last post was a bit vague. I used the word tradition in two different contexts. What I meant to say was, since Italy possesses such a strong set of traditional values, liberalism has not hit it yet. It also nowhere near as prosperous as our countries, so liberals would all starve since none of them ever get real jobs.

Since the US is a younger country than Britian, there is less history to feel guilty about. In Britian and France, their history is so long and their records so distinguished that they can be attacked on innumerable levels. In Germany, we need not look back more than sixty years to place blame (which is totally appropriate to feel guilty about in their case).

I am not the most qualified person to answer Mr. Austers question. I am American, and I have lived in London only about two months. Moreover, your question is basically a subset of the most difficult, and the most important, social science problem of our era.I.e what is driving the West, including the European derived population of the U.S., to cultural and genetic suicide. But here goes.

Basically three arguments are used to justify large scale immigration into Britain.

1) We need immigrants to support our pension system as our population ages. This reasoning is also applied to letting Turkey into the EU. Restructuring the way pensions are financed is not discussed. Neither, of course, is trying to increase the fertility rate of the local population by making it easier to have and raise kids.

2) We are bound to accept large numbers of refugees under international agreements. There is a good piece by Mathew Paris in the Spectator this week about this issue, basically arguing that the West will have to give up trying to rescue refugees, or else be overwhelmed.

3) Opposing immmigration, because most immigrants are brown or black, is racist.

This last is especially potent. Any desire to maintain your own ethnic identity in lands your ancestors have held for centuries is seen as the first step on the road to a new Holocaust; likewise any expression of ethnic self interest on the part of the original population. Conversely, you must promote the interests of other ethnic groups at the expense of your own, in order to expiate the sins of Nazism. Tragically, this leads many people, especially young working class males, to flirt with the trappings of Nazism. If you are told often enough that the policies that are in your interests as the “indigineous” population are Nazi policies, you begin to think (I don’t need to add, very wrongly) this Hitler guy was not so bad.

I don’t think awe realize how deep this “anti-racism” goes. Among the media and intellectual elite there seems to be a total unwillingness to discuss issues of ethnicity, race, immigration, declining populations. Begin to discuss these issues in any rational way, and next thing you know you are being accused of marching people to the gas chambers. Indeed, New Labour has almost made such discussions illegal, and has tried to curtail their being used as election issues. It really is astonishing, the public policy that has *the* major impact on the lives of British (and American) people cannot be discussed for fear of “inciting racial hatred” (here) or “being divisive” (in the United States).

Larry, if I may address you as Larry, I think that the main reason we are “passively letting this happen” is that we don’t believe we can do anything about. While it is general knowledge that the media is responsible for labeling individuals as racist and xenophobic, I think we understimate the media’s control over our lives. Everything we know about what is happening in the world, we get from the media. They control our entire perception. While the majority in any country is most certainly against self-destruction, I believe that, on an individual level, people feel helpless. We are bombarded by statistics that make us feel like the minority, and we begin to doubt our own ability to do anything about the situation, for fear of being crucified by the media, or simply by a feeling of paralysis.

Secondly, the subversive nature of modern immigration is incredible. The media conveniently forgets to inform us to what extent we are being overrun, and members of overrun communities only realize when it is too late. The only time we hear about boatloads of Haitians coming to the US is when we are actually about to enforce the laws, and it is presented in a completely biased fashion. We don’t hear how many boats are making it by unnoticed, and the general population can not even conceive the direness of the situation. Our countries are being stolen from beneath our noses, not with a bang, but with a whimper, in the words of T.S. Eliot.

As I understand it it was traditionally possible to simply buy a UK passport. In the late nineteenth century the east of London started to fill with East European immigrants who did precisely that. There was a controversy in the early 1900s about this when a group of Russian anarchists held off the police in a siege. There were demands to raise the cost of a UK passport, but these demands were successfully blocked by the young Winston Churchill.

Churchill was also in office after WWII when immigration from the Caribbean began to take hold. Several cabinet members campaigned strongly to reform the immigration process, but were again blocked by Churchill. This is despite the fact that Churchill at a personal level had some feeling of ethnic consciousness.

I’m not putting the blame on Churchill in pointing this out, simply suggesting that the problem goes back further than recent decades.

I agree with remus. Americans and other nationalities act defeated because they feel defeated.

A second reason is immigration reformists lack leadership and particularly lack steadfast, high profile, charismatic leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King.

A third reason is fear of economic instability. People know that stopping immigration is going to be difficult. One of the difficulties is change carries a high risk of rioting and civil disobedience by nonwhites and their allies. The turmoil will be led by vicious and self-serving propaganda from the major media. People are not stupid; they know all this. They know social turmoil poses a grave threat to economic stability, which poses a threat to their comfort, careers, and even their children’s well being. Few people are willing to risk economic instability.

A fourth reason is even if you can get people to believe that the social turmoil can be reasonably controlled, they know there is a good chance that it is going to cost them much. They know that to unite around the reform cause, they will need to compromise. They will need to ally with people whose ideas they dislike greatly. They will need to ally with abortionists and anti-abortionists, with “gun nuts” and gun regulators, with social security advocates and reformers, with rich successful white capitalists and socialist blue-collar workers, and with tax thieves and anti-tax “gluttons.” But I think the cost they most do not want to bear is a significant reduction in their standard of living. They want their SUV’s, two homes, 3-5 automobiles per family, boat, affordable airline tickets, nice clothes, hedonistic culture, careers and two-parent careers, free schools, homes in areas that are guaranteed to flood, low food prices, low gasoline prices, and no military service.

These reforms can occur without violence. If only people will realize that political change begins and ends with them—one small, probably useless, step at a time. What would have happened if the Founding Fathers and their pitifully few followers had failed to buck the odds?

“1) [One of the arguments used to justify large-scale immigration into Britain is] we need immigrants to support our pension system as our population ages. … Restructuring the way pensions are financed is not discussed. NEITHER, OF COURSE, IS TRYING TO INCREASE THE FERTILITY RATE OF THE LOCAL POPULATION BY MAKING IT EASIER TO HAVE AND RAISE KIDS.” — Mitchell Young (emphasis added)

Mitchell Young, thanks for your post which contained a very helpful summary of some important points, including, I feel, the one I highlit. Few seem to be talking about this particular point, and I don’t understand why more aren’t.

It is not possible to deny that high taxes (needed to pay for extravagant social welfare systems) in all the developed western countries are depressing the birthrates of the non-welfare blue-collar, middle, and upper middle classes by leaving those couples who wish to have kids, or to have more of them, too little disposable income to be able to afford it comfortably.

Not only that, but the income (too often the fruit of both spouses working very hard at more than one job apiece) which they perhaps would have devoted to starting or expanding their own families, is confiscated by the feds to be used to allow newly-arrived IMMIGRANT WOMEN to start or expand THEIR families — FOR FREE!

Then the American people have to hear the outrageous lie that this (government-caused) low birth rate among our own traditional population is our own population’s choice, and will necessitate even more immigration to make up the shortfall — immigration which seems to give ever more rights to the newcomers while the traditional Americans get more and more marginalized in their own country!

A nation’s right to reproduce itself — the right of a nation’s own men and women to have babies and not be forced to see their money confiscated to pay instead for OTHER men and women to have babies — seems sacred, and what’s happening is a moral outrage of the worst sort.

American couples need to know that having kids won’t put them on the poor farm. The feds here and in the U.K. and elsewhere must stop massively transferring income, through heavy taxation, from childbearing-age couples to retirement-age folk (the main cause of the problem), and they must NEVER, EVER take away money earned by and belonging to native-born couples who wanted perhaps to use that money to have children, and give it instead to alien couples just-arrived, so that THEY can have children instead … FOR FREE.

A country’s domestic birthrates can be, and are, manipulated by government policy.

The silent majority of reformers out there need reassurance and encouragement. Hence the following question I am eager to finally ask a group of highly intelligent, thoughtful people: Why don’t traditionalists worldwide (Africa, Asia, Europe, etc.), or even just in America, create a major television (and later film) corporation by selling shares to the millions of eager traditionalists?

We could watch news programs that feature the kinds of new items revealed by Mr. Auster and Mr. Kalb. We could televise our ideas into every home. For example, Mr. Kalb and Mr. Auster could host a nightly show (“Kalb and Auster”) of celebrities and politicians that share their views and of guests required to submit to a rigorous no-spin zone (as opposed to a heavily watered down but commendable Oreilly no-spin zone). There could be dramatic programming where everyone could be watching and feeling, in prime time, traditional children being persecuted at school for their ideas instead of watching killing, southern-dialects degraded, women raped, women physically fighting men (seriously, as opposed to Buffy-the-Vampire-Slayer fantasies), and offensive commercials.

We could watch one traditionalist culture allied with other traditionalist cultures so everyone could visualize (vital to visual beings) how a concrete culture can remain somewhat closed but friendly, helpful, unagressive, and supportive to other cultures.

We could finally watch gentlemanly and ladylike PG-rated awards ceremonies restricted to the merits of the artists’ works and restricted to formal wear.

I really think the media is the most powerful insitution in the modern world. I remember reading a book called Humphry Clinker by Tobais Smollett, written in the 1700’s, that predicted a rise in the degeneracy that has most certainly constantly gotten worse. He associated it with the invention of the media, which at the time was the printing press, extravagant, licentious Jews, and a rapid distribution of wealth to whose who knew nothing of dignity, taste, or tradition. While I cannot claim to be an anti-semite in particular, for the most part he seems to be right on the money. The Jews have played an undeniable role in the degeneration of our culture, and undoubtedly control lots of money and lots of media. Mr. Smollett predicted that 250 years ago. Not bad.

“The Jews have played an undeniable role in the degeneration of our culture, and undoubtedly control lots of money and lots of media.”

Remus, your posts are quite good but your youth (you’re a college freshman, right?) is sort of showing in this one.

Jews have played an undeniable role but let’s not neglect to add, so have the gentiles. In other words, so has everybody.

Our movement has no future along the path of victimology. Let’s not be PC but let’s also strive to see things clearly. To stray into victimology is to stray away from the very thing we are hoping to save: our traditional U.S. Anglo-Saxon heritage or the equivalent thereof, a heritage to which victimology is as alien as Nazism and Marxism are.

In discussing a topic like this it is better to be specific and name names, and give concrete examples, and thus argue if one can from the specific instance to the generalization, rather than starting with generalizations and arguing thence to the specific case. In offering specific names and concrete examples to start, one offers to the other side the possibility of a specific rejoinder if the names and concrete examples are either inappropriate or prove nothing.

True, true. Way too general, pretty crappy statement. Take away the entire reference to the Jews, and the book is still frighteningly accurate. The Jews were only mentioned very briefly in the work, and I should not have even included that as it is too generalized to be of any interest. The media and the spread of ‘new money’ in our society, where one became stinking rich literally overnight, still have contributed greatly to the degeneration of Western culture, which Mr. Smollett predicted. I’ll read up a little bit and provide more concrete details if anyone’s genuinely interested. It’s sort of off-topic and I just threw it in to be interesting, really.

On the fertility issue.

In 2000 the German government floated the idea of importing Indian (and some Polish) “hightech” workers to meet the “shortage” in the field. A CDU politician issued a campaign poster with the slogan

Kinder, statt Inder (Children, not Indians)

with a cute little blonde girl. The idea was to invest in German children, to give them the skills, rather than import foreigners. Boy, you should have heard the howls. I am pretty sure the guy won his election though.

Then there was the case of Haider and a female minister from the FPO appearing on a billboard with about 10 babies, with a slogan suggesting their party would make it easier for young families. Again, the media freaked.(Complaints like the kids were all white, they were all blonde etc.. These were babies for heaven’s sake, most didn’t have hair. They just looked like Austrian kids) It is as if Western culture has become adverse to its own offspring. Its only okay to picture your own kids if they are part of a group which includes a child of African descent, Middle Eastern descent, etc. In other words, you can’t favor your own posterity over that of the rest of the world.

Mr Murgos raised the very interesting idea of selling shares to start up a media company. This seems to be becoming more technologically feasible. For instance, in Australia there is a TV station which broadcasts over the internet which survives with only 30,000 subscribers.

As someone who has tried to start up a small media company, I can suggest some of the problems though with this strategy. It’s very difficult for a small group of individuals to sustain such an enterprise, both in terms of energy and finances, for long enough to allow it to succeed. It’s a much more viable proposition when you have some sort of institutional support.

Therefore, I think the first stept for traditionalists is to build up some numbers, then to create some basic institutions, and then to build up media resources.

Nonetheless it’s a reasonable idea and something to look forward to.

“Nonetheless [starting a media company for VFR-type people is] a reasonable idea and something to look forward to.” — Mark Richardson

Mark and Mr. Murgos, PLEASE sign me up! RIGHT NOW!

“Boy, you should have heard the howls. I am pretty sure the guy won his election though.” — Mitchell Young

Mitchell, that he won his election is all that counts! Thank GOD!

I’ll add this, intended for all those who are sooooooooo offended at seeing human beings with fair skins and blond hair: they’re not doing it on purpose. It’s their race. Are they entitled to have a race, like everybody else? These blond kids in these ads didn’t go get a Michael Jackson skin treatment and have their hair bleached before getting their pictures taken, just to irritate you and pique your jealousy. They were born that way. Stop being so mean and jealous. You’re acting like the mean headmaster of the Lowood school, Mr. Brocklehurst, in the movie “Jane Ayre,” with Joan Fontaine and Orson Welles. He wouldn’t believe Jane Ayre’s little friend (played by a young Elizabeth Taylor) had naturally curly hair and punished her severely for having it. Stop punishing blond white people just because you’re jealous and wish you had the same appearance but don’t. You’re the biggest racists since all the Nazi theorists met at the Wannsee Conference.

(Maybe I should add, for anyone interested, I’m a black-haired, brown-eyed non-WASP mongrel of half-Russian, half-German descent with a Jewish ancestor on my mother’s side — her maternal grandmother in Russia — and have always been somewhat dark of skin, such that when our family first moved to our Queens, NYC, neighborhood when I was a toddler, the neighbors, seeing such dark-skinned kids, thought we were Puerto Ricans. So I think that gives me the right to denounce anti-blond bigotry which is naught but disgusting, sickening, nauseating jealousy and let’s call it by its right name. Ninety percent of those people pushing this crap wish they and/or their kids looked exactly like those blonds their pure jealousy makes them detest and want to punish. They’re naught but a bunch of Mr. Brocklehursts.)