Featured Articles

Race in France: A Sketch based on First- and Second-Generation Immigrants

France, notwithstanding its monarchist, Republican and Gaullist traditions favoring a centralized and sovereign Nation-State, is subject to the same globalist tendencies as other Western countries. There is the same trend towards borderlessness in all spheres, notably demographic, economic and political. The result is the constant undermining of the French nation.

These trends are interlinked and mutually reinforcing: European free movement rules outlaw systematic immigration checks at the country’s borders, economic elites demand low-wage immigrant labor to stop companies from bleeding out of the country through offshoring, and the European Union’s ideology of total disregard for ethnic and cultural realities — all peoples being equivalent and interchangeable — prevents any serious discussion of immigration and ethnicity.

No doubt the most serious trend, because it is irreversible barring a terrible civil war, has been demographic borderlessness and non-European migration. Discussion of ethnicity is barren in France compared to the United States. There is a virtual ban on ethnoic and religious statistics — notionally reflecting the official Republican ideology of absolute “colorblindness” since the French Revolution — meaning one is often left to speculate on the performance and status of different communities, or rely on potentially less-trustworthy non-official sources. There is little knowledge of research in human biodiversity and even a famous anglophile, relatively heterodox French demographer like Emmanuel Todd has only mentioned The Bell Curve to dismiss it as typical of the work produced by racist North Americans.

Notwithstanding this, many in France intuitively feel that the French population is becoming Balkanized through non-assimilable mass non-European immigration, resulting in a fracturing of the country along ethno-confessional lines. This process is probably more advanced in France than any other European country. As expected from a race realist perspective, the data show that, rather than interchangeable parts, non-White immigrants to France lag behind the native French in areas related to education and employment. Read more

What does becoming a minority mean for the social status of Whites?

The recent study by Maureen Craig and Jennifer Richeson on the reactions of Whites to becoming a minority (discussed here) included a manipulation where experimental subjects (all Whites) read an “assuaging paragraph” intended to calm their fears about the impending minority status of Whites. The paragraph was a very authoritative sounding claim that “despite the shift in the demographic make-up, the relative societal status of different racial groups is likely to remain steady” and “White Americans are expected to continue to have higher average incomes and wealth compared to members of other racial groups.”

This was merely an experimental manipulation. The experimenters did not argue that the assuaging claim about White social status was true. But, given that they are proposing that fear of loss of social status is indeed the central mechanism underlying all their results, it is important to think about whether it is true or not. Again, the model they propose is that White people confronted with their impending status as a demographic minority fear a decline in their social status. This then motivates them to adopt a variety of positions associated with conservative politics in America, such as opposing a government role in healthcare, favoring more defense spending, and presumably opposing gay marriage, abortion, and restrictions on gun rights.

Income

As the above chart shows, it’s not the case that Whites “have higher average incomes and wealth compared to members of other racial groups.” Asians have had a higher average income ever since they became a demographically significant group. Moreover, in states like California, Whites are losing out in competition with Asians and Latinos for valued resources, such as admission to the University of California (“California students feel UC admission squeeze“). Whites (26.8%) are now the third most common racial group in the UC system, following Asians (36.2%) and Latinos (28.8%) (the latter doubtless boosted by the rule that students in the top 9% of their  high school graduating class are automatically admitted; Blacks are underrepresented because race cannot be used as a criterion and there are few all-Black high schools as Latinos have colonized many formerly Black areas. Immigration has huge costs for Blacks as well as Whites).

Another aspect of the future decline in the economic position of Whites is highlighted in a recent report by James G. Gimpel, a professor of government at the University of Maryland, posted by the always valuable Center for Immigration Studies (Immigration’s Impact on Republican Political Prospects, 1980 to 2012). Importing millions of poor, uneducated people will be an ever-increasing drain on society as a whole and will lead to political power for redistributionist policies that will hurt Whites. Read more

Was Ed Miliband’s father a KGB stooge? (contd.)

With a year to go before the next British general election, the strategic brains behind an increasingly confident looking Labour Party are trying to tackle a matter of some delicacy — how are the British going to react to a Jewish Prime Minister? It is a tricky one because there is no disguising the fact that Ed Miliband is not only as Jewish as they come, but he has as much in common with the average Brit as a man from Mars.

The son of famous Marxist academic Ralph Miliband, he was born into a privileged and intellectual Hampstead milieu and has moved effortlessly via Oxford University and the London School of Economics to becoming a bag-carrier for senior politicians and then parachuted into the safe Labour seat of Doncaster north. A fairly normal trajectory then for a member of the increasingly hereditary political class and one that would have no doubt baffled the founders of  Labour Party in the coal pits of South Wales, the cotton mills of Lancashire and the shipyards of Clydeside.

Ed’s father Ralph was of Polish Jewish stock originally and arrived in Britain after fleeing Belgium in 1940 when the Germans invaded the Low Countries. Ralph worked as a lecturer at the LSE and became something of a fashionable academic fixture in the sixties New Left.

After Ralph’s son Ed became Labour leader, it was obviously decided that the matter of Jewishness had to be tackled head on, so once enough extended family Holocaust victims were discovered to make a suitable back story, Ed headed to Israel to meet his 84-year-old aunt, bond with Prime Minister Netanyahu and visit the Holocaust museum.

Benjamin Netanyahu and Ed Miliband

Benjamin Netanyahu and Ed Miliband

Read more

The Necessary Rise of the Black Baroness

ofili

White woman, presumably filled with guilt, observing Chris Ofili’s “No Woman No Cry,” said to portray Baroness Doreen Lawrence

Given that Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the mother of murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence, is now being touted as Labour’s candidate to fight the London mayoral elections in 2016, it is time to reconsider the complexities of British multiculturalism and how the Black population and Britain relate to each other.

The central problem is that because of real average differences in traits like IQ, Blacks simply don’t fit into White societies, like Britain, that prize “equality.” Most people, of course, know this at a gut level, but on the conscious level there is still a lot of brainwashing, denial, and disinformation, backed up by extremely fuzzy thinking.

People in these societies have been taught that “equality” is a sacred and moral value, so they are naturally reluctant to face up to the awkward fact of continuing Black inequality. It simply does not square with their declared values and actual equality of opportunity that other non-White groups like Asians have no trouble taking advantage of.

The only way out of this paradox is for the society to generate the idea of “racism” and create the myth that Blacks are held back by “evil, racist” White people.

The problem with this, however, is that because these societies are dominated by egalitarian values and the idea that anything “bad” from the past should and can be reformed, they constantly undermine any objective basis for actual racial discrimination with the result that ever more abstruse and chimerical forms of it have to be found or conceptualized. Read more

Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Racially Polarizing Politics, Despite MSM Efforts To Lull Whites

This article is also posted at VDARE.com.

In all the Main Stream Media propaganda about the desperate need for an Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill, you never hear that the bill will speed up the day when whites are a minority. The research of Northwestern University psychologists Maureen A. Craig [Email her] (a white woman) and Jennifer A. Richeson [Email her](an African-American) shows why [On the Precipice of a “Majority-Minority” America: Perceived Status Threat From the Racial Demographic Shift Affects White Americans’ Political Ideology, Psychological Science April 3, 2014]. Shockingly, it turns out that the great majority of white Americans are not at all like neocon Ben Wattenberg who famously asserted that “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” [The Good News Is The Bad News Is Wrong, p. 84.] In fact, white Americans are afraid of becoming a minority. Being told about their impending minority status provokes whites to endorse attitudes linked to the political Right.

The title of the Craig-Richeson paper is itself interesting. The standard dictionary definition of “precipice” is “the brink of a dangerous or disastrous situation”—which is exactly what Cassandras have been saying about the impending minority status of whites. Giving up majority status in a democracy has obvious grave implications. No ethnic group in history has ever voluntarily become a minority. Israel, for example, is fixated on Palestinian birthrates and absolutely opposed to a “Right of Return” for dispossessed Palestinians. Given that Palestinians are already a majority in the “de facto state of Israel,” a one-state solution would mean that, if Israel remained a democracy, the Palestinians would govern. And that would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

Being a minority is always problematic given the reality of ethnic conflict throughout history. This is particularly so when groups harbor historical grudges (e.g., slavery and Jim Crow for African Americans, anti-Semitism for Jews). It is especially worrisome in the case of America because the grievance industry promoted by elites in the MSM, the legal profession, and   academe systematically blames “White racism” for all the problems of non-Whites.

It’s one thing to be demonized when you are the majority, but a far different thing when you are the minority. Read more

Former Australian Foreign Minister Confirms that the Israel Lobby Controls Australia’s Foreign Policy

Former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr

Former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr

In my series of extended essays entitled “The War on White Australia” I described how Jewish activism was pivotal in ending the White Australia policy and initiating the mass non-White immigration that is rapidly transforming that nation. In addition, I showed how Jewish activism was instrumental in establishing multiculturalism as the ideological and legislative basis for social policy in Australia. Recently I explored the Jewish role in pushing for the enactment and extension of laws banning speech deemed contrary to their interests. Given the profound impact of Jewish ethno-politics on the Australian nation, nobody will be surprised to learn that Jewish influence also extends to the determination of Australia’s foreign policy.

Former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr recently confirmed that this is indeed the case, observing that Australia’s foreign policy (particularly with regard to the Middle East) was being virtually dictated by organized Jewry. Carr, Australia’s Labor Party foreign minister from March 2012 to September 2013, made his comments while promoting his new book Bob Carr: Diary of a Foreign Minister. Speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Carr hit out at the “pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne,” saying it wielded “extraordinary influence” on Australia’s foreign policy during his time in Julia Gillard’s cabinet.  As The Guardian reported:

Asked about the comments by the ABC’s 7.30 he said: “Certainly they enjoyed extraordinary influence. I had to resist it and my book tells the story of that resistance. … It needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level.”

Asked how the lobby achieved this influence he said: “I think party donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists to Israel. But that’s not to condemn them. I mean, other interest groups do the same thing. But it needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level.

Following Carr’s comments The Jerusalem Post sourly noted that: “John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who wrote a 2007 book alleging that the ‘Israel lobby’ has a stranglehold on US Foreign policy, have an Australian cousin: former foreign minister Bob Carr.” Read more

Ukrajina jako model Evropského jara

Z perspektivy etnonacionalisty jsou skutečnými nepřáteli Evropská unie a USA

Z perspektivy etnonacionalisty jsou skutečnými nepřáteli Evropská unie a USA

http://deliandiver.org/2014/04/ukrajina-jako-model-evropskeho-jara.html

Role geopolitiky a zájmů mocných národů a skupin  – zejména když se navzájem dostanou do konfliktu nebo naopak rovnovážného stavu – je v národně osvobozeneckých, nacionalistických a dalších podobných politických zápasech trvale podceňována.

Například Kurdové – navzdory tíživé potřebě, spravedlivým požadavkům na vlastní stát a zjevným třenicím mezi jejich sousedy – dosáhnou nezávislosti jen velmi obtížně, dokud pro tři dominantní skupiny, které je obklopují (Turci, Arabové, Íránci a supervelmoci, které je podporují) bude tento vývoj nevýhodný.

Podobný scénář se odvíjí na Ukrajině. Navzdory silným řečem zúčastněných stran je zřejmé, že situace směřuje k novému konsensu, jehož obsahem budou tyto body (1) tichý souhlas s novými hranicemi – např. Krymu jako součásti Ruska, (2) Rusové zastaví další růst nebezpečnějších separatistických tendencí na východní a jižní Ukrajině, (3) Západ poskytne podporu kyjevským liberálům a umírněným na úkor na ukrajinských nacionalistů, (4) přívod plynu zůstane otevřen.

To je škoda, protože rok 2014 má potenciál být svědkem evropské verze „arabského jara“ – což je přesně to, co Rusko, ani EU (což v zásadě znamená dominantní státy EU) a pochopitelně USA, nechtějí. Read more