Immigration

Review of “Dark Albion” by David Abbott

/3 Comments/in , , /by

Dark Albion
by David Abbott
Sparrow Book Publishers,  £10

There is a long and distinguished tradition of travel books by English authors  such as Patrick Leigh Fermor and Colin Thubron who travelled to exotic and  distant lands and tell of the strange ways of the people who lived there.

It is into this category that Dark Albion — A requiem for the English by David Abbott falls but this native South Londoner has not had to make much of a journey to find himself a stranger in a strange land. Instead he has just had to step outside the door of his house in the London borough of Greenwich and walk around and see how  the streets he grew up in have been utterly transformed by the largest wave of immigration that has ever hit our shores.

This is a story that could be told time and again in communities across England. It is the story of the gradual dispossession of the native English without public debate, without permission, without a shot being fired.

It is a howl of anger from a south London resident outraged at the betrayal of his people by their own elites. Read more

Laura Ingraham KO’s George Will in Amnesty Debate on “FNS”, 2/9/2014

/1 Comment/in , /by

Well, it was awesome to watch: on Fox News Sunday’s February 9th show, the fight card matched up the (normally) well-spoken Pulitzer-prize-winning-columnist, baseball aficionado, political philosopher “Gentleman George” Will against the attractive, blonde, recent-Catholic-convert and brawler Laura Ingraham, the talk-radio host, author, Fox News commentator, and frequent (and often Traditionalist-sounding) fill-in for Conservatism Inc.’s CEO, Bill O’Reilly. The subject: amnesty. Will was bloodied and bowed — sprawled on the mat, and unable to get up, by the end of the go-round on the panel segment.

From his corner, the (typically) articulate Will came out swinging, though a bit wildly, stating the “national interest…is in considerable more immigration.” Ingraham was not thrown off her game by this nonsense from the new Wise Man of Fox, the man who gets even more deference from his coworkers than the House Rabbi at FNC, Charles “I Never Met a War That Might Benefit Israel I Didn’t Like” Krauthammer. (Krauthammer, of course, is a dark, morose, wheelchair-bound former doctor who, very possibly, paralyzed himself after drinking and/or drugging, when he skipped class at Harvard Medical School one day with a friend, to enjoy a spring day in Boston in the early ‘70’s, returned to campus, and – instead of taking a shower, decided to cool off by… diving into a swimming pool.) (?!?)

It was unfortunate that when host Chris (Jewish ethno-nepotism-beneficiary) Wallace read an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal’s recent editorial bemoaning Boehner’s “retreat,” which it said would just mean 11 million illegals continuing to work with fake documents, Ingraham did not bring up the fact that the e-Verify system is still not mandated to be used by all US employers! But, she cleaned Will’s clock, all the same. Boy, did she ever! Read more

Fear and Loathing of the Impending Roma Invasion in the UK

/1 Comment/in , , /by

britain_immigration-443377

Express (UK) caption: Roma migrants are taking advantage of Britain’s generous benefits culture

There is an increasing awareness that the May elections for the European Parliament could be a watershed moment. After listing most of the nationalist parties, Timothy Garton Ash, who wears his hostility to all things nationalist on his sleeve, writes in the LA Times:

“Today is the beginning of the liberation from the European elite, the monster in Brussels,” cried [the Dutch Party for Freedom’s Geert] Wilders. “Patriotic parties,” added [Marine] Le Pen [leader of  France’s National Front], want “to give freedom back to our people” rather than being “forced to submit their budget to the headmistress.”

There is nothing at all coming from the current leadership in Berlin, Paris or Brussels (forget London) that is likely to reverse the tide that’s buoying these parties. Behind their typical 10% to 25% standing in opinion polls is a wider popular discontent with unemployment, austerity and a Brussels EU bureaucracy that spews out regulations about the specifications of your vacuum cleaner and how much water you can use in a toilet flush.

If the tide continues to rise, what happens? (“Is Europe headed for divorce?“)

Ash suggests that a strong showing in the elections would “drive the mainstream socialists, conservatives and liberals closer together.” But unless these elites completely change course on immigration and national identity, I rather  doubt that they can stem the tide. Read more

Ted Kennedy was not responsible for the Immigration Act of 1965

/2 Comments/in , /by

In his talk on Jewish power, Joe Biden included immigration and refugee policy  as  illustrations of how Jews have changed America. In an otherwise great column on the decline of the West, Pat Buchanan begs to differ:

It was in 1965, halcyon hour of the Great Society, that Ted Kennedy led Congress into abolishing a policy that had restricted immigration for 40 years, while we absorbed and Americanized the millions who had come over between 1890 and 1920.  (“Will the West Wake Up?“)

Sorry, but I have to go with Joe on this one—probably the only area I would prefer Biden’s views to Buchanan’s. Kennedy was a freshman senator with little clout. His role in leading the bill came about because it was a slam dunk following the liberal landslide in the 1964 election (the one where the US avoided having Barry Goldwater blow up the world). The Senate hearings on the bill were so perfunctory that the statements of opponents were given in Kennedy’s office; these were mainly old line patriotic organizations like the Daughters of the American Revolution which by that time got absolutely no respect from elites. The bill was written by Norbert Schlei who was Jewish, and its official name is the Hart-Celler bill; Emmanuel Celler spent his entire career in Congress as a leader in opposition to immigration restriction, beginning with his hostility to the 1924 law which enshrined quotas favoring Northwestern Europeans. One should also mention the role of Jacob Javits in the Senate. As soon as the bill was passed, Jewish organizations focused their efforts on increasing the numbers of immigrants. Ted Kennedy may not have lied when said the bill would not change America. But in conjunction with the later efforts of Jewish activists, demographic change was inevitable. Read more

What the Immigration Debate Really Should Be About

/7 Comments/in , , , /by

Editor’s note: It strikes me that until we talk explicitly about racial/ethnic genetic interests, we cannot win. The 1924 Immigration Restriction Act was based on an explicit assertion of an ethnic status quo which assumed that each group currently in the country had an interest in maintaining their ethnic representation. The Boasian attack on the concept of race, continuing now as an article of faith among all elites in the West, is the most powerful weapon against White interests and the continuation of the West as anything remotely resembling the civilization of a particular people. This consensus against mentioning White racial interests is vigorously policed in the media, the political arena, and even in most positions of employment.  Ted Sallis argues that, as the result of losing this battle, conservatives launch a host of arguments, many of which are likely veiled attempts to retain White demographic predominance; but these arguments will inevitably fail.  When conservatives bewail what has happened while at the same they time reject Darwinism, they should realize that it was the successful attack on Darwinism that is the greatest intellectual disaster for Whites and their civilization. Kevin MacDonald

I have previously written about the ongoing immigration amnesty travesty.  Since that essay, there have been some stirrings of rebellion against the Establishment’s promotion of immigrant interests vs. that of native White Americans.  These stirrings have not yet been particularly effective.  However, regardless of the ultimate outcome regarding this legislation, I note that the arguments on both sides strictly hold to aracial concerns.  It seems that no one is “getting it.”  Let’s take a look at some of the common immigration arguments, particularly from the anti-amnesty side, and evaluate why they ultimately miss the point. Read more

Jason Richwine on IQ and Immigration

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

The Jason Richwine saga is a critical barometer of the political climate of our times. As everyone knows by now, he resigned from his position at the Heritage Foundation after his involvement in a report on the economic costs of immigration (since strongly endorsed by Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, writing in National Review Online). As Richwine said in his interview with the Washington Examiner’s Byron York, his Ph.D. research on how IQ affects the social and economic costs of immigration had nothing to do with the Heritage Foundation report.

This is nothing more than a guilt by association smear campaign aimed at putting yet another nail in the coffin of White America. It is an index of the power of the left that they need not dispute the economic effects of the Schumer-Rubio bill; nor do they need to rebut the data and conclusions of Richwine’s Ph.D. thesis. They simply need to make the linkage between Richwine and taboo findings—that IQ predicts economic success, underclass behavior, and use of government services so that importing low-IQ immigrants is a very bad idea. Having made these associations, they can indulge in smug sociopathic satisfaction because a young man with a wife and two young children is suddenly out of work and with much diminished prospects in life.

Richwine’s Ph.D. thesis was approved by a Harvard committee, but it’s clear that the real force behind it was Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve. In the Acknowledgements section of his thesis, Richwine describes Murray as a “childhood hero”; Murray seems to have been his de facto thesis advisor at  Harvard:

The substance of my work was positively influenced by many people, but no one was more influential than Charles Murray, whose detailed editing and relentless constructive criticism have made the final draft vastly superior to the first. I could not have asked for a better primary advisor.

So it’s not surprising that Richwine’s thesis takes seriously the work of Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen—the main figures in academic research on race and IQ. Although he also considers criticisms that have been leveled against them, it’s clear that Richwine sees this body of  work as basically correct.
Read more

Muslims dominate the natives on the streets of Norway

/8 Comments/in , , , /by

Gates of Vienna has an article showing just how unfathomably bad things are in Norway as a result of immigration and multiculturalism (“Everything You Have Learned in School Is Wrong“). The main story is the familiar one throughout the West: elites encourage immigration and are able to avoid the costs. As noted in Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech,  the costs are paid by those who can’t flee the areas impacted by immigration.  In Norway

well-off natives can afford to move to safe, pleasant white enclaves, where they may send their children to school among white native speakers of Norwegian. Less affluent citizens are not so fortunate, however, and are forced to endure the humiliation and degradation of the Multicultural behavioral sink in which their political masters have consigned them to live.

The costs for the less fortunate are dramatic. The article is important because it shows how aggressive the Muslim immigrants are, especially against the native boys. This is a Darwinian dominance struggle between males.

At TOO we often emphasize the individualism of Western societies and the collectivism of pretty much the  rest of the  world. This dichotomy is much on display here: Muslims have large social networks based on kinship and they are aggressive in groups, whereas they are cowardly when alone. The result is a very clear dominance hierarchy, with the natives at the bottom and groups of Muslims at the top. One of the informants, Andreas, says

“There is a hierarchy, where ethnic Norwegian boys are on the bottom rung on the ladder. They will be targeted unless they accede to their rules, if they don’t they become Norwegian immigrants. If a Norwegian boy gets into trouble, odds are that he has a small family and a tiny social network. Unlike a Pakistani or Somali boy, he doesn’t have a clan of brothers and cousins and uncles who come rushing to his aid in the event of a conflict. Most of the time the only thing he has is a single parent.”

An astute commenter on the article writes: “That atomisation and isolation celebrated as ultra-individualism and the contempt for association or commonweal, branded as socialist conspiracy in progressive conservative political dogma, is inhibiting the formation of a mass European opposition particularly at street level.”

The  article makes clear that not only are the Norwegians forced to encounter  hostile gangs of Muslims without social support from friends and relatives, they get no support from the schools (which accommodate Muslim culture and excuse Muslim aggression as resulting from war in their native countries) or the media (which refuses to publish accounts of the reality of life on the streets). (It should also be noted that the justice system fails native Norwegians by giving out lenient punishment and failing to invest resources against the epidemic of Muslim men raping Norwegian women). Read more