WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES

WHEN EUROPEANS WERE SLAVES:

RESEARCH SUGGESTS WHITE SLAVERY WAS MUCH

MORE COMMON THAN PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before.

In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa’s Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found.

Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn’t try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.

Davis’s new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan).

“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland.”

“Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.”

Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger – about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis.

“One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature – that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true,” Davis said. “We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people.”

During the time period Davis studied, it was religion and ethnicity, as much as race, that determined who became slaves.

“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who travelled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland,” he said.

Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.

Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.

Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.

Davis said the vast scope of slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one’s agenda to discuss what happened.

The enslavement of Europeans doesn’t fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as “evil colonialists” and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.

Davis said another reason that Mediterranean slavery has been ignored or minimized has been that there have not been good estimates of the total number of people enslaved. People of the time – both Europeans and the Barbary Coast slave owners – did not keep detailed, trustworthy records of the number of slaves. In contrast, there are extensive records that document the number of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves.

So Davis developed a new methodology to come up with reasonable estimates of the number of slaves along the Barbary Coast. Davis found the best records available indicating how many slaves were at a particular location at a single time. He then estimated how many new slaves it would take to replace slaves as they died, escaped or were ransomed.

“The only way I could come up with hard numbers is to turn the whole problem upside down – figure out how many slaves they would have to capture to maintain a certain level,” he said. “It is not the best way to make population estimates, but it is the only way with the limited records available.”

Putting together such sources of attrition as deaths, escapes, ransomings, and conversions, Davis calculated that about one-fourth of slaves had to be replaced each year to keep the slave population stable, as it apparently was between 1580 and 1680. That meant about 8,500 new slaves had to be captured each year. Overall, this suggests nearly a million slaves would have been taken captive during this period. Using the same methodology, Davis has estimated as many as 475,000 additional slaves were taken in the previous and following centuries.

The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.

Davis said his research into the treatment of these slaves suggests that, for most of them, their lives were every bit as difficult as that of slaves in America.

“As far as daily living conditions, the Mediterranean slaves certainly didn’t have it better,” he said.

While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European Christian slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally – in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys themselves.

Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars.

“We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under,” he said. “Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa.”

#Ohio State University, 2010

Civic nationalism has no future

 

Civic nationalism has no future

 (By Mark Richardson of the 'Oz Conservative' blog site, 2008)

On what basis do nations exist? It was once thought that a nation was a people sharing a common ethnicity living together in the same country and governed by their own state.

This kind of nationalism fell out of favour in the modern West because it was held to discriminate on the basis of an unchosen quality, namely ethnicity. It was replaced by a civic nationalism, in which membership of a nation was determined by citizenship, and in which national identity was based on liberal political values, such as non-discrimination.

But can a civic nationalism do the job? Can it maintain the existing nations of the West? The answer seems to be clearly no.

One problem is that a civic nationalism blurs the boundaries of what is or isn't part of a nation. For instance, if it is a belief in liberal poltical values which makes me an Australian, then why can't people everywhere who believe in the same values also be considered a part of my nation?

And if it is a belief in liberal political values that defines a nation, then why shouldn't nations be merged together if there is an economic or diplomatic advantage in doing so? Why not abandon the traditional nations of Europe in order to build a European Union? Why not abandon Australia to build a Pacific Union?

There's one further problem with a civic nationalism. The older type of nationalism was rejected on the grounds that it discriminated against people. But so too does civic nationalism: it discriminates between citizens and non-citizens. Therefore, it will increasingly be seen by the more rigorously intellectual types as being immoral and illegitimate.

Enter Professor Peter Spiro, author of Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization. He has done what intellectuals will inevitably do, and taken the ideas of civic nationalism to their logical conclusion.

His argument is that a territorial citizenship is becoming increasingly more difficult to justify. If being an American is based on liberal political ideals, then membership of the nation should include those living outside America who agree with these ideals:

But here's something that really is new: the underinclusion of members-in-fact outside the territory of the United States.

One of the commenters on my first post pressed the proposition that America is an idea. That's completely consistent with strong civic notions of American citizenship and identity.

At one time, that idea was distinct. No longer. The American idea of constitutional democracy has gone global. That's American's triumph, but it may also be its downfall.

As I ask in the book, if that person in Bangalore wants to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, on what grounds can we deny him membership? ... And what of the child born in Juarez, whose interests and identity will be connected to El Paso, Austin and Washington ... but who has the bad luck to have been born a mile on the wrong side of the line? ...

So: whatever it means to be American, it's everywhere. But that makes it all the harder to draw the membership line in a meaningful way.

Another person to have followed through with the logic of civic nationalism is the British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. He has called for the European Union to be extended to include non-European countries. Specifically he wants the countries of the Mahgreb (North Africa) and the Middle East to join a European Union free trade association "not as an alternative to membership, but potentially as a step towards it". Miliband believes that such an enlarged EU would develop shared values and overcome an east/west divide, whilst providing trade and investment opportunities. This is where civic nationalism leads: to membership of a state with no definable borders.

Finally, there's the issue of citizenship and discrimination. Our former PM, Paul Keating, was in the vanguard on this issue, railing against the "exclusiveness" of civic nationalism which involves:

constructing arbitrary and parochial distinctions between the civic and the human community ... if you ask what is the common policy of the Le Pens, the Terreblanches, Hansons and Howards of this world, in a word, it is “citizenship”. Who is in and who is out.

For Keating, it was "parochial" to establish any kind of community other than an international "human" community. Keating thought that a civic nationalism was a radical, extremist form of discrimination.

Lawrence Auster wrote a good post recently on this theme, in which he observed that:

To a consistent liberal, and thus to a consistent libertarian, there can be no justification for any kind of unequal or exclusionary treatment. If a country comes into existence by the use of force (as all countries throughout history have done), well, the use of force is a form of inequality and oppression, meaning that the country is illegitimate. If a country simply exists as a country with borders, its very existence distinguishes between members and non-members and thus it violates the equal freedom of all humans and is illegitimate. If a country has a state, that represents a further inequality in which some people exercise power over others. If a country elects its government through democratic elections, that means that the majority has more power than the minority, which is also a violation of equality.

As I've said many times, liberalism, consistently applied, is incompatible with the existence of any organic, self-governing institution or society, since all such societies and institutions violate the liberal principle of the equal freedom of all human persons.

The nations of the West will not be held together by civic nationalism. The logic of a civic nationalism is toward its own dissolution.

The Multi-Layered Betrayal of Britain.

The Multi-Layered Betrayal of Britain

by Paul Weston

Poor old Britain is in a terrible state. Whilst the recent obscenity of a Labour government is mostly to blame for this, they were not alone in the cultural and racial war which has been waged against the British people over the last half-century. Such has been the all-encompassing assault on who we once were that it is now hard to find any social group which has not been betrayed.

For example:

The Wartime Generation: They sacrificed so much, indeed died in their hundreds of thousands in order that our generation could live in freedom. Today they are sidelined and ignored by the Socialist ruling classes, who consider the culture and politics of these aged warriors to be wildly out of tune with modern liberal group-think.

A book was published last year called The Unknown Warriors which collated the stories and concerns of this greatest, yet disregarded people. And it is a heartbreaking read. Over and over again these brave and stoic people mentioned one word — betrayal.

Their principal concerns were the submission of vast swathes of British cities to various foreign entities without due recourse to the democratic process, coupled with the bitter irony of handing over their bloodily defended democracy to an unelected, dictatorial foreign power in Brussels.

One particularly harrowing story was that of the extraordinary bravery shown by a Lancaster bomber rear-gunner, who continued to climb into his turret time and time again even as he saw scores of his friends killed in the most horrific ways imaginable. His bravery has been betrayed though, because he is now reduced to a prisoner within his own house, too frightened to go outside because of the violence and abuse he receives from Socialist-educated children as young as nine.

His despairing voice can be heard through another Royal Air Force veteran, who remarked eloquently of his comrades who had made the ultimate sacrifice for their country: “I mourned them then, but now surviving in a world indifferent to their hopes and dreams, I grieve more for the living.”

The Elderly: Mostly too young to fight in the war, they are nonetheless similarly excluded from modern liberal society. Their views on marriage, homosexuality, morality, Christianity, parenthood, etc. make them the enemy of Socialist ideology. In Africa, the elderly are treated with respect as learned human beings. In Britain the elderly are vilified for simply defying the Socialist Revolution, and as such are considered an embarrassing clutch of old dodderers who can be safely labelled as extremist whilst their views are carefully withheld from the young — who incidentally, and quite literally, frighten the life out of the elderly.

Why Is This Not Treason?

 

Why Is This Not Treason? 

By Paul Weston

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague. — Cicero

On the 3rd of January 1946, William Joyce, better known as Lord Haw-Haw, was the last man in Britain to be hanged for the ancient crime of treason. Unless a future government changes the law it is unlikely that traitors will ever dangle again, after Tony Blair rather conveniently repealed the death penalty for such a crime in 1998.

That is not to say treason no longer exists. Now the full extent of Labour’s thirteen-year rule has become apparent, an increasing number of Britons are volubly accusing the Labour Party of wilfully and cold-bloodedly betraying Britain and deliberately jeopardising our children’s future.

Lord Haw-Haw of course sided with the Nazis during the hot war of 1939-1945. The recent Labour government might not have been operating in a hot-war theatre, but they certainly carried out a warm-war against the British (principally the English) via mass immigration from one of the most hostile and anti-Western countries in the world, Pakistan.

Consider some of the following statistics:

• Only nineteen percent of Pakistanis have a negative view of Al Qaeda and by default the Taliban, whilst seventy-five percent wish to see Sharia law implemented. British-born Muslims make an estimated four hundred thousand trips a year to Pakistan, where as many as thirty threats against Britain are being monitored at any given time.
• Thirty-three percent of Muslim students in Britain think killing in the name of Islam is permissible. Only thirty-seven percent oppose the introduction of Sharia law and only twenty-five percent oppose the creation of a worldwide Muslim caliphate.
• MI5 believe there are up to four thousand potential terrorists and thirteen thousand Al Qaeda sympathisers living in Britain. The CIA devotes an astonishing forty percent of their anti-terrorist homeland security operations against suspects not in Afghanistan or Waziristan, but in Britain itself — a country described by one CIA operative as “a swamp of Jihadis.”
• Barack Obama’s counter-terrorist advisor Bruce Riedel recently stated: “The British Pakistani community is recognised as probably Al Qaeda’s best mechanism for launching an attack against North America.”

All in all then, it would seem less than prudent to allow any more bearded ideologues into Britain, yet the Labour government — and this must sound quite insane to most people — actually went to the extraordinary lengths of advertising for foreign colonisers from the very same country the Home Office was paying Danegeld to in a typically limp-wristed appeal to stop it from blowing us up.

The British Embassy in Pakistan distributed glossy pamphlets entitled “Multicultural Britain — a Land of Immigrants” which gave a raft of arguments as to the benefits of living in Britain such as well paid jobs, plain old welfare, and the prospect of inviting over the entire extended family (sans goat) once a British passport had been acquired.

And of course there was the rather unpleasant — nay, treacherous — implication that there was no such thing as a homogenous Britain, no such place as an English homeland, just an indeterminate area of land settled by a vague mongrel collection of disparate peoples including any number of rag-tag colonial racists awaiting divine racial redemption from those they once oppressed.

So desperate were the Labour traitors to destroy Britain that, having secured power, they immediately carried out two political acts which could only place our peaceful future in doubt. The Human Rights Convention was immediately incorporated into British law and immigration rules were relaxed to allow an open-door policy of mass Muslim immigration.

A few thousand people who could gently assimilate were of little use to the Labour government. To ensure the success of their revolutionary plan, they urgently needed inassimilable millions and were quite prepared to deceive the British public about the real number of Muslim immigrants — and the real reasons Tony Blair wanted them in Britain.

And once the floodgates were opened, it became supremely important not to turn anybody away. Of the 2 million visas issued every year, fifteen percent of them were “processed” when they should not have been in order to hit “productivity targets,” with immigration officials placed under intense political pressure to issue visas rather than reject them.

Arguments for Our Side

 

Arguments for Our Side

Some ideas on how to debate the race question

by Jared Taylor

For more than ten years I have been an open advocate of racial consciousness for whites. During that period, in hundreds of radio interviews and dozens of television appearances, I have debated people who defend current racial platitudes. In this process, I have come across a number of effective arguments, and several to which there appear to be no effective replies. Readers of AR may find some of these arguments useful.

Our society is filled with debates, whether over the air, in print, in classrooms, or in private conversation.

These debates are what establish the “opinions” of the vast majority of Americans who do not have ideas of their own. Most people absorb what they hear around them and are most likely to absorb what they hear most often. Americans encounter dissident views on race so infrequently they will not be persuaded through simple repetition. A defense of white racial consciousness must therefore be clear, even arresting, in order to have an effect. 

‘Racism’
 

Unfortunately, the other side has, until recently, so dominated the debate and so grossly misrepresented our views that anyone who departs from racial orthodoxy will at some point have to contend with the charge of “racism.” “That’s a racist statement,” your opponent will say, in a tone that suggests he has just dropped a nuclear bomb, and for timid people — about 95 percent of whites — that ends the argument. The “racist” apologizes, back-peddles, and shrivels into silence. 

You, of course, are not going to do that, but the whole “racism” issue means you must defend against an accusation, and gets in the way of making positive arguments. Some racial advocates try to put opponents on the defensive by asking them to define “racism,” but this is a bad mistake. 

What kind of nation sells its soul to the highest foreign bidder?

 

As the last British-owned port is sold abroad...
What kind of nation sells its soul to the highest foreign bidder?

 

By Alex Brummer, Daily Mail.  23rd March 2011

As a great maritime and trading nation, Britain ought to treasure the ports that have been built up over centuries around our shores. Yet despite their vital importance to our economic and military security, barely a murmur of protest has been heard as the great publicly-quoted companies that own them have been sold to foreign-based firms one by one.

Yesterday, Forth Ports — the last remaining British port owner to be listed on the stock exchange — was sold for £754million to an assortment of financial groups (with the help of Germany’s Deutsche Bank) led by a little-known European investment firm. The new company now has control of London’s Tilbury Docks, several Scottish ports and 400 acres of Edinburgh waterfront.

At a time when other maritime nations, such as China and the United Arab Emirates, are jealously guarding their own trading hubs and snapping up ports across the world — from Sri Lanka to Africa — Britain has effectively sold off the nation’s family silver.

The great pity is that politicians of all parties have scandalously allowed this steady erosion of our dominant role in international trade.

The tragedy is that ports have played a critical economic role in Britain since the 12th century, when a royal charter established the Cinque ports of Hastings, New Romney, Hythe, Dover and Sandwich to maintain ships for the Crown in case of need. In return, the five ports were granted exemption from taxes and tolls.

The idea was so successful that it spread from the South-East to Liverpool, Bristol and London as overseas trade stepped up. The nation’s maritime exploits, symbolised by the adventurism of men such as Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh, became the stuff of Elizabethan legend as the UK established itself as the world’s greatest seafaring nation.

Now there appears to be a pathetic acceptance that the identity of those who own our ports does not matter.

But the truth is that the ownership of these keystones of the British Isles is absolutely vital. As a traditional trading nation dependent on imports of gas and oil for so much of our energy needs, the control of our ports — as well as access to strategic ports overseas — is crucial.

Truth, Heresy, and Heroes

Truth, Heresy, and Heroes 

By Christian Miller

White identity politics is a form of heresy, and heresy has grave consequences. Advocating White nationalism or merely defending White interests often results in a loss of social standing. Moral cowards, amoral sycophants, and racial traitors are rewarded while heroes and righteous guardians are demonized. Pretending that Whites are social constructs or have no legitimate interests to defend is accepted, even celebrated, in a society infested with anti-White multiculturalism. White racialists realize that the cornucopia of cultures is designed to exclude any White culture, and the future rainbow of races is actually a muddled mess of miscegenation. It is therefore a tremendous challenge to steadfastly support of the White extended genotype. The anti-White opposition is well-funded, well-organized, malicious, and persistent.

White advocacy is beset on all sides. Campaigning against White genocide attracts derision and scorn from anti-Whites. Lamenting the decline of the White population into minority status is attacked as intolerance. Merely calling attention to, let alone denouncing, the maliciously disproportionate amounts of violent interracial crime committed against White people is paradoxically described as hate. Protecting the continuity of family lineage by expecting exclusively White marriages and White procreation is seen as backwards, provincial, or outdated. Suggesting that many trends or ideas that harm White interests have been disproportionately created, organized, disseminated, or financed by Jewish interests can lead to accusations of insanity or mental instability.

The Fraud of Globalism: Minarets in Switzerland and McDonald's in Mecca

By Robert Stark,

December 2009

Swiss Voters recently voted to ban the Construction of Minarets which greatly affect the skylines of many European Cities due to the massive growth of Muslim populations. The ban does not stop the construction of new Mosques but bans the Minaret towers. We are used to American values of freedom of religion (where it would be a questionable infringement on the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion), but keep in mind that many European nations do not even have the same rights to freedom of speech that we have.

Both Jewish and Muslim groups are outraged by Switzerland's decision. However many Muslims nations do not allow for the construction of Church's or Synagogues, and Israel also has restrictions on freedom of religion such as laws against proselytizing and intermarriage.

It is a shame that the issue about Minarets in Switzerland has become an issue of Islamophobia rather than opposition to foreign influence and Globalism. I can understand how many Muslims living there may feel their religious rights are being infringed upon, however due to the large scale of immigration Europeans feel threatened that they are loosing their culture and nations. While I support European Nationalism and a halt to immigration it is shame that the movement have focused on making Muslims into the enemy rather than supporting nationalism for all people and opposing Globalization.

What they fail to realize is that the Muslim world has a lot of the same concerns about loosing their cultures to Globalization that Europeans have. 

None dare call it White genocide

The case for a new discourse of genocide in our lands

by Christian Miller

The overarching goal of the “open borders” movement is to flood millions of non-Whites into all traditionally White nations. Make no mistake - this is not mere coincidence. It is White genocide by design, worldwide in application.

The United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Australia: White people founded and populated these nations. All of these nations operated under the implicit mandate, if not explicit by law, that they existed as White nations for the posterity of the White founding stock.

All of these nations had overwhelmingly White populations for the preponderance of their national history. Now, in the beginning of the twenty-first century, all of these traditionally White nations face demographic upheavals through massive non-White immigration. The White populations of these countries are slated to become minority populations in just a few generations.

Tibet and the Lessons for the West - by Welf Herfurth

 

 

Tibet and the Lessons for the West 

- by Welf Herfurth

What does the Chinese occupation of Tibet, and the resistance of Tibetan nationalists against that occupation, have to do with nationalism here in the West? The answer is: a great deal. This article will use the recent events in Tibet as a starting point, and attempt to break down Left-Right thinking on the subject – that is, it will try and show that the Left does not have an exclusive monopoly on the issue. The intention of this article is to show that it is no exaggeration to say that, ‘We are all Tibetans now’.

Just as during the time of the Burmese repression of the uprising of the monks, the Left in Australia, in particular the communist groups, are trying to seize hold of the issue, and make themselves look good by associating themselves with the Tibetan uprising. They blame the Chinese heavy-handedness on ‘capitalism’ (despite the fact that the Chinese Communist Party is responsible for the occupation and repression). Likewise, the liberals are trying to portray it purely as a human rights issue. But the most important element of the Tibetan uprising is the question national identity, national self-assertion in the face of immigration. And that, of course, relates to us in the in the West: we are in the same position as the Tibetans.

The article shall conclude with an example of some of the techniques we nationalists can use to foment Tibetan-style national awakenings in our own countries. Really, we nationalists should be ashamed of ourselves: the Tibetans face a greater danger, and face worse persecution, than we do; yet, we are afraid, and, more often than not, too afraid to come out from behind the keyboard.

Equalitarians! The Unnecessary Faith

Equalitarians! The Unnecessary Faith

By The Narrator

There is today probably not a more destructive presumption, even faith, than the notion of Equality. For its sheer baselessness and capacity to harm, and be it racial, cultural, societal, gender, etc, the modern notion of intrinsic or inherent “equal-ness” among human beings resides in a historical class by itself. From a racial perspective, pondering why Whites and non-Whites are not civilizationally, morally or temperamentally equal or why there is a socio-economical gap between the races, is about as necessary (and forced) as asking why dogs make better household pets than Grizzly bears.

All about us we see inequality as a natural condition and reality. Within sets and subsets, disparity in quality and ability is the norm. Be it among men or animals, fowl or fish, we see systems where this normative condition is nature’s engineering, and obviously not the outcome of prejudice or bigotry.

Of course, when we look at groupings of distinct classes of Man, animal or plant we can instantly recognize similar qualities distinct to each group or sub-group. We observe, for example, that fish swim and birds, by and large, fly. We can test this for the validity of labelling them by their distinctiveness. Yet not all fish are the same or equal, nor are birds without a variety of differences.

Even when similarities are more relevant (yet still greatly divergent in degrees), differences in quality, ability, adaptiveness and so on, are undeniable … such as, for instance, the fact that flight is a quality common to both butterflies and eagles. Yet the ultimate and distinguishable inequality between the two, in any given circumstance they may happen to share, is self-evident to all but the wilfully blind.

And so we come to the unnecessary predicament that the wilfully blind Equalitarians create with their presumption for Equality and their grievous vexation by the lack of it.

Britain faces mass migration, warns Admiral

Britain faces mass migration, warns Admiral

By SAM GREENHILL,
Daily Mail 2006

Britain and Europe face being overrun by mass migration from the Third World within 30 years, a senior Royal Navy strategist claimed yesterday.

In an apocalyptic vision of security dangers, Rear Admiral Chris Parry forecast 'reverse colonisation', where migrants become more dominant than their hosts.

He said the seeds of the problem were spiralling population growth and environmental destruction. In the competition for resources, many would flee their homelands and head en masse for better places such as Britain.

The Internet, cheap foreign travel and free international phone calls would hasten the demise, he said, because new migrants would stay connected with their homelands rather than assimilate into the host country's culture.

His prognosis is that Western civilisation faces a threat on a par with the collapse of the Roman Empire after the 5th century invasion of Rome by the Goths, the East Germanic tribe.

ECONOMIC INCONSISTENCY of LEFT-WINGERS

ECONOMIC INCONSISTENCY of LEFT-WINGERS who SUPPORT MASS IMMIGRATION

The following by Alistair McConnachie appeared previously in editorials in the August 2005 and October 2006 issues of Sovereignty, and in an article in the May 2006 issue.

Many who defend and promote the huge levels of immigration into the UK are self-styled "anti-capitalists" and "greens" who would be expected to oppose anything -- like mass immigration -- which promotes capitalist economics and unsustainable growth.

Let's consider some of their defences in the light of basic capitalist economics.

Immigrants are the best way to address our essential skills shortage/are needed to fill job vacancies

Basic economics tells us that a skills shortage in any field of labour is always remedied in a market economy by offering higher wages. These rising wages will act as an incentive for people to train to enter these fields.

Consequently, after a few years, the shortage is remedied, while per capita incomes have risen.

However, if shortage of labour is merely remedied by importing ready-trained workers from abroad, then the wage level never rises, and indeed, may fall. At the same time, the shortages will continue because there will be no financial incentive for the indigenous population to train in that field. They will have been dis-incentivised!

This will be exacerbated by the fact that employers will have no incentive to invest in training programmes, because they're able to get ready-trained employees without expense.

Thus the indigenous skills-shortage will continue, and in the long-run, per capita income will fall. The only beneficiaries here are the employers.

And it is not just us saying that, it is the Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King. He was reported as saying that the recent migrants from Eastern European EU countries had kept the lid on wages and prevented inflation from rising: "Without this influx to fill the skills gap in a tight labour market it is likely that earnings would have risen at a faster rate, putting upward pressure on the costs of employers and, ultimately, inflation." (Larry Elliot and Charlotte Moore, "Migrants hold down inflation says governor", The Guardian, 14-6-05, p.15.)

In this regard we cannot do better than to quote MigrationWatchUK's Sir Andrew Green and his response in The Daily Mail letters column of 11 May 2006.

Immigration has little effect on vacancies. We had 600,000 vacancies in 2001 when the Government first gave this as a reason for expanding immigration and we still have a similar number, despite net immigration of roughly 900,000 in the same period. The reason is that the number of jobs in an economy isn't fixed. Immigrants also create demand and thus extra vacancies, so there is no end to the cycle. It would be much better if employers trained British workers rather than importing them from abroad. They could also try paying a decent wage to the unskilled, whose pay is being held down by the current large-scale immigration. No wonder some employers are happy.

So why do those who claim to be for "the workers" and against "the employers", support mass immigration? Why should those who claim to speak for the working class support an immigration system which holds down wages for the benefit of the employers?

Why should people like Mike Brider, Scottish secretary of the T&G say to a meeting of Polish immigrants, "T&G Scotland warmly welcomes the role and contribution which migrant workers are making to our economy and communities." (Dave Sherry, "Polish workers organise", Socialist Worker, 14-10-06, p.14)

Does he not have a clue that in October 2006 it was revealed that there are 962,000 claiming jobless benefits in the UK, and a further 3 million on incapacity benefit of which the government estimates one third are fit to return to work? Does he have anything to say about this? No he doesn't! He just wants to suck up to people he thinks will join his "Union" and keep him in a job!

What we are saying is that importing cheaper foreign labour keeps wages low throughout society.

The economy is growing as a result of immigration

Yeah, and so are interest rates, house prices and taxes -- as wages fall.

Obviously, any influx of people will encourage an economy to "grow" in the sense that there are more people needing more goods and services and more economic activity is likely. For example, if we imported the whole of Poland tomorrow we would, overnight, create hundreds of thousands, if not millions of new jobs, and we would have huge economic growth.

But why is that growth, per se, necessarily a good thing? In many ways it would be a very bad thing! You would only consider that a good thing if you were some kind of "capitalist"! Why do those who want a sustainable economy and world, justify immigration levels on the basis of growth?

Myths of British ancestry

Myths of British ancestry

STEPHEN OPPENHEIMER 

PROSPECT MAGAZINE

OCTOBER 2006 —  ISSUE 127

Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands

The fact that the British and the Irish both live on islands gives them a misleading sense of security about their unique historical identities. But do we really know who we are, where we come from and what defines the nature of our genetic and cultural heritage? Who are and were the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish and the English? And did the English really crush a glorious Celtic heritage?

Everyone has heard of Celts, Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. And most of us are familiar with the idea that the English are descended from Anglo-Saxons, who invaded eastern England after the Romans left, while most of the people in the rest of the British Isles derive from indigenous Celtic ancestors with a sprinkling of Viking blood around the fringes.

Yet there is no agreement among historians or archaeologists on the meaning of the words “Celtic” or “Anglo-Saxon.” What is more, new evidence from genetic analysis (see note below) indicates that the Anglo-Saxons and Celts, to the extent that they can be defined genetically, were both small immigrant minorities. Neither group had much more impact on the British Isles gene pool than the Vikings, the Normans or, indeed, immigrants of the past 50 years.

The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands. Our subsequent separation from Europe has preserved a genetic time capsule of southwestern Europe during the ice age, which we share most closely with the former ice-age refuge in the Basque country. The first settlers were unlikely to have spoken a Celtic language but possibly a tongue related to the unique Basque language.

Another wave of immigration arrived during the Neolithic period, when farming developed about 6,500 years ago. But the English still derive most of their current gene pool from the same early Basque source as the Irish, Welsh and Scots. These figures are at odds with the modern perceptions of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon ethnicity based on more recent invasions. There were many later invasions, as well as less violent immigrations, and each left a genetic signal, but no individual event contributed much more than 5 per cent to our modern genetic mix.

Fallacies of Integration

Fallacies of Integration

Dave Baxter argues that now the Establishment has admitted that the multicultural society is not working, full integration, i.e. multiracialism, is likewise doomed to fail. It would have the effect of fragmenting society and breaking down still further our traditional sense of community.

Even before the July London bombings, prominent Establishment figures were questioning how much longer the belief in a multicultural society could continue. The Times published an interview with CRE chairman, Trevor Philips, on 3/4/04. In it he said that multi-culturalism was out of date and no longer useful as it encouraged “separateness” between communities. This brought praise and support from a number of people, including former Tory party chairman, Norman Tebbit, who declared: “If we can make common cause around the idea that the problems don’t revolve around so much as ethnicity as culture, then we have moved a huge step on.”

For many, the very word “multi-cultural” is little more than a euphemism for multi-racialism. Perhaps even the very word “race” is just too traumatic for those who fervently believe that no such thing exists (or of it does then we certainly shouldn’t acknowledge the fact!)

Culture also has a convenient ambiguity to it. In its strictest definition, after all, it is simply a way of life at any one given time. There can exist a ‘culture of violence’ or a ‘culture of apathy’ and so on. Of course, healthy cultures do not remain static and stagnate; they change, adapt and evolve. The crucial point is that all previous changes in our cultural norms – language, dress, modes of behaviour and so on – have mostly been part of an evolutionary process within our own people. Historically, customs and manners have changed, but the people have remained unaltered.

The forced imposition of a multi-racial society, however, is different. It is a regressive step and unless halted and reversed, will lead to the decline and eventual disappearance of the British as a distinct ethnic group.

Those who think this prediction is alarmist should reflect on the fact that decades of immigration and asylum, combined with a higher non-white birth rate, have already resulted in indigenous British people becoming a minority in many cities. In addition to this, Britain has the highest rate of inter-racial relationships.

Based upon the above trends, what is the prognosis for our people?

IMMIGRATION TURNING BRITAIN INTO A 'MONGREL NATION'

IMMIGRATION TURNING BRITAIN INTO A 'MONGREL
NATION'

April 2007

Immigration into Britain is now running at a level that is without precedent in our history and which threatens our cohesion as a nation, according to a report from the independent social policy think-tank Civitas. 

In 'A Nation of Immigrants' David Conway takes issue with those who minimise the threat posed by mass immigration by claiming that this is nothing new; that we are a 'mongrel nation'; and that, in the words of the Commission on Racial Equality, 'everyone who lives in Britain today is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant' (pp.2-3).

He argues, to the contrary, that from the time England can be considered to have become a nation, immigration has never risen above very low levels and had no serious demographic impact until the last part of the twentieth century. 

This isn't the Britain we fought for

Some WWII soldiers, and families of those lost in the war, have complained society today shows no sign of the effort they made to help

'This isn't the Britain we fought for,' say the 'unknown warriors' of WWII

By Tony Rennell
Daily Mail
Nov 2009

Sarah Robinson was just a teenager when World War II broke out. She endured the Blitz, watching for fires during Luftwaffe air raids armed with a bucket of sand. Often she would walk ten miles home from work in the blackout, with bombs falling around her. As soon as she turned 18, she joined the Royal Navy to do her bit for the war effort.

Some WWII soldiers, and families of those lost in the war, have complained society today shows no sign of the effort they made to help. 

Hers was a small part in a huge, history-making enterprise, and her contribution epitomises her generation's sense of service and sacrifice. Nearly 400,000 Britons died. Millions more were scarred by the experience, physically and mentally. But was it worth it? Her answer - and the answer of many of her contemporaries, now in their 80s and 90s - is a resounding No. 

They despise what has become of the Britain they once fought to save. It's not our country any more, they say, in sorrow and anger. 

Sarah harks back to the days when 'people kept the laws and were polite and courteous. We didn't have much money, but we were contented and happy. 'People whistled and sang. There was still the United Kingdom, our country, which we had fought for, our freedom, democracy. But where is it now?!' 

Sarah Robinson, who joined the Royal Navy when she was 18, says the Britain she once knew no longer exists

The feelings of Sarah and others from this most selfless generation about the modern world have been recorded by a Tyneside writer, 33-year-old Nicholas Pringle. Curious about his grandmother's generation and what they did in the war, he decided three years ago to send letters to local newspapers across the country asking for those who lived through the war to write to him with their experiences.

He rounded off his request with this question: 'Are you happy with how your country has turned out? What do you think your fallen comrades would have made of life in 21st-century Britain?'

What is extraordinary about the 150 replies he received, which he has now published as a book, is their vehement insistence that those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the war would now be turning in their graves.

England: A mongrel nation?

England: A mongrel nation?

The definition of mongrel in my dictionary goes thus –

Mongrel – n. animal (esp. dog) of mixed breed. Adj. Of mixed origin or character

To me this definition implies an admixture where no particular trait or feature prevails, and a multiplicity of elements and forces, many of them unknown, has been at work. It’s opposite is often held to be ‘pure’. 

This article is emphatically not to be read as a claim that the English are a ‘pure race’. All I intend to do is ask (and, I hope, answer) two questions – “Just how ‘mongrel’ are the English?” and “Why is the term applied so frequently to the English?”

Few people in the modern world would ever make a claim that their nation is somehow racially ‘pure’. And yet by the same token few would be willing to dispense with their historical identity. The use of the word mongrel in relation to an entire nation of people implies that their characteristics are not only not fixed, but are easily mutable, and have been frequently changed over time.

In recent years the word has often applied to the English by commentators and not a few English people themselves in a way which would have been uncommon just a few decades ago.

The implication is that the English are not an ‘historical’ people, and do not have characteristics of their own but have an identity that is simply an amalgam of elements taken from the identities of other people. In the context of the doctrine of multiculturalism, these elements are provided by the supposed ‘waves’ of immigration to which England has been subject throughout her history.

Ethnically dense neighbourhood good for health

Ethnically dense neighbourhood good for health

 

 

September, 2009

By Joene Hendry

Reuters.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Living in a neighborhood with a lot of people of similar ethnic background may have some health benefit, hints a new study from the United Kingdom.

In the study, fewer activity-limiting long-term illnesses were reported by people who lived in neighborhoods they felt were more than half made up of people with whom they shared a common ethnicity.

This effect was seen among white (primarily of British and Irish ancestry), Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and African race and ethnic groups, despite the tendency of ethnic minorities to "live in deprived neighborhoods," Dr. Mai Stafford, from University College London, told Reuters Health in an email correspondence.

Stafford's team measured actual ethnic density of various neighborhoods and asked residents for their views on the ethnic makeup of their own neighborhood.

The study included 8,850 whites, 1,299 Indians, 678 Pakistanis, 233 Bangladeshis, 690 Africans, and 820 of Caribbean ethnicity.

The investigators found general agreement between actual and perceived ethnic density, except that whites tended to underestimate the proportion of whites in their neighborhoods.

By contrast, "ethnic minority participants tended to overestimate the proportion of people from the same ethnic background as themselves in the local area," Stafford said.

A health benefit of living in neighborhood with people of the same ethnic background was evident for all ethnic groups - except those of Caribbean ethnicity.

For unexplained reasons that need further study, those of Caribbean ethnicity reported fewer long-term illnesses associated with actual, rather than perceived, ethnic density.

In earlier research, Stafford and colleagues reported ethnic minorities living in areas with greater proportions of "co-ethnics" experience less racial discrimination and associated stress, which may partially explain the current findings.

They call for continued investigations to further explain and clarify the impact neighborhood ethnic density has on overall health.

SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, August 15, 2009

Dutch advance socialist case against immigration

Agnes Kant, leader of the Socialist Party of the Netherlands

Dutch advance socialist case against immigration

The Socialist Party of the Netherlands has profited from its opposition to immigration and the free movement of labour

By Neil Clark
The First Post

NOV 24, 2008

Anyone who argues that, as a political force, socialism is dead, ought to visit the Netherlands. The Socialist Party of the Netherlands (SP) is the fastest growing political group in the country.

They won 25 seats in the last general election - an increase of 16 seats - and made huge gains in last year's local elections. They are now the third largest party in Holland in terms of members and could well replace the Dutch Labour Party as the main alternative to the Christian Democrats.

Why are they so successful? I would suggest that it is because they are a socialist party that actually has socialist policies. They oppose the privatisation of public services, advocate higher taxes on the very wealthy and have condemned the "the culture of greed" caused by "a capitalism based on inflated bonuses and easy money". They oppose war and Nato and the nascent European superstate. They were the only left-wing Dutch party in Parliament to oppose the new EU Constitution in the 2005 referendum.