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.