ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

Peter - I can imagine that in an alternative universe, somewhere far away, that last night there was an other episode of Newsnight.

Where John Bolton was the Head of the FSA, and the Head of the FSA had been the US Ambassador at the UN.

Cue John Bolton - Gosh, yes Gavin you're right - we were asleep at the wheel. What do you mean should we have acted sooner to sort out Northern Rock ? Why the hell should we have to explain what we do to anyone ? We do what we like !

Cue FSA Head - Well, yes, Gavin I used to be at the UN and I used to have lots of interesting chats with lots of interesting people that went on for lots of time, unless I was having a cup of tea, in which case I wasn't talking to anyone, and what was that you say, Israel ? Syria, no I haven't much of a clue what was going on then and not much of a clue what is going on now...I always find the danger with that is people might expect you to actually do something or even take a decision or to do some work..

[continues until Gavin is heard to begin snoring..]

Well, it took a woman to tell it like it is, then the others sheepishly took the plunge.

We are actually lucky that these particular misbehaving immigrants are not of a different race, just another culture, so we can criticise them without being labelled racist. Still there will be those whose knees are prone to jerking and will shout the xenophobic taunt.

It's time we threw away our sack cloth over colonialism cut to the 21stC and took to our social contract with pride. It's taken twenty years, and a lot of dead people to morn over, to train ourselves to the point where we have a conscience about drinking and driving. We are still working at it. We should be proud and the Poles should be told. It's done this way here or else.

It's not usual to go around with a knife in our pockets to sort out a dispute. We're not perfect but what's wrong with telling the Lithuanians that we don't live like that and haven't for a very long time.

It would have been good to have had the courage to face those who thought that 'honour' killing was a nice way to deal with recalcitrant young girls, but we are getting there slowly. We are beginning to be able to see the difference between what is race and what is culture. It would be a good idea if we took further courage and stamped out forced marriages without feeling we were up to no good. Someone might put in a bad word for polygamy too there is much of it about far more than we are prepared to acknowledge for fear of being called racist. We are slowly coming to realise that no religion, no culture, no tradition, and definitely no men can trash the human rights of women in this way and try to hide behind our anti racist agenda in the process. The Emperor, in this case patriarchy can now been seen without its clothes.

And finally, when we can hold our secular, modern liberal heads up high and wipe out the most revolting child abuse ever dreamed up by men in order to control female sexuality, that is the abuse we allow to happen here to little black girls namely, female genital mutilation, on the increase throughout the West and here in the UK with not one single prosecution, then, and only then, can we call ourselves civilised.

We have built up this nation with hundreds of years of hard work. We are not perfect, but the fact that so many people want to live here is a testament to our success at building a way of life that is far more bearable than life elsewhere.

Why not say with pride, this is us, these are our rules, but don't come here if you don't like this modern liberal democracy, we don't force you to come here, but if and when you do, you will acknowledge our way of life.

As a statistical contribution to the question as to who are 'the masters
of the universe' (at least in NYC) may I suggest this, based on USA Census data (2000,2005/6), and ask readers to check my maths (I did this a few months ago as part of an epidemiological study into allele frequency for a particular genetic polymorphism).

The figures are approximate as Hispanics can be any race (NH is non Hispanic White). See also Miami-Dade in Florida - and look at the Non Hispanic Whites. Sorry about the formatting, the Newsnight edit box lost it.

PERCENTAGES - NEW YORK CITY

..........White/NH....Black....Hispanic....Asian....Total
Bronx..........13.1....42.5....51.3.....3.4....1361473
Kings..........35.6....38.3....19.9.....8.9....2508820
NY County..... 47.7....19.8....25.9....10.7....1611581
Queens.........31.7....21.1....26.1....20.9....2255175
Richmond.......67.9....10.8....14.6.....7.2.....477377

NUMBERS
........White/NH....Black....Hispanic....Asian....Total Pop
Bronx.....178353..578626..698436..46290..1361473
Kings.....893140..960878..499255..223285..2508820
NY County...768724..319093..417399..172439..1611581
Queens....714890..475842..588601..471332..2255175
Richmond....324139..51557..69697...34371..477377

Total..2879246..2385996..2273388..947717..8214426
%...... 35.05..29.05..27.68..11.54

Wikipedia: Urbanomics projections estimate a continuing decline of non-
Hispanic whites

"The number of Jews in New York City soared throughout the beginning of the 20th century and reached a peak of 2 million in the 1950s, when Jews constituted one-quarter of the city's population"

Source 1) for 972000 Ashkenazi = Wikipedia:

Source 2) for 2,000,000 = NY Archive:

Source 2 states that the Jewish population of NYC is 2 million (1/2
Ashkenazi & 1/2 Sephardi?)

Estimates of Jewish Population of NY City (Ashkenazi1 and Ashkenazi/Sephardic2)

.................IF1....IF2
Ashkenazi/Sephardi..972000..2,000,000
% of NY Whites....34.....69
% of NY City......12.....24

Therefore, given the above Non Hispanic (NH) White Figures:

White Gentile......1907246....879246
% of NY Whites....66....31
% of NY City......23....11

Note the reversal - WASP/Cs would appear to be rarer in NYC yet the
popular belief is possibly the reverse?

May an irrational fear of a charge of anti-semitism render this opaque or are the computations/figures wrong?

The statistic is obscured by 65% of NYC being Non White. The reality is
that of the 35% white, 24% may well be Jewish and 11% White Gentile.

This makes white gentiles one of the minorities (the other being (largely East) Asian (also high IQ). Given the World Bank, UN, money markets etc are in NYC, logically, given their slightly higher (largely verbal, a female profile, perhaps not incidentally), IQ advantage of about 8 or 9 points over gentiles, and much greater advantage (more than 1 SD (15 points) and 1.5 SD respectively) over Hispanic and Blacks, on must conclude that, statistically speaking, NYC Jews are 'the masters of the universe' through a) their higher frequency in the population, and b) their greater symbol manipulation skills?

These would appear to be the empirical facts, at least, in terms of probability.

Refutations welcome.

Why does a serious news programme like Newsnight feel that the eugenics-linked organisation MigrationWatch should be given a platform with the current immigration minister and the equivalent lib dem spokesman? Why give even more coverage to this right-wing organisation (which regularly feeds the Daily Mail with misinformation) and present them to the general public as a bona fida group? If Andrew Green's presence was purely to assist Jeremy in goading Liam Byrne then perhaps this was successful. But please don't pretend MigrationWatch are anything other than anti-migration and essentially racist.

Call the imaginary dog PAXO and have done with it.

jews are not white.they're on their own vs. arabs/iran etc.northern europe must be a nordic/aryan alliance ready to protect white heritage.this means zero immigration and non-citizenship for present migrants.without at least this original white nations will disappear.

Here we go again! We all know that we can say it is the white males that commit crimes. If we say it about the non whites we are being racist. If we say it about women we are being sexist. Now there is a new group. The white male has to be born in this country or at least not migrated into the country. Otherwise, we are picking on the immigrants. So all together; it is the indigenous white males in this country who commit crimes. There we are, now we haven't upset anyone. I don't know what's so difficult about this!

Of course, how true any other statement would be is not the point. What is the point is to be politically correct. Within living memory, people have fought and died defending this country from being taken over by others from outside the country. Now we allow them in and are under constraints not to be negative, even when criminal offences take place. Not being able to talk about something is a step towards denying it is happening. Which in turn is a step towards changing the law so it is not a crime. Then who rules in this country? Not the children and grandchildren of those who died for this country.

"When you go home
Tell them of us and say,
For your tomorrow
We gave our today."

What an impressive man the Immigration Minister is. Bet he's glad he admitted (apparently without noticing) that the government have no idea how many people are entering the UK. No, he's going to do all that - sometime. Just hasn't got round to it yet.

Watch this bloke - he'll try and play the racism card if he thinks he can get away with it. Loved his description of the boss lady from Cambridge - Julie the Chief Constable. Friend of Postman Pat or Bob the Builder?

Patronising fool.

Kelsey #11 - It may look like race, but really, it isn't.

It's skills/ability and gene barriers. Some migrant groups tend to be predominantly low-skilled/low ability (note the stowaways on trucks etc)? Assuming we are all the same genetically is unhelpful to all concerned.

The UK is attractive to many economic migrants largely because it genuinely tries to embrace diversity and to provide a welfare state. But to do this successfully one has to look at raw economics and demographics.

Tilt the population in the wrong direction (i.e. too many low skilled people) and everyone suffers, as there won't be enough of those at the other pole to sustain the infrastructure reqired to support those who want to benefit from it.

Basically it's as simple as that, regardless of what we would like to be so, which usualy means a naive, and utopian belief in uniform 'equality' which can be molded through education. We have mo evidence for that. NONE.

If you think otherwise, please enlighten us all.

Most of us who comment on this don't (I suspect) care about skin colour at all. or where people come from. We know that's irrelevant to some extent (and I say some, as latitide, sunlight/vitamin D, SAD and health (mental and physical) may not be entirely irrelevant given that the prevalence of mental and other health problems in BME groups seems to be higher here in the UK than in more southern latitudes). Some people here can't afford brief holidays in the sun.

Like it or not, we are adapted, genetically, to our environments. Some people are now white so they can absorb what little UV there is up here in these latitudes.

This, if true, cuts both ways, as it means we poach brains from southern latitudes at their long term medical expense, and ultimately, at all our expense.

Andrew Green's performance to-night was telling in its effortlessness. He simply destroyed the ramblings - they certainly weren't constructive arguments - of the other two. This without even being asked to comment on the sinister EU dictum just announced, to allow another twenty million immigrants to be brought in.

All the world and his dog now knows that the Utopian dream of the fanatical Supranationalists in Brussels to exterminate every trace of National identity across Europe and particularly here in Great Britain, is totally dependent on swamping the indigenous populations with massive influxes of immigrants, asylum seekers and anybody else who cares to come. Blair and his coterie of acolytes covertly and fervently subscribed to this strategy throughout their entire ten year stint in Downing Street, and traded consistently on the abuse of the definition of the word 'racism' to achieve that goal. They are almost there, BUT...

the fundamental tenets of the universal laws of existence are governed by two principal factors - balance and number - and the consequences of deliberately distorting one or both can only produce devastating effects that don't bear thinking about.

Those effects are rapidly starting to emerge in no small way!

Is D. Allen alright? His posts seem to be random pickings from a bowl of alphabet soup!

even though it's a ludicrous accusation eugenics is science and goes hand-in-hand with 'modernity','progress','secularism' etc.concern over immigration is continually portrayed as racist.we're talking here about poles and other east europeans and are they of a different race?race doesn't come into it.i believe in strict rules on immigration not on grounds of race but rather the difficulty of integrating too many people at once in areas that are already over-burdened.this is not an issue of just the right,some unions are worried about the impact of cheap/cheaper labour on their members.i don't know the details of the relevant e.u. treaties but states must have the right to control borders otherwise it's anarchy.i back sir andrew green's campaign.

Would someone please explain the meaning of "absculcate" (ourselves) or whatever it was that Jezza signed off with tonightΒΏ

Adrienne #16

Thanks for your comments but my problem is with the media presenting MigrationWatch without properly introducing them or explaining their motivations. Daily Mail, Newsnight, The Sun all do it.

Masters of the Universe

My experience of trading is that the ruthless efficiency of the markets for spotting weakness, like the media pack chasing after an England manager with a string of bad results, it is possible for logic of profit to overtake the logic of a wider interest. ie what is the point of making millions if you ruin the country? It no longer becomes trading but warfare. So you need blocks in the system that say protects the savings and jobs of ordinary people from temporary irrational market conditions but still punishes mistakes e.g ring fence the savings but let the shares rise and fall. By analogy people should also have legal protection from temporary media insanity!

Immigration

To put the scale of 2.5 million into context the German invasion of England Operation Sealion 1940 was to have been carried out with 67,000 troops which today is, say, a months immigration.

When only 10% of a schools new intake have English as a first language we can assume there will be massive unforseen changes in society 15 years from now. Who forsaw the problem of uk bred terrorism 15 years ago?

The mistake is to believe a country can be run independent from its feeling as a nation. The character of government comes OUT of the feeling of the nation. A Nations feeling is like a garden and must be cultivated. Look at those countries where the national feeling is not tended. They become 'emotionally disturbed' with all the usual manifestations of that in their society.

Creative Writing Course in One Line

I read once that a good novel should contain some surprise, religion, royalty, sex and mystery.

in response to which someone wrote

"Oh my God", said the Duchess, " I am pregnant. Who did it?".

Thanks for your excellent feature on immigration. I can't imagine any other ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ programme doing anything similar. You could have asked Liam Byrne whether his prediction of 12,000 Polish immigrants was the least accurate ever or the most patronising statement ever made by a UK government. You introduced one of the community policeman as being a Roma asylum seeker from Eastern Europe. Minutes before, on the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ news, he was introduced as a Roma asylum seeker from the Czech Republic. How can someone from an EC country possibly be elligible asylum?

#22 Kelsey, perhaps you have a point there about balance. One of the points frequently made is that political correctness (aka 'cultural Marxism' (no doubt often unwitting)) tends to vilify those who try to rationally discuss the demographic consequences of *uncontrolled* immigration.

Even in the Wikipedia article on Migration Watch one immediately sees 'right wing', yet when one looks more closely, it's very hard to see it as meaning anything more than *not* left wing.

As I recall, not long ago, Blair called for open debate on immigration. If pressure groups (prima facie, exceptionally well staffed in the case of Migration Watch) are to be criticised as racist or 'right wing' for simply trying to get, and share, more reliable data on what's in fact going on, what sort of debate can we expect? Coleman is an expert in demography and Green is a retired, accomplished senior diplomat.

It would be good to hear the other side which sets out the alleged merits of immigration. Here's a link to Green's recent comment on Franco Frattini's speech in Lisbon on 13th.

Perhaps Newsnight *should* have covered Frattini's Lisbon speech on 13th and the report etc of 12th?

but I guess they, like the rest of us, were preoccupied with the 'credit crunch'?

Here's another interview with Frattini back in July. It looks like EU cooperation in border control is the issue:

and from last year:

Some responses to what was reported as the speech:

Although we (UK) are not signed up to open borders, preventing illegal immigration is easier said than done, we've just been through a major mauling of what was the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Office/IND. Do we have the ability/resources to do this properly? Doe anyone?

There's clearly a lot more to this than meets the eye, and the root problem is not immigration but Europe's chronic *below* replacement level birth rate. This is what we should be looking at with greater concern. Personally, I reckon it's indicative of something *radically* wrong with the way that we all live and especially our (naive) sex equality politics. The demographic problem is even worse in Eastern Europe where sex equality was even more central to politics.

Perhaps instead of complaining about the high birth rates of Muslims etc in the UK, we should be looking much more closely at the contingencies which account for the very low birth rate in the indigenous population?

This, I fear, is yet another, *major* consequence of 'political correctness'. It's a silent genocide, and I reckon we're a bit too keen to shoot the messengers:

/blogs/newsnight/2007/09/tuesday_11_september_2007.html
/blogs/newsnight/2007/09/tuesday_11_september_2007.html

Re #11

Stating that Migration Watch is 'eugenics linked' and 'essentially racist' is quite a mouthful: it might also be construed as highly defamatory!

Did Hitler meddle with eugenics? Was he overtly racist? - answer - very much so!

But where, in the name of straightforward logic, is there evidence to show that Migration Watch holds the same agenda?

Before pointing an accusatory finger it would be prudent to check the CORRECT literal definition of the words 'racist/racism': not to be confused with 'racial' hatred, which although it is sometimes included as part of that definition, is all too often not the same thing.

On immigration and the parallel universe in which our Government Ministers live - Jeremy was spot on when he asked Liam Byrne "who voted for this?". The question I have is for the English voters - why on earth would you re-elect this perfidious bunch of Nu-Labour nation destroyers?

#27 Let me try putting things a different way in order to encourage a little healthy scepticism. I apologise about the length, and hope what I say doesn't offend. To pre-empt any misunderstandings, it should go without saying that I abhor the incitement of persecution and genocide, but I think there is more to all of this than meets many
people's eyes and ears.

In fact, Germany was one of the last European countries to pick up on
eugenics. Eugenics was started by Galton, Fisher, Pearson (statisticians and geneticists) and others in what has come to be known as 'The London School' of behaviour geneticists/psychology (it's why IQ tests and race are a modern taboo, although it shouldn't be as it just means the frequency distribution is different, and is sustained by gene barriers), and was in fact a positive response to what they saw as a quasi natural process of dysgenics (genetic deterioration in populations) as a consequence of the demographic transition, that is, a skewing of population growth towards lower IQ groups given better healthcare, and the fact that the more able tend to practice family planning more assiduously.

Ironically, eugenics was, therefore, promoted as a *positive* social
response to what was judged to be an unnatural process reducing
biological fitness, one which came with industrialisation and greater
civilization (urbanisation). The pressure on females not to marry
'beneath oneself' is also effectively a eugenics strategy, as is the widely practiced proscription of mixed marriage or its converse, the universal practice of assortive mating.

One has to ask, therefore, whether Europeans have been doing something counter productive through sustaining and reinforcing fear and paranoia largely derivative of post-war anti-nazi legislation in Germany and neighbouring states) about what National Socialist Germany allegedly got up to in the name of 'eugenics' (see the German Criminal Code 185,189,220,130 and the revision of the latter in 1994). More of us should perhaps look a little more critically into this period of recent history as most of the horror stories came from the Soviets and we know from our own FCO that they lied about Katyn at Nuremberg. It may surprise some to hear that the empirical facts of what happened are irrelevant as a defence. Denial per se is the offence (which is why the link to a recent CiF is worth looking at, as it focuses on the EU and freedom of speech). What these laws have done is helped shift European politics towards Anarcho-Capitalism (the free, relatively unregulated, market), and ultimately, perhaps, International Socialism (cf. the S.I which New Labour is a member of).

Nearly all countries now practice eugenics in the form of birth control, and genetic screening etc in one form or another, and some countries have passed legislation to try to control their population growth in ways designed to both improve their economies and their people's general welfare (e.g. China), although it has not always worked (Singapore). The full EU Convention on Human Rights (not our UK version of it), does however proscribe eugenics (which needs to be looked at carefully I suggest given that the EU plans to go about the redressing the birth dearth through managed immigration from countries which appear to have such markedly lower numbers of skilled people that this can not possibly work given a) high heritability and b) assortive mating). See Frattini's Sept speech above.

As to Germany's 'racism' - again, anti-discrimination law has roots in
allied (including Soviet note) post war political propaganda and some of
our current anti-discrimination legislation is derivative of the
extensive post war (beginning with Tehran Conference in late 1943)
denazification programme. Germany's enemies, it should be recalled,
were International Bolsheviks and capitalists, which Hitler (and many
others it may surprise some) rightly or wrongly regarded as co-terminus
(statistically) with Jews.

He therefore dispossessed, rounded up and effectively interred European
Jewry (much the same way the US rounded up its Japanese) moving them to camps later in Poland (part of the original Pale of Settlement from whence many emigrated (to Western Europe and the USA) in the late C19th) with a view to relocating them in one place. Enough in itself to induce extreme hatred towards the Nazi regime. What happened then is moot to some and highly controversial, although those who subscribe to the conventional physical destruction thesis hold that this probably did not begin, tellingly, until after Germany went to war with her erstwhile Soviet ally (who had also been purging old Bolsheviks from the party throughout the 1930s) in the summer of 1941 (see these few pages and read the infamous 1939 critically rather than rely on excerpts, compare with the 1940 speech.

European population are in negative growth, hence Frattini's (misguided
in my view for reasons set out below) call for managed skilled
immigration. In 1933 world Jewry was estimated as about 15.3 million.
Today it is still about 14 million. As I say, indigenous European
populations have been in natural decline throughout the last century.
Furthermore, In 1933 2/3 of European Jews were in Poland and the USSR
(2/3 of French Jews were still in France at the end of the war, 2/3 of
German Jews had left Germany by 1939), and after the war, the Iron Curtain went up, Poland and the USSR went behind it, so how do we know for sure what happened to Jews on Soviet occupied lands except through the Soviets? The next Western contact with East European/Soviet Jews was the large exodus to Israel after the end of the Cold War, by which time many WWII survivors would have died of old age. Russia has one of the lowest TFRs of all. It must be remembered that most of our images and stories of German concentration camps were of starving and typhus diseased people (many of whom, like Anne Frank died) by the end of the war, and that this could be put down to the efficacy of allied carpet bombing of Germany. Finally, what we know of Eastern camps came from the same sources that the false stories of Katyn came from - the Soviets. Gorbachev admitted that the NKVD was responsible for Katyn. When
Auschwitz was evacuated before the Soviets arrived, the majority went
West with the Germans. Amongst them were Polish and other communists who may have groomed the young in camps like Buchenwald, hence some of the reliability of eye-witness accounts have been disputed. This was all high stakes politics as the next 40 odd years attest. Basically, groups, and ideologies, compete.

One should also look back to how allied forces in WWII depersonalised
their enemies (e.g. the Japanese), how the US did in Vietnam, and how it did (and still does) in Iraq etc.

#30 - They are Internationalists. What did one expect?

Re #31.

To respond to such a long and detailed dissertation, tempting though it is, would simply result in a sequence of 'in-depth' exchanges that would clog the blog, or 'hijack' it as the saying goes.

Whether the first paragraph of #31 is addressed to me directly, or if my post at #27 is serving as a reference platform from which to communicate the rest of the dissertation to a wider audience, I'm not sure.

Perhaps my comments regarding Hitler; intended simply to illustrate by comparison and elicit an answer from poster #11, were misinterpreted. I chose the words 'meddle' and 'overtly' with care.

Re-Post 11.
Poor Kelsey doesn't seem to have taken on board that for millions of British people, the debate is not confined to which ever groups and issues he/she happens to approve of. There's something sad about someone who can't discuss the issues without feeling the need to attach little labels to those making them. Those who have propagandised you must be very proud.

excellent posts - i'm much the wiser now

i love the phrase cultural marxism, that's just what it is. i remember sitting arguing with marxists for years in the 1980s. i disagreed with them on two fundamental points - 1) positive discrimination in the workplace and 2) that ethnicity should take presidence over feminism in issues such as the veil and worse. and look what happened! institutions have run riot in erring on the side of benevolence to incomers and we spend precious resources mopping up the dregs of ancient mysogynistic practices because we were too 'modest' to define our cultural boundaries from the start.

here's another angle - the political class including professions and all others who belive themselves to be a cut above - would rather pay the true costs of immigration - housing, welfare, policing and the rest - than increase wages in the manual sector comparable with professional and corporate salaries. If they were to do that then their superior status would disintegrate and plumbing would be just about as available to the population as legal representation.

Totally agree with wappaho (post 34)
Those with their noses in the trough find it all too easy to abuse and dictate to those at the bottom of the heap, whose realities are very different from their own.
The establishment can tell us that 'the polls' tell how 'successful' Brown's 100 days are proving.Yet a local by-election in Nuneaton on Thursday shows that 21+% of those voting chose to vote BNP. Unsurprisingly, this went unreported.Could it be that the Govt passing Foot and Mouth to our farmers,Brown stealing British workers' pensions, and calling compensation 'unaffordable',while making a prioriety of gifting billions of our resources to the 3rd world, feting Mandela and worrying himself sick about Mugabe and Darfur, play less well to the man in the street in Nuneaton than they do an over weight Scot in his Whitehall bunker, chewing his nails to the quick and practicing his nervous tick. He should reflect on the fact that when he put his political credibility on the line at the Dunfermline by-election, the place where he lives, and the constituency adjacent to his own, the Labour candidate was beaten. Brown typically, ran like the wuss that he is,jumped into his limo to avoid
the press and hot-footed it back to safety in Downing Street.
This is a Prime Minister who couldn't survive(unassisted) a 15 minute Q and A with people from the No 9 Bus Queue without a breakdown or a rush to the door.

Re: #7, the link for source 2 appears to have been changed. It is now: