Archive for the ‘Immigration’ category

GM has high hopes for new La Raza

June 2, 2013

Detroit – General Motors unveiled a new mid-sized SUV/ people career this week which is specially targeting at America’s growing Hispanic population

Set against a South-western desert back drop, the new Chevrolet La Raza appeared at this week’s motor show in militant red with garish chrome wheels, adjustable hydraulic suspension, red, green and white interior trim and black tinted windows.

CEO Mark Wornbearing hopes to win over at least 20 percent of Hispanic new car buyers with the La Raza, which has a number of features specifically designed for Hispanic motorists:

“The La Raza has been meticulously designed from the ground up with the Hispanic market in mind. It has more than adequate seating for a large extended family and with good ground clearance and permanent 4WD its ideal for driving on badly maintained Californian roads and those late-night trips to desert border crossings. Tinted windows also come as standard, so there no need for nosey gringos to know what (or whom) you’re carrying in the spacious luggage area.”

Mr Wornbearing says in marketing terms, it’s a big improvement on the Chevy Redneck, which failed to generate much sales in the mid-west:

“The Redneck wasn’t a bad vehicle, but it was targeted at a shrinking demographic – there just aren’t that many middle-income whites with lots of kids these days. And obviously the name didn’t go down well in the coastal blue states.”

Motoring critic David Highgear had reservations about the vehicles “loud and in your face” styling, but was very impressed with its safety features:

“The new anti-skid breaking system is a real step ahead for GM and the car will automatically slow if you try to run a red light or get too close to the vehicle in front. Around town it practically drives itself – which is really important when you’re talking about a demographic that includes a lot of drivers without valid licences.”

Is immigration based on IQ a good idea?

May 26, 2013

As John Derbyshire points out at Vdare, the media hysteria over Jason Richwine’s infamous immigration paper has meant his main idea – that immigration should be based on IQ – has been left unexamined by the mainstream media.

Derbyshire points out a number of problems with IQ-based immigration, but I’ll point out a couple of other problems.

One is regression to the mean.

Canada and New Zealand have been using skill-based immigration for over a century to cherry pick workers from the British Islands and Europe. Indeed, The New Zealand Company (a private company that established settlements in Australia and New Zealand in the 19th Century) was carefully selecting immigrants based on skills, temperament, and character as early as the 1840s.

Despite this policy, and the fact that skills are stronglycorrelated with IQ, the mean IQ of whites in Canada and New Zealand is no higher than in most other majority whites, and both countries (for better or worse) have their fair share of colonial “chavs” (referred to down under as “bogans”). Hence it seems that even if most white immigrants are quite bright and enterprising, their descendants will soon return to the white mean.

Like skill-based immigration, IQ-based selection is also limited by the inevitable trend for selective immigration to be accompanied by immigration based on family ties, and just because a particular individual has a high IQ or a valuable skill, it doesn’t mean their relatives will. In fact since valuable skills are by definition, relatively rare, it’s more likely the relatives of smart or highly skilled workers will have fewer skills or lower IQs.

Following this logic, even smart immigrants from countries with a low average IQ – like most of Africa and the Middle East – could well have lots of descendants with IQs that are significantly below the white average.

Another problem with IQ-based immigration is that high IQ immigrants can undermine social cohesion if they aren’t  able to secure high status, white collar employment. Most Islamic terrorists in western countries are high IQ immigrants with degrees, and smart, frustrated immigrants have played a big part in many assassinations, communist revolutions and left-wing social movements.

Reversing the failure of the BNP

September 9, 2012

With the BNP now stagnating (if not imploding) it’s time to reconsider whether European-style populist politics are the way forward.

In demographic terms, the basic approach of the BNP has been to go after the working class white rump – those disgruntled whites who are feed up with the current establishment, but lack the means or opportunity to join those skilled or wealthy British whites who are fleeing overseas.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of limitations in focusing on the rump. Firstly it lacks money, secondly it lacks skills, and unlike the constituency of the centre left, it continues to shrink in the face of ongoing third world immigration engineered by the centre left.

If the BNP is going to attract more funding and talent, then it needs to become more appealing to more enterprising and wealthy voters and supporters, and to do this it needs to think outside the conventional nationalist box.

One of the contributing factors in Britain’s current predicament has been its decision to turn its back on the British Commonwealth and seek closer economic and political ties with Europe. But in doing so it’s created a lot of division between Britain and the white British Commonwealth.

Today, white Commonwealth (and other) citizens of British ancestry are shut out of Britain, while millions of non-white immigrants take their place. At the same time, white citizens in colonial countries are feeling increasingly apprehensive about becoming a minority in places which have been majority white for the last two centuries

If whites are indeed becoming a diaspora minority in the British Commonwealth, then, like the Jews and Chinese, they will need an indigenous homeland they turn to if things get too hostile on the periphery.

By easing work and residency requirements for persons of native British ancestry, the BNP could attract funding and support from outside Britain, particularly from whites in South Africa and resource rich Canada and Australia – the two nations which are increasingly becoming the economic engine room of the UK Commonwealth.

In addition to changing its immigration approach from a defensive stance to an offensive one, the BNP will also have to change its economic (and education) policies to appeal to more middle class voters – particularly those who are currently wasting their votes on the one trick pony UKIP. A good starting point would be look closely at the policies of other maverick nations like Israel and Switzerland.

In population terms, this “Israelification” of immigration policy could make Britain even more overcrowded, particularly in the short term, but given the desperate position in which Britain’s finds itself drastic political chemotherapy is essential.

Money versus Ethnocentrism

July 15, 2012

Jim Goad’s recent article at Taki’s Magazine on the power of ethnocentrism has got me wondering whether there any social forces more powerful than ethnocentrism.

Religion and money are the only likely contenders since these are about the only other things people will willingly die for. Some might say that family is more important than ethnicity, but family is really just a subset of ethnicity.

People will often betray their race or country for money, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the case of wealthy businessmen (and women) who put pressure on their governments to import cheap labour. Here in Australia, aesthetically challenged mining mogul Gina Rinehart (pictured below) and retail big wig Gerry Norman, are among those keen to flood their country with unwanted third world immigrants in the name of big business.

It’s a similar case with left-wing liberals, who are keen to promote the virtues of multiculturalism since it offers them the potential for work opportunities as civil servants, social workers, charity workers and other agents of the therapeutic state.

This all sounds wonderful for enterprising “post-racial” liberals, but there’s a big problem with relying on money – there’s just never enough of it to go round, and some people will always miss out.

Take for example the victims of affirmative action. If you provide someone with an affirmative job or college placement, then by definition you must be denying another person an opportunity, and therefore that other person will need to be compensated. If they don’t get compensation, then chances are they will be resentful and angry at having to make a sacrifice for someone else. One way in which affirmative action victims articulate such resentment is by switching their voting patterns from the left to right, which partly explains why so many working class white males in America now vote for the centre right.

Furthermore, in recessionary times like today, there are even greater numbers of people who are socially or economically frustrated by multiculturalism, but unfortunately for liberal elites, there is less money around to compensate them. The recent Occupy Wall Street movement highlighted that even many idealistic left liberals are now more concerned with their own careers (or lack of them) than they are about the social plight of minorities and foreigners.

In Western Europe, liberal governments have been compensating the victims of multiculturalism through welfare. Perhaps the most remarkable example of this can be seen in Spain, where both immigration and unemployment are very high, but the native population hasn’t got very uppity about third world immigration. To meet its austerity targets though, Spain is now having to get tougher on welfare and is apparently restricting unemployment benefits to six months.

It’s going to be very interesting to see if the Spanish authorities can stop race relations from boiling over when a big chunk of the native population lacks the cushioning effects of welfare to protect it from the full impact of multiculturalism.

Immigrants and pensions

July 1, 2012

With baby boomer retirements now rapidly escalating, populist New Zealand politician Winston Peters has raised the issue of pensions for immigrants from developed countries. This issue has already been raised by Grey Power, but Peters’ high media profile should help to keep the issue in the spotlight.

Of course this isn’t just an issue for New Zealand – all English-speaking countries now have a lot of aging immigrants whose pensions will have to be paid by a shrinking number of local taxpayers. Generally speaking, most European Commonwealth countries have reciprocal pension agreements with most developed countries, but as far as I’m aware, there are no reciprocal pension agreements with low-income countries like China, India, Pakistan and Nigeria, which now account for large numbers of immigrants in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

I’m not getting my hopes up too much, but greater awareness of this issue may have some positive influence on immigration policy.

We know it doesn’t work, but we’ll continue with it anyway

February 29, 2012

A few years back, the British research group Migration Watch UK shown that immigration raises total GDP but doesn’t increase GDP per person. In other words high levels of immigration don’t benefit the majority of citizens.

Now The  Australian Productivity Commission has admitted the same thing.

Unfortunately though, our elected representatives don’t want to listen to reason. In today’s democracy, the views of liberal activists and businesses that benefit from immigration trample over the interests of the disgruntled majority.

(hat tip: Unfashionable Conservative)

More lectures from Singapore

February 5, 2012

Just because the Chinese majority in Singapore lets in moderate numbers of immigrants from the Indian Sub-continent, Singaporean Chinese seem to think they have a right criticise white people in western countries for opposing increases in non-white immigration.

As Oz Conservative blogger Mark Richardson points out, Charlie Teo, a Chinese-Singaporean immigrant in Australia, claims Australia needs to become more like New York and should let in far more non-European immigrants to make it a more vibrant and inclusive society. This is in spite of the fact that Australia has one of the highest rates of non-European immigration in the developed world.

Of course, even Teo’s “multicultural” Singapore is only about nine percent Indian, with Han Chinese making up the vast majority of the population. If Teo is so keen on multiculturalism, why doesn’t he get stuck into other Asian nations like Korea and Japan, which have far lower immigration rates than “redneck” Australia.