The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them. More here:


The advocates of mass immigration will say things like “all countries have immigration” or “immigration doesn’t just happen in White, Western countries – it’s a global phenomena”. Such statements are highly deceptive, and yet the vast majority of people simply accept them.

Most people have heard of ‘guest-worker immigration’. This is the immigration system which operates in non-White countries from Africa and Asia to the Middle East.

One of the key features of guest-worker immigration is that immigrants are treated as temporary, economic residents. That is, they are granted permission to stay (i.e. temporary residence) and permission to work for a limited period (e.g. for 10 years on a limited-time visa), after which they are expected to leave.

A second, crucially important, feature of guest-worker immigration is that the total immigrant population always remains the same size, the total immigrant population remains fixed (once the required number of immigrants has been reached.)

The overall immigrant population will always remain the same size whether the immigration process continues for 10 years, 100 years or 1000 years. Furthermore, even if the immigrant population has a large number of births, their children will be returned home with their parents. Guest-worker immigration provides advantages of immigration without greatly affecting the demographic balance of the country deploying it.

Overall, guest-worker immigration is flexible. It makes immigration easy to plan and control. It is easy to increase or decrease the total number of immigrants as the country’s economy fluctuates. And, if desired, the total number of immigrants can be returned to zero – since immigrants neither become citizens nor permanent residents.

Guest-worker immigration treats immigrants as temporary, economic guest-workers right from the start. And, unsurprisingly, it is the most common immigration system in the world. It is the immigration of choice throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East – yet it isn’t deployed in even a single White, Western country.

Overall, citizenship immigration can be characterized by:  

• Endless inward immigration

• No expatriation process for immigrants – only illegal immigrants may be expatriated

• An ever-growing immigrant population

Unlike guest-worker immigration, citizenship immigration always leads to an ever-growing immigrant population because there is no expatriation process to keep the overall immigrant population in balance, almost all immigrants quickly gain the right to permanent residence or citizenship, any children born to them will automatically acquire permanent residence and/or citizenship too.

The total immigrant population will never stop growing because, few, if any, will leave. Most will become permanent residents or citizens, and those who acquire citizenship (including any children they may have) will no longer even be considered immigrants.

One system keeps the immigrant population static and unchanged, whilst the other system leads to rapid growth. Citizenship immigration leads to a rapidly growing immigrant population.

Overall, citizenship immigration creates conditions where the native population will become outnumbered by the immigrant population (i.e become a racial minority). Citizenship immigration has a social engineering component which is absent altogether under guest-worker immigration.  In economic terms, guest-worker immigration is a far more flexible and efficient than citizenship immigration. Under guest-worker immigration, non-working immigrants can be expatriated, older workers are continuously replaced by younger workers, and the immigrant population itself is static – yet it can be intentionally increased or reduced as economically necessary.

Under citizenship immigration, because existing immigrants rarely leave, once the total immigrant population is large enough, it will continue to expand – even if further immigration is stopped altogether!

Citizenship immigrants are necessarily (as citizens) granted access to welfare, social security, pensions, medical and healthcare support, housing benefits and other costly public services. These are clearly additional social costs and overheads which reduce – not increase – the economic benefits available under guest-worker immigration. Indeed, under guest-worker immigration, these social costs and overheads are the privilege of citizens alone – and immigrants are rarely granted citizenship.

Guest-worker immigration leads to an immigrant population which is fixed in size. This makes it easy to plan for. Because the immigrant population is fixed in size, the additional budgeting is relatives small and easy to plan.  Under citizenship immigration, on the other hand – where the vast majority of immigrants will acquire permanent citizenship – the costs will grow rapidly. Overall, there is a vast difference between planning for a fixed, static immigrant population and funding an ever-growing immigrant population.

Under citizenship immigration, non-working immigrants cannot easily be returned home – even if would be economically expedient to do so. Their legally protected ‘right’ to permanent residence and citizenship (in all and only White countries) mean that the immigrant population cannot be reduced without resorting to drastic measures, such as withdrawing permanent residence status or cancelling citizenship – measures which were economically unnecessary in the first place.

Overall, then, there are no economic advantages to offering immigrants citizenship and permanent residence – there are only additional costs and social burdens.

Under guest-worker immigration, the purpose of immigrants is to empower the economy. But under citizenship immigration, the primary function of economics is to endorse, justify, and (if necessary) suffer substantial economic losses for large-scale immigration and demographic engineering.  We can gain an important insight into what has motivated citizenship immigration (rather than guest-worker immigration) by simply looking at which countries have implemented it. When we do, we find that all and only White, Western countries have implemented citizenship immigration.  Why would any country choose an inflexible, economically inferior system of immigration which clearly and demonstrably changes the demographic make-up of the country – especially when a far superior alternative is widely available?

Choosing citizenship immigration over guest-worker immigration makes absolutely no sense – unless radically changing the demographic make-up of your country is the desired result.  We are constantly told that immigration is an “economic necessity” – and yet it’s more expensive, more inflexible and it’s vastly more demographical harmful. White countries alone operate a completely different immigration system to non-White countries. The economic arguments are lies.

These days, demographic decline is a common justification for endless immigration into the West. It would not, therefore, be very surprising if pro-immigration advocates were to argue that the West needs citizenship immigration to prevent the demographic decline of their native White population. On the surface, this appears plausible, yet the ‘demographic decline’ argument has a serious credibility problem.

If citizenship immigration is the tool of choice to combat ‘demographic decline’, then why don’t rich, non-White countries like Israel and Qatar force their people to adopt it?

Qatar, for example, is a country with only 278,000 citizens, yet it has an immigrant population of over 2 million! Yet because Qatar operates a system of guest-worker immigration, the ethnic Qatari population is protected from race-replacement, despite being outnumbered 8 to 1 by immigrants! Qataris are a small statistical minority (compared to the immigrant population) yet their immigrants are temporary guests, not citizens. Qataris will neither become an ethnic minority in Qatar, nor lose their culture or sovereignty. So why should we?

The final nail in the coffin for the ‘demographic decline’ argument, however, is the openly hostile attitude of Western leaders to measures which might boost White birth rates and halt that decline.

When Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, won his country’s election in April 2014, he called for the total cessation of immigration into his country coupled with policies designed to boost native Hungarian birth-rates. The outrage which ensued was as caustic as it was immediate. The EU Minister for Foreign Affairs, Vidar Helgesen (Norway), called for the EU to immediately impose economic sanctions on Hungary.

Thus, in White, Western countries it is the worldview of Mr Helgesen – not Mr Orban – which prevails amongst our leadership. And far from supporting measures which might halt ‘demographic decline’ (in all and only White countries), Western leaders utterly condemn such measures and seek to demonize, ostracize and alienate anyone brave enough to even suggest them.

Indeed, French ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy went even further; stating, on several occasions, that EU countries have a ‘moral obligation’ to engage in race-mixing – and not just accept (citizenship) immigration.

In reality, there are two different systems of immigration, and they have very different outcomes. The ugly truth is that all White, Western countries have been forced to accept one system of immigration whilst all non-White, non-Western countries are free to choose another. So, not only is the idea that there is one, universal system of immigration false, but the outcomes of those systems could not be more divergent and extreme. We have been silenced by wolves justifying biased, one-sided policies as ‘fairness’. Yet there is nothing fair about the outcome they have in mind.  Read more here: 


Whites are so “privileged” and “well-represented” in our society that we aren’t even able to organize as White people, advocate for our interests, and have pride in ourselves without being called racists, bigots, Neo-nazis, white supremacists, haters, and a slew of other pejoratives intended to discredit us.

Prof. Roth points out, however, that both assimilationists and multiculturalists make false assumptions about human nature. Assimilationists believe all races are capable of taking on the behavior patterns necessary to maintain Western civilization; multiculturalists believe radically different groups can live together harmoniously. Both positions fly in the face of overwhelming scientific and historical evidence. The false terms framing public debate therefore require the suppression of information, and the academy, the legal profession, and philanthropic foundations are among the most energetic censors.

Mainstream science has now, for the most part, accepted the evidence that genes influence individual behavior, but it continues to resist genetic explanations for group differences. Terrible pressure is brought to bear on scientists who explore group differences. Prof. Roth recounts the travails of Chris Brand, Bruce Lahn, and James Watson, all of whom have been silenced for discussing race and IQ.

American universities that receive government funding (that is to say, virtually all of them) have “Institutional Review Boards” that approve or block research involving human subjects. Prof. Roth points out that most faculty members who serve on these boards are openly hostile to research that might reveal racial differences, often on the grounds that the results might get into the “wrong” hands.

Hate speech laws restrict public debate. Canadian journalist Mark Steyn notes that if an American writer approaches a publisher with a book criticizing immigration, he will be reminded that it may be illegal to sell it in Canada, and there goes 10 percent of the North American market. French and German translation rights cannot be sold because the book may run afoul of European xenophobia legislation, and a British edition may be impossible because libel laws are so lax that anyone mentioned unfavorably may be able to shut down sales. The result is that such a book may never reach the public, because it may no longer make economic sense to publish it.

Prof. Roth explains that before the Second World War, almost all European immigration took place between the nations of Europe, but since 1945, outsiders have also been coming to Europe. There were two main reasons for this: an acute shortage of manual labor (especially in Germany), and a backflow of subjects from former European colonies.

Germany brought in large numbers of Gastarbeiter or “guest workers” to help rebuild the country in the 1950s. Most came from Southern Europe, and either returned home or integrated, but a large contingent from Turkey neither left nor integrated. In the 1970s, just as the German economy slumped and the demand for labor was drying up, Turkish workers began bringing their families and creating closed communities.

There are now over three million Muslims in Germany, mostly Turks. A government survey in 2004 found that they are becoming more, not less alienated from German society. Mosque attendance is rising, and about 40 percent consider “the use of physical violence as a reaction to the threat presented to Islam by the West as legitimate.” Nearly two-thirds of those aged 14 to 18 report having few or no German friends.

Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Portugal have all accepted many immigrants from their former colonies. The nucleus of France’s large immigrant population was a contingent of 350,000 Algerians who had helped maintain French rule in Algeria. In 1962, after the Algerian war for independence, they sought refuge in France. Many more followed who were in no danger but wanted to live in the West. Within 20 years, there were 800,000 Algerians in France. They are now the core of France’s Muslim population, which is estimated to be 5.7 percent of the country.

Britain, too, has been filling up with non-whites from former colonies, and has admitted a great many refugees. London has become notorious as a place of exile for fanatical clerics that have been kicked out of relatively moderate Islamic countries, such as Egypt and Syria. In 2006, the British Home Office had a backlog of 450,000 asylum cases. All could claim welfare benefits while their cases were pending.

A 2006 report on Islam in Britain found that 84 percent of Muslims acknowledge being treated fairly by British society. This did not prevent 37 percent of younger Muslims from advocating the adoption ofsharia law, nor 36 percent from favoring the death penalty for Muslims who convert to another religion.

Muslims commit a disproportionate amount of crime all over Europe. In British jails they are overrepresented by a factor of 3.67; in France by four to five, and in Germany by six to seven. Rape is a Muslim specialty: in Denmark, where they constitute only 4 percent of the population, Muslims commit more than half the rapes, and almost always rape non-Muslim women.

Europe’s rulers are determined to defend immigration at any cost to their citizens, and have shown themselves capable of breathtaking dishonesty. In 2004, British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared immigration “economically vital” due to “serious worker shortages” — at a time when 72 percent of Muslims in Britain were unemployed, with many on the dole.

European Union bureaucrats are even more mesmerized by immigration than national politicians. Under the recent draft constitution, which French and Dutch voters had the good sense to reject in 2005, immigration policy would have been made in Brussels, and Europeans would have lost all local control over who lives in their countries. Plenty of EU officials view the rejection of this constitution as a temporary setback.

Immigrants to the American Colonies and the early United States made an expensive and dangerous voyage of four to eight weeks to a land that was largely wilderness. Those who completed the journey were bold, enterprising people, quite unlike the average Mexican who walks across a land border into a modern welfare state.

Until 1880, American immigrants came mainly from Northwest Europe. Between 1880 and the early 1920s, a larger share came from Southern and Eastern Europe, particularly Italians, Poles and Jews. In 1924, immigration quotas were passed to ensure that the United States maintained a white majority. Although there were no restrictions on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, few Latin Americans arrived.

By the 1960s, the country’s elites viewed immigration restriction as, in Prof. Roth’s words, “morally compromised” and “inconsistent with American ideals.” The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had banned racial discrimination in employment and public accommodation. It seemed only consistent to let in foreigners without regard to race as well. When the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed the very next year, Pres. Lyndon Johnson piously declared that it repaired a deep and painful flaw in the fabric of American justice. It corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation ... The [former] system violated the basic principle of American democracy — the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores.

By this standard, 58 percent of Americans were cruel and un-American in 1965, for that is how many declared themselves “strongly opposed to easing of immigration law.” Sen. Byrd of West Virginia pointed out that “every other country that is attractive to immigrants practices selectivity (in favor of their founding nationalities) without apology,” and expressed wonderment at America’s “guilt complex.”

The 1965 Act abolished national preferences favoring Europe and set a total limit of 290,000 admissions per year, but also admitted immigrants’ extended families outside the quota. One analyst pointed out that it was possible under the act for a single immigrant to bring in 18 relatives in 10 years.

During the 1950s, 2.5 million immigrants had come to America, with 55 percent from Europe and Canada. In the 1970s, 4.3 million came, and the European-Canadian share dropped to below 25 percent. By 1977, former INS commissioner Leonard Chapman concluded that “we have become the haven for the unemployed of the world. I think it is going to be catastrophic.”

The 1965 Act was surprisingly stingy toward refugees, allotting them a low preference and a maximum 6 percent of admissions, but this has hardly limited the actual flow. By means of a constitutionally dubious “parole power,” presidents have granted entry to 750,000 Cubans and 900,000 Southeast Asians, among others. Once here, refugees have their status “regularized;” in other words, the law is changed so they can stay.

In 1986, amnesty was granted to 3.1 million illegal aliens who had arrived in the country before 1982. By this time, 600,000 people were coming legally every year, so in 1990 Congress formally raised the quota to 700,000. The adjustment of law to reality — rather than the reverse — has become a regular feature of immigration legislation.

The flow continued to increase, reaching one million annually in the 1990s, thanks to the many family reunification arrivals not counted toward the quota. Just 16 percent of the total was now coming from Europe or Canada, and this did not include the estimated 500,000 to 800,000 illegal immigrants who came every year.

Until 1986 it was actually legal to hire illegal aliens. Even now, the law is worded so that an employer need only check to see that an immigrant’s documentation “reasonably appears on its face to be genuine.” In fact, if you ask an Hispanic employee too many questions about his papers, he can sue for discrimination. The 1986 law thus created a thriving market in forged documents. By failing to pass a law requiring employers to use the new, electronic “E-verify” system, Congress has made clear it has no intention of stopping the hiring of illegal aliens.

Perhaps nothing better illustrates the corruption of the immigration system than the history of the H-1B visa program. This was instituted in 1990 to let in 65,000 skilled workers who would fill jobs for which there were not enough American applicants. Eight years later, during the dot-com boom, the computer industry claimed it needed more engineers. Congress raised the limit to 115,000 but promised to cut it back to 65,000 by 2002. Two years later, in 2004, the ceiling officially returned to 65,000, but with so many exemptions that by the following year 266,000 workers got H-1B visas.

The real scandal is that the worker shortage used to justify this program never existed. Prof. Norman Matloff of the University of California at Davis proved with data from numerous studies that even at the height of the dot-com boom there were many qualified Americans who could not get work. “It was clear,” he concluded, “that what the industry wanted was cheap labor.” Prof. Roth quotes several other authorities to confirm this point:


Not even conservatives argue that France is a distinctive biological and cultural entity that should be conserved. That’s not the way we are supposed to think about white countries. Korea? Yes. Ghana? Pakistan? Paraguay? Fine. Those places, like all other non-white nations, have the right to maintain their identities and ways of life.

And what about conserving white people biologically? They are a small minority of the world population–7 or 8 percent–and some of them are breeding with other groups. But anyone who says maybe we should think about the long-term prospects of white people–kind of like the way we do with the Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle–is no longer a conservationist. He’s a white supremacist.

And so there is not one politician–even among the ones who claim to be deeply conservative–who says he wants to conserve the founding stock of this country.

The funny thing about all this is that it’s the Lefties who act as if they had the corner on conservation. They love government power, and they love to boss us around for our own good in the name of the conserving the environment. Why aren’t they all in a flutter about the prospects for white people exactly the way they are in a flutter about the ozone layer? I can see them browbeating us: “Now, you white people have to live over here, and you have to marry among yourselves.” “Remember: it’s for the children.” That’s just the busy-body sort of thing they love.

Until 1965, we had an immigration policy designed to keep the country European.

There is nothing about the idea of United States (, nor other lands settled by or native to Whites) as a nation of Europeans that is inherently a Left-Right type of political question at all. It should be beyond politics, just like conserving the white rhino or keeping Japan Japanese.

The racial mix of the country is not logically implicated at all in the position you take on the size of the government, the welfare state, abortion, the role of women, homosexual marriage, income distribution, foreign policy, public prayer, how you interpret the Constitution, or any other political question.

You can believe in cradle-to-grave welfare or rugged individualism, but be in complete agreement on wanting to keep the country majority-white. Jack London, for example, was very active as a socialist, but was adamantly opposed to a multi-racial America.

So: Why would anyone want to conserve whites as a distinct people, and want them to remain a majority in the United States(, or other lands settled by or native to Whites)? First of all, these questions shouldn’t even have to be answered. If the Navajo were dwindling in numbers or losing their culture, no one would say they didn’t have the right to do something about it. No one would ever ask the Navajo: Why do you care about surviving as a people? Why do you need a homeland? Why not just fade away? If a white person asked those questions it would be the height of racism.

But for white people? It’s the very opposite. The very desire to survive as a distinct people is “racist.”

Europeans created the modern world. Shouldn’t they have the same rights as the tribes of New Guinea: To be left undisturbed?

Survival is the first law, there is no more fundamental instinct than the desire to protect one’s own kind and to want it to flourish.

That’s obvious when we are talking about any group but whites.

The number of Hispanics is growing very quickly in America, and Hispanics are ecstatic about this. It means their language, their culture, their physical type, their heritage, their aspirations are all gaining ground and could eventually dominate the United States. Hispanics want this very much, and they consistently try to change laws and policies to increase their numbers, and benefit their people. This is considered a sign of healthy collective pride.

But if whites tried to delay their dispossession, if whites proposed steps to maintain their majority status, that would be hate and bigotry. Why? More HERE:


For several decades now the American Midwest has suffered from unprecedented economic decay courtesy of a persistent outsourcing of manufacturing jobs in the automotive and steel industries, among others. As we've noted frequently, that economic decay has resulted in a devastating surge in opioid overdoses that claim the lives of 100s of people each year.

Of course, many attribute Trump's staggering victories in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania to his efforts to tap into the frustration of the dispossessed Midwest masses by promising a rebirth of the manufacturing economy that once provided them a solid middle-class lifestyle.

That said, no economic crisis is truly "discovered" until an Ivy League, Nobel-prize-winning economist says it is.  As such, we present to you the intriguing findings of Nobel Laureate Angus Deaton who said he was "looking for something else" when he noticed a staggering increase in white mortality rates for people aged 50-54.  Per Market Watch:

That was the case with landmark research undertaken by Nobel Prize winning economist Angus Deaton. The Princeton economist, working with his wife Anne Case, stumbled on the fact that mortality rates were rising for working-age white Americans since 1999.


We were really looking for something else and then we discovered that, at least among people between 45-54, and even more between 50-54, a decline in mortality, particularly white mortality that had been established for about 100 years had actually stopped or even reversed itself. Whether it has reversed itself or not depends on a bit on your starting point and end point, but the century-long decline in mortality rates that had gone on since the beginning of the 20th century had just stopped and was starting to rise.


For mortality rates to rise instead of fall is extremely rare. It typically takes a war or epidemic for death rates to jump.

Then comes the far more difficult question of 'why' the mortality rates are surging for middle-aged, white men...something Deaton attributes to a bleak job market and stagnant wages...

As to the more difficult question of “why” these deaths are taking pace, Deaton hypothesized that they are tied to a destruction of a way of life for working class Americans that used to exist.


“I’ve been using the analogy of the plains Indians, they had had a life which you might have liked or might not have liked before Europeans came to America and that life was destroyed and was never put back together again. I think we’re seeing that for the American working class over the last 40 or 50 years,” he said in a recent speech.


So we trace this back sort of a long way, and if you look at birth cohorts it is like each successive birth cohort is doing worse. They are more susceptible to these deaths throughout life, and the deaths rise with age more rapidly for younger cohorts, so we’re attracted by this idea that there is a cumulative process going on which is steadily getting worse over time. And, you know, the destruction of the way of life of the white working class is maybe a good way of thinking about this.


One story is just that there has been this slow loss of the white working class life. There has been stagnation in wages for 50 years. If you don’t have a university degree, median wages for those people have actually been going down. So it is just like that model, whereby American capitalism really delivered to people who were not particularly well-educated, seems to be broken.

Of course, pretty much anyone with a grade school education who has lived in Detroit for an extended period of time could have told you everything that Deaton has apparently 'discovered'...but it does sound very official coming from a Princeton economist:


Per pupil spending on non-White students eclipsed spending on White students in the early 1980s and has remained slightly higher ever since.

– School funding is similar across all racial and ethnic groups.

– Racial differences in educational achievement have endured for decades in spite of increased spending on black students.

– If White 15 year olds were counted as a separate group, they would rank 3rd in the world on the PISA among the 34 OECD countries, whereas American Hispanics would score 31st and American blacks would rank 33rd.

– The South is the region with the smallest racial differences in per pupil spending, but more money is actually spent on blacks, Hispanics, and Asians than White students here.

– In the Northeast, $2,000 more dollars is spent on the average black student than on the average White student.


The report would have been much better if Richwine would have included some vital information on the racial gap that exists between taxpayers and tax consumers. No one in Washington ever talks about closing that gap.

I managed to find this:

“When we combine the populations of non-payers and non-filers and look to see what overall percentage of each group is not paying taxes, we find that: 50.7 percent of African American households pay no income taxes, 35.5 percent of Asian American households do not, 37.6 percent of White American households do not, and roughly 52 percent of Hispanics pay no income taxes.”

Whites and Asians also pay far more in total taxes than blacks and Hispanics. Another study recently foundthat the majority of illegal aliens and immigrant households with children in America are on welfare.

62 percent of immigrant households in Arizona, 61 percent in Texas, California and New York, and 59 percent in Pennsylvania are on welfare.

New Rule

In Black Run America, “white privilege” is the privilege that White taxpayers enjoy in paying far more in taxes than blacks and Hispanics, and receiving in return lower rates of per pupil spending on their own children:


Test results speak for themselves. Poland performs well academically because of its human capital. It simply has better biological clay to work with than the other ethnicities that “diversify” classrooms in America and Western Europe. How else to explain not only Poland’s current performance—despite not having the financial muscle of other high achievers—but its long history of past accomplishments? The discoveries of oxygen, vitamins, and heliocentrism, along with advances in radioactivity and much else have their origins in Poland. American textbooks don’t cover these things because space is devoted to telling students about Cesar Chavez.

Not counting the “soft” categories of Peace and Literature, all of Africa has won one Nobel Prize, awarded to an Egyptian chemist who lived and worked in America. All of Latin America has five. Poland’s number is hard to pin down because of its turbulent history and shifting borders (some winners credited to Poland were ethnically German or Russian), but even under the most restrictive accounting, the number is seven: more than Africa and Latin America combined.

The Polish educational system gets great results because it educates Poles and not Somalis, Guatemalans or Bangladeshis. More here:


As someone who has campaigned for an end to mass immigration and for the compulsory repatriation of non-White immigrants, I am very familiar with the National Front and one time British National Party slogan, ‘Stop immigration, start repatriation!’ and have lost count of the number of times I have heard liberals and leftists argue that repatriation in particular, is impractical, cannot be countenanced on humanitarian grounds and would make Britain a pariah state in the eyes of the ‘international community’, thereby attracting penal and potentially crippling trade sanctions.

The liberals and leftists argue that; the ‘international community’ would not just stand by and let Britain conduct a programme as ‘inhumane’ as the repatriation of non-White immigrants; the nations from which the immigrants originated might not be prepared to take the immigrants back; and there would be uproar nationally as the majority of the British people would find such a measure unacceptable. So, what is the truth of the matter?

In recent months, we have seen two nations, Saudi Arabia and Israel, begin the repatriation of tens of thousands of immigrants that have entered their countries illegally. Furthermore the countries from whence these immigrants came, have accepted their compatriots back and there has hardly been a squeak from the ‘international community’. More here:


Mass immigration ‘Ponzi scheme’: (For example,) over the last 12 years, Australia’s annual net overseas migration has tripled from its long-term average to 210,000 people per year.

Our cities are bursting at the seams, roads and services are congested, and house prices are skyrocketing — particularly in Sydney and Melbourne, which attract the lion’s share of “new Australians”.

Over the last 12 years, Sydney has added 20 per cent to its population, or 800,000 people. Melbourne has added one million people over the same period, or 27 per cent.

According to state government projections, Sydney will add another 1.7 million people over the next 20 years, which works out to 87,000 people a year, or 1650 people per week. Melbourne is forecast to add 97,000 people per year, or around 1870 people per week, for the next 35 years.

“It’s clearly unsustainable,” said Leith van Onselen, chief economist with Macro Business. 

According to Mr van Onselen, dubbed the “Unconventional Economist”, Howard “effectively ran a bait-and-switch policy”.

“He opened the floodgates on people coming by plane,” he said.

“Howard never articulated why he was doing that, he just did it, and unfortunately the following governments, Rudd, Gillard, #Abbott and now Turnbull, just followed.”

Mr van Onselen, who is one of the few public commentators calling for a national debate about Australia’s annual migration intake, says there is now “tri-partisan support” between the Liberals, Labor and even the Greens to not discuss the issue.

Behind the scenes, the “growth lobby” of retailers, the banking sector, the property industry and “erroneously named think tanks” all push the “growth-ist agenda”.

Late last year, high-profile entrepreneur Dick Smith came out in support of Pauline Hanson, warning that Australia would be “destroyed” if One Nation’s immigration policies weren’t taken seriously:

WATCH, Johnny White Rabbit - White Countries For Everyone - White GeNOcide Project, here: