We should therefore welcome the immigrants?

No one living in Britain is truly British, scientists have said after finding that the builders of Stonehenge were nearly totally replaced by European immigrants.

The original indigenous Brits were near totally replaced by immigrants.

The aim and purpose of life is to have offspring wh go on to have offspring.

We should welcome a new wave of immigration why?

210 comments on “We should therefore welcome the immigrants?

  1. Given that ‘Britain’ as a political idea or nation didn’t exist for four thousand years after this migration I can’t quite see what the Telegraph is trying to say here.

  2. Surely they weren’t replaced so much as integrated ; someone of British descent (e.g. not a recent immigrant or their descendant) is going to be a mix of the numerous people who have settled / invaded over the years ?

  3. @Paul:

    “Surely they weren’t replaced… ”

    “…scientists find as Stonehenge builders were replaced by European immigrants.”

  4. It’s also the other way round: immigrants fearing their culture is being swamped or corrupted by exposure to Western freedoms, independent women etc.
    They attack us because they fear us. They fear we might be right and win.

    Don’t know the way to solve this of course.

  5. MB

    Don’t know the way to solve this of course.

    A voluntary repatriation scheme would be a start…. Then:
    A ban on new mosques and closure of any mosque found to harbour terrorist sympathisers…internment of the 20,000 known terrorist sympathisers, pending cancellation of their UK passports.

    #1492

  6. One of the ironies unappreciated by those who wish to elevate ethnic cleansing over prosperity and services as policy objectives, is that FOM actually increased the ethnic domination of Englishness in England .
    This is because those appalling German teachers, French Financiers academics and investors who M. O . R.O . N. ( Bonds next foe) want to get rid of, speak English rather well .
    So well, in fact, that their children go to school, with my children and are as English as , lets us say Michael ( the cunt ) Portillo or the Queen .
    In many ways this generation are more English than the average Brexit voters who has no interest in our culture, Literature or history all of which only “experts” discuss and “experts “ as we know just make it all up.
    It may seem to you that naturalised illiterate child brides from the Hindus valley is the way to go with this migrant thing but I do think social coherence is an issue myself Actually I somewhat resent people who turn up a student’s get married and just never go home ….like Gisela ( the equal opportunity cunt ) Stuart.
    So , let us summarise . You apes have voted to make us poorer , to swap paying customers for some yarn spun by Boris( the cunt ) Johnson and to make England less English , in your wanking thick petulant spasm about the overmighty EU (dispersing 0.5% of our GDP ) to haveno check whosoever on a selected executive dispersing 40% odd, of it , currently lead by a PM who could not win an election against an IRA supporting sixth from Communist in a joke beard …..oh god that really happened.

    Wankers .

  7. No one living in Britain is truly British

    It’s Science™, bigots!*

    *Except for all those black Roman centurions Mary Beard gets moist imagining, suspiciously negroid Victorians and Medievals the BBC wants to show your kids, and curry-scented, hygienically-different Pakistanis, of course – they’re 100% British and how dare you

  8. As to ‘replaced’, they were and they weren’t:

    The men were killed and the women taken as prizes, so some genes survived… so that’s ok then..

  9. The success of invaders depends on superior force initially but also skill sets eg Romans, British Empire. The current wave of hostile colonists are culturally aggressive but should they gain the upper hand they’ll be like the Vandals or Visigoths trying to resurrect the Western empire without understanding how it worked. In which case the “United” Kingdom will fragment into a series of stans and a fractious countryside.

  10. The original indigenous Brits were near totally replaced by immigrants.

    The original indigenous Canadians and Americans were near totally replaced by immigrant groups that are today erroneously called First Nations (Canada) and Native Americans. The originals had to migrate farther and farther south.

  11. Newmania

    Just keep bending over to be be tag-teamed up the Gary by Juncker and Mutti Merkel with her strap-on you fvcking remoaner gimp

  12. Gamecock,

    We were introduced to our prospective son-in-law this evening. A supposed Scotsman, though he doesn’t drink Scotch. He managed to work the word vibrator into our chat which was pretty impressive.

  13. Jonathan – indeed. We’re more or less at that bit in THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH where NICE isn’t bothering to hide the agenda anymore.

  14. Man can’t be indigenous to Britain: ice sheets determined that. What dross! Poltically-motivated dross.

    The interesting question is what happened to the neolithic population. Options include (i) slaughtered, (ii) perished of new infectious diseases, (iii) there were few of them anyway, which would be consistent with the prior decline in their arable farming, their switch to pastoralism, and the sparse archaeological traces of their existence late on.

    It rather reminds me of the case of the Romano-Britons when the Germans and Gaels invaded: there is a remarkable scarcity of archaeological evidence that they still existed in any numbers. Modern DNA suggests they did, or at least suggested that ten or twenty years ago. But why so little archaeology?

  15. The Facepainting Fuckwit returns to shower us–like a tank of stale old piss– with his “wisdom”..

    In so far as any coherent thread can be gained from his womiccumalobus rantings it seems he wants us to be ethnically cleansed by white(ish) Eurotrash rather than Hindu peasants–who are rather less numerous and less trouble than the beardy cause of our woes. As the self-serving arsehole well knows.

    We voted to get our country back Facepaint. You voted for the treasonous betrayal of everything except your wallet. It is shame we can’t string you up as treason has always been answered by the noose in this nation. But if you and your scummy pals keep pushing that will change.

    And change is coming as Grandpa Death himself declared.

    Just not the kind of change you and he are hoping for.

  16. “The original indigenous Brits were near totally replaced by immigrants.”

    I presume the point is to say “we’re immigrants too”, so if you want to get rid of immigrants, that means us as well. The deeper point, which you’re supposed to realise when the implication above has sunk in, is that nationalist distinctions are arbitrary and meaningless; the result of invented culture and historical accident. You had might as well divide people along lines of birth town, or regional accent, or religion, or blood group, or where they live, where they work, where they shop, or which labour union they belong to or what football team they support.

    Build a wall around your town, and call anyone moving into it from a neighbouring town an “immigrant”. Does that sound like an economically sensible thing to do? What if so many new workers come into the city from the countryside that the original inhabitants are swamped? Their culture replaced? Their gene pool diluted? That happened to London after the industrial revolution, and look what happened to them! Wouldn’t you rather be isolated like Norfolk?.

    This is pure protectionism. The argument being made is that the outsiders are competition, who may end up replacing our businesses and methods, who may threaten our jobs. The protectionist instinct is always to maintain the status quo by raising barriers to outside competition. Whether that’s the Luddites trying to ban automation, or the labour unions trying to ban non-union labour from their closed shops. The economic flaw is the same.

    “We should welcome a new wave of immigration why?”

    Because we claim to believe in the benefits of free trade.

    The *only* valid issue with modern immigration is the Islam thing – which of course is a matter of religion and not nationality, so distinctions on nationalist grounds are aiming at the wrong target. Islam is an illiberal belief system (as are a fair number of home-grown creeds, but they’re perhaps a bit more organised and inflexible about it). The problem is illiberality. So classic liberal American immigrants and Australian immigrants, and Canadian immigrants and so on should be welcome.

    The questions you should be asking people at the border are not what nationality you are, but do you believe in free trade, in free speech, in freedom of belief? Do you respect the need for law and order, and intend to make your living by legal enterprise and fair competition? Do you believe in letting other people live their lives how they like, without interference or regulation or bans from people like you? And not just foreigners at the border, either!

    Where you’re born, or what colour your skin is, or on which side you part your hair are utterly irrelevant to the economic contribution you can make. They’re all humans, just like us. Just as they are when they come from Birmingham or Newcastle.

  17. We’re all humans, maaaaaan. So bringing a bunch of Pakistanis into Rotherham can’t possibly cause any problems.

    Wait, what?

  18. “I see you’re a stupid tedious arsehole bore about other things,”

    What, you don’t like free trade, either?! 😉

    “So bringing a bunch of Pakistanis into Rotherham can’t possibly cause any problems.”

    That’s the Group A Group B trick again. You *know* I know about it, you know it’s been repeatedly pointed out as a stupid fallacy – so why would you make yourself look stupid using it again?

    We’ve seen from Harvey Weinstein and Jimmy Saville & Co. what happens when you let successful white men into a town. Same logic applies, yes?

  19. the point is to say “we’re immigrants too”, so if you want to get rid of immigrants, that means us as well.

    Oh dear, the discredited “nation of immigrants” trope! After the Norman Conquest, England remained racially and culturally homogenous for 900+ years.

  20. “After the Norman Conquest, England remained racially and culturally homogenous for 900+ years.”

    Huguenots? British Empire? Slave trade?

    1966+…?!

  21. I see you’re a stupid tedious arsehole bore about other things, not just men wearing dresses.

    Paraphilias are like Pringles. Pervy folks usually don’t have just one, they have a whole closetful.

    Makes sense that the autogynephile is also a cuckold.

  22. …nationalist distinctions are arbitrary and meaningless; the result of invented culture and historical accident….Where you’re born, or what colour your skin is…are utterly irrelevant to the economic contribution you can make.

    Distinctions between nations are not “arbitrary and meaningless”, but real and historical.

    Culture isn’t “invented” but develops organically through the complex interactions of circumstance, experience, genes, institutions….And it embodies the wisdom and prejudices of previous generations…

    Economic contribution isn’t everything – though, granted, most migrants to the UK are parasites.

    And, importantly, traits like kindness, violence, respect for the rule of law, tolerance, criminality etc etc – and the genes that underlie these traits — are not evenly and randomly distributed in the global population.

    So mass immigration has unpleasant consequences for a civilised host nation. Not the least of which is the loss of community and trust.

    Your vision of an atomised, multi-culti, multi-racial, gender-fluid, low trust society would turn out to be a nightmare. And the lack of trust would rapidly undermine the free market. See low trust societies for confirmation….

  23. “Paraphilias are like Pringles. Pervy folks usually don’t have just one, they have a whole closetful.”

    Really? How many do you have? Besides the squirrels?

  24. That’s the Group A Group B trick again. You *know* I know about it, you know it’s been repeatedly pointed out as a stupid fallacy – so why would you make yourself look stupid using it again?

    Ah, so you don’t believe in group differences among humans. Those Pakistani blokes in Rotherham clearly disagree.

    To paraphrase Trotsky: You may not be interested in tribalism, but tribalism is interested in you!

  25. “Distinctions between nations are not “arbitrary and meaningless”, but real and historical.”

    Lots of things that are historical are arbitrary and meaningless.

    “Culture isn’t “invented” but develops organically through the complex interactions of circumstance, experience, genes, institutions”

    Err, yes. Culture is invented collectively, through complex interactions between people, by those people. And is being continually reinvented, too.

    “Economic contribution isn’t everything – though, granted, most migrants to the UK are parasites.”

    Most migrants are more economically productive than the average natives – Julian Simon debunked this one back in the 1980s.

    http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/

    And if “parasites” is what you object to, then let’s get rid of the British-born parasites, too!

    “And, importantly, traits like kindness, violence, respect for the rule of law, tolerance, criminality etc etc – and the genes that underlie these traits — are not evenly and randomly distributed in the global population. “

    Crap. Modern liberal society didn’t exist until recently. If there were genes for it, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill wouldn’t have had to invent it.

    It’s all about culture and economics. People have to *learn* civilisation, and they’ll only conform to it if it’s economically beneficial to them.

    And genetically, there’s a lot more variation within a nation than there is between nations. This “racial purity” “Aryan master race” shit went out of fashion in 1945.

    “So mass immigration has unpleasant consequences for a civilised host nation. Not the least of which is the loss of community and trust.”

    Uh. Huh. And when the British invaded half the world and created the British Empire, that resulted in a loss of community and trust in those nations? Or did it result in rapidly advancing civilisation, technology, health, culture, and economic development?

    You’re an anti-colonialist, now?

    “Your vision of an atomised, multi-culti, multi-racial, gender-fluid, low trust society would turn out to be a nightmare.”

    What, you consider classic liberalism to be a “nightmare”? Well, if you’re an authoritarian wanting to stamp your bootprint on society, I guess it would be.

  26. “Ah, so you don’t believe in group differences among humans. Those Pakistani blokes in Rotherham clearly disagree.”

    Are you being deliberately obtuse? Of course I believe in group differences! What I don’t believe in is attacking people for the *wrong* differences, where they’re irrelevant to the real issue.

    Strawman again.

  27. I’ll ask again NiV–how many Jihadis has your personal friendly persuasion converted to the Rainbow cause?

    Ask ’em at the border if they are going to behave and be good. That’ll work like gangbusters that will.

  28. “I’ll ask again NiV–how many Jihadis has your personal friendly persuasion converted to the Rainbow cause?”

    None, obviously. Because hatred of the rainbow cause is a defining characteristic of jihadis. Do you feel comfortable with the company you’re keeping, there?

  29. I do get fed up with the deliberate conflation of race and culture.
    A person can learn to act like a Briton wherever in the world he was born and whatever his race.
    It is of course easy or hard according to what he learnt before coming here.
    Some don’t want to. We have no reason to accept them.

  30. Yes, Britain has had many waves of invasions, which have either integrated or replaced the incumbents. I don’t suppose the incumbents welcomed it though. I would expect that most of them fought like fuck to retain what they had. I fully expect us to do the same rather than welcoming the invaders with open arms. Nowadays it’s not pikes, clubs and latterly, muskets, but political argument to try to do that. To disparage people who want to keep their own society in face of cultural and bodily invasion seems to me to be unreasonable.

    I guess if the political discourse route proves fruitless then we may see the modern equivalent of the pike/club approach taking off.

  31. NiV: Thanks for the admission.

    This “keeping company” crapola is a common fantasy of yours. For the record I don’t think much of a spectrum of sexual goings on a personal level but as I have said ad naus. etc so long as it is all volunteers I don’t really care. If they don’t bother me –I wont bother them. I don’t think much of your weird pals and will never endorse them or their antics. That does not put me in sympathy with a bunch of stabby, rapey imports and their leftist allies. The fact that your stabby rapey pals also don’t like the Rainbow gang –and want to murder them–does not align me with either cause. I hope they both lose. The big R’s remaining frustrated in their plans to invade the ladies etc and the stabby rapers keeping out and hopefully deciding to go home as well. They can stab and rape and dine on human flesh in their own shitholes not over here.

  32. “Most migrants are more economically productive than the average natives – Julian Simon debunked this one back in the 1980s.”

    There’s a huge difference between migration to unsubsidised work, which is welcome, and the migration onto long-term welfare that’s currently being advocated in the name of “open borders”, which is not. Open borders has long existed in most parts of the world for those who can demonstrate that they are self supporting; it’s the extension to people who are not self-supporting that is so damaging.

  33. “To disparage people who want to keep their own society in face of cultural and bodily invasion seems to me to be unreasonable.”

    It’s not unreasonable, just counterproductive.

    Protectionism has a long history – up until the post-industrial development of economics, it was pretty much universal. That’s why the world was such a shit-hole up until the last 400 years or so.

    But it’s a problem that *every* generation has faced. Culture changes. The Victorians were shocked at their children’s behaviour, and they were shocked at Elvis Presley and the swinging sixties, and they were shocked at the 1980s Mary Whitehouse experience, and of course the current generation are shocked at gays and trans walking around as if they had nothing to be ashamed of. The current generation will face the same thing when *their* children grow up.

    Every generation rebels against their parent’s fuddy duddy ways, and changes society, and their parents suffer culture shock and alienation. It’s nothing new.

    It’s not ‘unreasonable’, it’s certainly very predictable, but resistance is ultimately futile. You can’t stop society changing. It always has. It always will.

  34. “There’s a huge difference between migration to unsubsidised work, which is welcome, and the migration onto long-term welfare that’s currently being advocated in the name of “open borders”, which is not.”

    Agreed. So get rid of long-term welfare.

  35. “You can’t stop society changing. It always has. It always will.”

    Correct. But that doesn’t mean things are going to go your way. Your foolery however will help some very bad people gain ascendancy.

    Terrible as the future might be one of the high spots would be witnessing what the McNasty’s of the world will do in the face of any of the nonsense from you. I’d bet on the steel-hardened cadre. In fact I’d probably try to obtain your teeth and have them put in a block of clear plastic as a souvenir. If such a thing as clear plastic still exists once socialism gets on the job.

  36. “Agreed. So get rid of long-term welfare.”

    But you need to get rid of long-term welfare BEFORE you open the borders to admit all the extra voters who will vote to preserve it. Few people if any object to immigrants who pay their way; I think that may be a straw man. The concern that people express has been over those who don’t.

  37. “Correct. But that doesn’t mean things are going to go your way. Your foolery however will help some very bad people gain ascendancy.”

    Things are definitely not going to go my way – one set of very bad people are being replaced with another set. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  38. “But you need to get rid of long-term welfare BEFORE you open the borders to admit all the extra voters who will vote to preserve it.”

    They’re already here, and they’re mostly British. They’re the voters who created it in the first place.

  39. I guess if the political discourse route proves fruitless then we may see the modern equivalent of the pike/club approach taking off.

    Probably. Things that can’t last, don’t.

    The attempted circle-squaring of State-imposed celebration of what Freud called polymorphous perversity and State-imposed veneration of economically inactive barbarian tribesmen whose religion tells them to kill anyone who even seems a bit poofy can’t last.

  40. “The attempted circle-squaring of…”

    About as long as the circle squaring of hating on anyone a bit poofy while opposing the Islamist conservatives saying and doing exactly the same thing…

  41. So we’ve got a ton of crappy layabouts who, because their ancestors arrived before the Empire Windrush, have a plausible claim to being British.

    But they’re crap. Awful undesirables. Why not kick them out? *

    I’m sympathetic to that but would need to hear about practicalities. Bernie Grant’s shade might assist.

    In the meantime, why invite more?

    * isn’t that what we did with Oz?

    PS. NiV, “They’re mostly British”. Hm. Well, yeah, because the indigenous population is still, just mostly British. Do we have data on the proportion of indigenous Brit layabouts by contrast with the proportion of layabouts from outre mer? If we do, can we control for the depression and demotivation caused to the indigenous potential layabouts by an invading force which may or may not be layaboutish?

    PPS, sure, let’s get rid of compulsory welfare. I’m all for that.

    PPPS, a personal request, since I’m a delicate thing with a low tolerance for bad prose and unwieldy paragraph: can our resident trolls and others, if they wish to be read, consider the audience.

  42. So! We’re agreed: we’re all gonna kill each other.

    Would it have happened without has immigration?

  43. “I’m not. You are.”

    Pared your nonsense down to four words. That is about as good as it is likely to get.

    Gonna put your saved teeth on a shelf next to a little candle.

    Not as a shrine to NiV. But as a shrine for all the good his perverse stupidity helped destroy.

  44. “Lots of things that are historical are arbitrary and meaningless.”

    That statement is vague to the point of almost being meaningless. Historical outcomes are often based on the rational choices of people; so said outcomes are not arbitrary.

    “Culture is invented collectively”

    You are equivocating with the meaning of ‘invented’. Collectives do not invent, individuals do. As more individuals adopt an invention, a social practice emerges and in time this can become a tradition.

    “Julian Simon debunked this one back in the 1980s.”

    At best, only with respect to European immigration into the US. Simon was a jew; and, given Jewish history, Jews generally feel safer in multi-ethnic societies with other rootless cosmopolitans…

    “And if “parasites” is what you object to, then let’s get rid of the British-born parasites, too!”

    Our parasites are ours. And we have enough parasites: we don’t need to import more.

    “Crap. Modern liberal society didn’t exist until recently. If there were genes for it, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill wouldn’t have had to invent it.”

    Liberal society in England has been emerging from (at least) the 12th century. It was not invented by Bentham and Mill. See the minor classic, ‘The Origins of English Individualism’ by Alan Macfarlane. Or, more generally, Larry Siedentop’s ‘Inventing the Individual: the origins of western liberalism’. Like so many ‘libertarians’, you are prone to invent your own cod history of ideas.

    “And genetically, there’s a lot more variation within a nation than there is between nations.”

    Lewontin’s fallacy. What matters is the variation in certain key genes, not the overall variation. So certain mutations on the MAOA gene predispose the owner to violence and anti-social behaviour. These mutations are up to 20 times more prevalent in blacks than in NW europeans – which helps to explain why Africa is largely a shithole and why blacks tend to sink to the bottom of any society they join.

    “And when the British invaded half the world and created the British Empire, that resulted in a loss of community and trust in those nations?”

    The British often created the nations, bequeathed them functioning institutions, and governed them with about 6000 functionaries. Annexation and colonisation are not invasion.

    “What, you consider classic liberalism to be a “nightmare”?”

    You aren’t a classic liberal in the manner of Locke and Mill. You are a libertarian – one who imagines that liberty trumps all other values and who cannot see that a civilised society requires trade-offs between liberty and other goals and values.

  45. “In the meantime, why invite more?”

    Because Free Trade.

    “PPPS, a personal request, since I’m a delicate thing with a low tolerance for bad prose and unwieldy paragraph: can our resident trolls and others, if they wish to be read, consider the audience.”

    trolls want to write more than we want to be read. 🙂

    As I’ve said before, if you don’t want to discuss it, don’t discuss it. Given the amount of argument I get, from people who clearly have mostly read what I write, I assume you all *do* want to discuss it.

    Free speech is largely about debating ideas, rather than automatically accepting whatever is currently ‘politically correct’ in the community you’re engaging with. Sometimes that requires extended explanation. I think sometimes when people complain about long posts, they’re mainly complaining about the disagreement.

  46. Edward – I hope not (the killing bit). Though we are effectively in a low level state of war already given that sporadic massacres of the indigenous population are now an annual tradition in Britain every time the moon cult celebrates its lunar festival.

    The police can keep responding by attempting to kettle the English, but this simply isn’t sustainable. Internal contradictions have a way of coming to a head, and this is an enormous, legitimacy-eroding contradiction for the State. Brexit wasn’t a one-off fluke.

    Clearly, heterogeneous societies give birth to homogeneous ones – one way or t’other. It’s how we ended up with more-or-less-nation states in the first place.

    The hopeful news is that the same cheap mass transportation technology that brought us the dubious enrichment of Diversity can also work in reverse. Europe circa the Battle of Tours only had more primitive and murdery options available.

  47. ” Collectives do not invent, individuals do.”

    Of course collectives invent! Invention is just creating something new.

    “Simon was a jew; and, given Jewish history, Jews generally feel safer in multi-ethnic societies with other rootless cosmopolitans…”

    Yeah. Funny that.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

    “Our parasites are ours.”

    On what basis? Speak for yourself. They’re not mine.

    ” What matters is the variation in certain key genes, not the overall variation. So certain mutations on the MAOA gene predispose the owner to violence and anti-social behaviour.”

    Crap. Black kids adopted and brought up by white families grow up with white levels of criminality and anti-social behaviour. (Witness Barack Obama.) White kids brought up by white trash parents are criminal and violent. It’s culture, not genetics.

    “These mutations are up to 20 times more prevalent in blacks than in NW europeans – which helps to explain why Africa is largely a shithole and why blacks tend to sink to the bottom of any society they join.”

    Bollocks. The Egyptians were building pyramids two thousand years before we were painting ourselves with woad.

    “The British often created the nations, bequeathed them functioning institutions, and governed them with about 6000 functionaries. Annexation and colonisation are not invasion.”

    Yeah. Right.

    “You aren’t a classic liberal in the manner of Locke and Mill. You are a libertarian – one who imagines that liberty trumps all other values and who cannot see that a civilised society requires trade-offs between liberty and other goals and values.”

    So says *every* authoritarian.

  48. @ Solid Steve 2
    The African Roman soldiers were, like Othello, from Morocco, or Algeria or Tunisia (the latter being pretty much the Roman province of “Africa” – “black” YMBJ. In “Othello”, he talks to Desdemona about seeing black people – extraordinary and Shakespeare leaves his audience to wonder whether he’s making it up. Mary Beard is too intelligent to say that the soldiers were black – she just allows the stupod journalists to say so.

  49. fuck… a thread where both newmania and niv are commenting. At least in disproves that niv is a monomaniacal cunt as he/she/it can bore on 2 subjects. Can’t wait till the goat fuckers cultural enrich it/she/he.

  50. @ Newmania
    Morons who lap up the lie that HM is German not English seem to forget that she had a mother, who was mostly English, part Scots: Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the daughter of the Earl of Strathmore, a grandmother who was born and raised in England, half-English, half-German by descent, and a Danish great-grandmother. HM is more than half-English, with the largest minority being Scots, then Danish, then German.

    If you want to be listened to, try getting your checkable facts straight.

  51. Solid S, I hope you’re right. I was making a rhetorical point about your logical impasse with NiV.

    Then I posited what I think was the next logical question.

    Too much logic. That’s often suspicious.

  52. “fuck… a thread where both newmania and niv are commenting.”

    Gosh! You mean people are actually allowed to disagree with you?!

    “At least in disproves that niv is a monomaniacal cunt”

    Thanks!

  53. “Morons who lap up the lie that HM is German not English seem to forget that she had a mother, who was mostly English…”

    Heh! Brilliant!

  54. NiV: invite more, because free trade?

    Because people are like cars and bananas, consumed and then defecated?

    Question: why isn’t your focus on the destruction of compulsory welfare before it’s on the destruction of opposition to those who may benefit from it?

  55. @ Newmania
    Actually, I voted “Remain” but I can understand why the North-East voted “Leave” – a “Remainer” minister told it that it couldn’t protect the Redcar steelworks from unfair competition due to EU rules. This was after the EU rules (and Russian factory trawlers) had wrecked their fishing industry. They didn’t vote “Leave” to make themselves poorer but to stop other people hundreds of miles away taking away their jobs.

    You are a foul-mouthed little liar.

  56. “Because people are like cars and bananas, consumed and then defecated?”

    The trade in human labour follows the same principles as every other market.

    “Question: why isn’t your focus on the destruction of compulsory welfare before it’s on the destruction of opposition to those who may benefit from it?”

    It is. but we agree on that point, so I don’t have to argue about it.

  57. Black kids adopted by white families grow up with the same levels of criminality . . . Etc.

    Can the same be said of Sinic kids?

    Moreover, why need it be said of black kids? Because black parents lead them into criminal ways?

    No, wait, don’t tell me. It’s my fault. Right?

  58. The trade in human labour … etc.

    NiV, that’s one thing you’re missing. People are not cars. Or bananas. Import a person, you’re importing much more than a worker. Assuming he works.

    And whilst we may agree on the importance of the destruction of compulsory welfare, I’m unpersuaded that you prioritise it over the destruction of opposition to those who may benefit from it.

  59. “Can the same be said of Sinic kids?”

    Different culture – they tend to be more civilised than white kids – as do Jews.

    “Moreover, why need it be said of black kids? Because black parents lead them into criminal ways?”

    The problem is black culture (or more precisely, a particular culture of entitled rebelliousness, gangs, drugs, the glorification of criminality, welfare dependency, and social irresponsibility that is particularly prevalent among blacks but also appears in white poverty). My point is it’s black culture, not black genes. Plenty of whites have the same problem.

  60. “Import a person, you’re importing much more than a worker.”

    Yes. You’re importing a consumer! Who thereby creates jobs!

    “And whilst we may agree on the importance of the destruction of compulsory welfare, I’m unpersuaded that you prioritise it over the destruction of opposition to those who may benefit from it.”

    You misunderstand. The problem is compulsory welfare.
    Economically, it is the *only* problem here. I don’t oppose the immigration (or the continued existence) of those who benefit from it. I don’t support the ‘destruction’ of those who might benefit from it (British or foreign) at all.

    If free money is on offer, it’s rational to try to grab it. You’d have to be insane not to. That’s how economics works. The problem is putting free money on offer, not that people try to grab it.

  61. NiV, you’re dodging a shedload of home truths with that last comment.

    Let’s start with why is black culture the way you describe it as being …

  62. @ Jonathan
    Yes, but the EDF is proscribed for doing so in a provocative manner.
    OTOH, let’s replace the EDF with civilised immigrants: the immigrants that I meet are preferable to them (the first immigrant I met was a Polish RAF pilot who married a WREN in 1944).

  63. @ NiV
    We have over a million unemployed on the counting standards that applied in the ’50s when unemployment fell below the 2% that the brilliant economists said was a lower limit (“frictional unemployment while workers move between jobs and seasonal unenployment of seasonal workers such as Father Christmas, professional cricketers, fruitpickers, holiday entertainers, etc).

    So the benefit from an immigrant is [value of work done – wages – value of work that would have been done by unemployed Brit + wages that would have been paid – unrmployment benefit paid to unemployed Brit]. we benefit *only* from those for whom that sum is positive. There are hundreds of thousands for whom the sum is negative. It is not difficult to understand this – so why don’t *you*?

  64. “Let’s start with why is black culture the way you describe it as being”

    It’s for the same reason we tell ‘Irish’ jokes. Immigrants who immigrate seeking economic opportunity tend to be from poor and economically unsuccessful cultures, and take a generation or two to adopt and integrate. The Irish navvies immigrated to England, and were famously stupid and uneducated and criminal. It wasn’t because of their black genes.

    “The only valid argument about immigration is *Housing*. We have a housing crisis”

    Bollocks. We only have a ‘housing crisis’ because councils ration the issue of planning permission, to keep house prices deliberately high, because middle class Tory voters have most of their life earnings invested in their houses and would be pretty pissed off if they got plunged into negative equity while simultaneously discovering that they had worked a lifetime of wage-slavery for nothing.

    Houses cost about £50k to build. In a free market, that’s what they’d cost to buy. All the rest is government policy. Without the planning laws, everyone would be about £100k-200k richer. Just think what you could buy for £100k…

  65. “So the benefit from an immigrant is [value of work done – wages – value of work that would have been done by unemployed Brit + wages that would have been paid – unrmployment benefit paid to unemployed Brit]”

    You’ve missed out that the immigrant is a consumer. They live in a house, eat food, drive a car, buy goods, that people have to produce, which therefore creates the jobs needed to produce them.

    More precisely, the economic benefit is decided by how much people produce versus how much they consume. If people are willing to produce more for less consumption, that makes everyone else richer. And that’s what immigrants generally do, and why they’re preferentially employed.

    “we benefit *only* from those for whom that sum is positive.”

    The balance is positive for more immigrants than for British.

    If your argument is that people should only be allowed to be members of our society if their societal balance is positive, then fine. Make that your rule, and dispose of the British people who don’t meet your criterion the same way you do the foreigners.

    But if you want to complain about the foreigners taking more than they give, but not the British, then you’re a lying weasel hypocrite who is using the economic argument as a false, sloppy excuse for your nationalism. Either people taking more from society than they give back is a problem, in which case it is for the British too, or it’s not. you can’t have it both ways. Nationality is utterly irrelevant.

  66. England is not a people parking lot for the benefit of the taxation department.
    If lots of inhabitants don’t want lots of foreigners imported =We ignore them and invent ‘Hate’ crimes.?

  67. “If lots of inhabitants don’t want lots of foreigners imported”

    Lots of inhabitants don’t want lots of other inhabitants. Suppose we note that the left wing inhabitants don’t want any right-wing inhabitants to stay in the country? (Which I think a fair number do, only they’d go a lot further…) Do we therefore deport all the right-wingers? Do you see where this line of thinking leads?

    In 1933, a lot of Germans decided they didn’t want the Jews around any more. Is that where you are? Is that where you want to go?

  68. The first migrants did do some work. Some imports are doctors etc–which removes them from their own country. But overall they are increasingly non-workers and not willing or even able to work. Were the subletting charmers in Grenfell ( most of whom were unlikely to have burned as they weren’t living there) who had 1500 to 2000 a month being paid by taxpayers for their rent an asset to this country? Are the million rumpkins imported into Germany who have found 50 to 100 jobs between them–in between outrages–an asset? The Swedish Grenade-Throwers Club?

    “Make that your rule, and dispose of the British people who don’t meet your criterion the same way you do the foreigners.”

    No –fuck off. The may be scum and wasters but they are my folk–my kin–my tribe. I might put some harsh measures on them to punish them for the shit they do. But they will get vastly more slack than some shower of unwanted imports. Get that NiV–my tribe. You are a rootless twat and a fool who–if it came to it–would discover that your dear buddies will never regard you as more than a shit-eating white kafir.

  69. “But overall they are increasingly non-workers and not willing or even able to work.”

    So stop paying them and the problem goes away.

    “No –fuck off. The may be scum and wasters but they are my folk–my kin–my tribe.”

    Every living thing on the planet is your kin.

    But ‘your tribe’, sure. It’s not the ‘British’ tribe any more, though. The British have moved on since 1933.

  70. “Lots of inhabitants don’t want lots of other inhabitants.”

    And you don’t want to find me walking around your fucking living room. But I’ll do that regardless of what you fucking want and I’ll call bluebottles to give you a kicking if you don’t knuckle under. And that is supposedly fine with you–only when it’s NOT you of course.

    I don’t own this country but it is mine and I like it as a country mainly full of my kindred kind. Not 3rd world imports with lots of exotic bad habits like cannibalism and cutting up their own kids for use in African witchcraft rituals. A modest number of well-controlled import is not a problem–esp if they get a fair measure of justice without fear or favour. But millions being imported to turn me and mine into a hated second class minority in my own land is worth burning down the entire world if need be to stop it. I would rather this nation sink into the sea than have it become what you want. And enough think like me that matters will end up being settled by violent means at some point if it doesn’t stop. And indeed most of the womiccumalobus offal who seem to be on your team NiV aren’t. They only seem that way because the consequences of their treachery are not yet hitting them up the arse ie their daughters aren’t getting plowed by beards etc When it starts to happen that the quiet enjoyment of their nice cosy lives begins to go down the pan–then they will sqwark.

  71. “But ‘your tribe’, sure. It’s not the ‘British’ tribe any more, though. The British have moved on since 1933.”

    The presence of a small number of SJW manufactured brain-burned traitors like you NiV is not a sea change.

    Numbers of womiccumalobus young snot brain-bashed by school and Unis that are Marxist rat’s nests is likewise not a sea change. Because they are young womi snot that have been cushioned against the hard knocks of real life and their real beef is likely an adolescent fallout with middle class Mummy and Daddy. Even a little exposure to the realities of 3rd world style barbarism and predation will either put them on the side of the Angels or destroy them.

  72. NiV, if your lodestone is economic success, as I understand it to be, why would you be concerned with creating more jobs? Jobs, as Tom repeatedly reminds us, are a cost, not a benefit.

    And I’m unconvinced that drunken Celts are the same as black chaps. On the whole I think black chaps have difficulties an absence of booze won’t solve.

    Plus, where did the Irish come into it? You’d have been better off asking whether I thought the chinks were entitled to ban us. To which my answer would’ve been ‘yes’.

  73. “And that is supposedly fine with you–only when it’s NOT you of course.”

    Only according to the weird voices in your head. I’ve repeatedly said I’m opposed to *any* form of authoritarianism – yours, theirs, there’s no difference.

    ” But millions being imported to turn me and mine into a hated second class minority in my own land”

    There should be NO second class minorities. I’m not in favour of you being turned into a second class minority – but I’m *equally* not in favour of you turning other people into hated second class minorities. If *they’re* evil for doing it, so are *you*.

    Objective judgements require objective principles, not subjective ones that depend on what tribe you’re in. There is no *objective* distinction between your tribe and anyone else’s. Only your subjective “MY tribe ON TOP”. That makes you objectively exactly the same as them: with their “THEIR tribe ON TOP” principles. All you stand for is “WE WANT…”, the same as they do. You are *objectively* the same as them. You’re asking everyone to respect your *subjective* MY TRIBE viewpoint, and the rest of the world is going to tell you to fuck off.

    If you think you’re hard enough, you can try to impose your viewpoint by force. But that makes you different from the Islamic Mullahs how, exactly?

  74. “NiV, if your lodestone is economic success, as I understand it to be, why would you be concerned with creating more jobs? Jobs, as Tom repeatedly reminds us, are a cost, not a benefit.”

    Quite so. But it’s what people people seem to be most concerned about, when it comes to immigration.

    “And I’m unconvinced that drunken Celts are the same as black chaps. On the whole I think black chaps have difficulties an absence of booze won’t solve.”

    I’ve known quite a few black chaps and they have no difficulties at all. I’ve known quite a few white chaps who quite clearly do.

    “Plus, where did the Irish come into it?”

    Because they were one of the previous waves of immigrants who caused all the same problems of poverty and crime as blacks do today. The point was to demonstrate that it’s not skin colour or genes that are the issue – it’s simply poverty and culture.

  75. “If you think you’re hard enough, you can try to impose your viewpoint by force. But that makes you different from the Islamic Mullahs how, exactly?”

    Cos its my country and no one told womi trash that they can hand it over to those who will destroy me and mine. Defending my home, my people and my well-liked way of life doesn’t make me an authoritarian if your “too bad Whitey” attitude fails to make you one.

    And all your cockrot about what “should” be is just that. Cockrot.

    As I also said you and yours won’t be exempt from their tribalism any more than the rest of us.

    And your bullshit still hasn’t converted one of them. At least you are consistent. You haven’t converted any of us either.

  76. I saw the thread count and I just knew the transcontinental telegraph had pitched up.

    “Only your subjective “MY tribe ON TOP”. That makes you objectively exactly the same as them: with their “THEIR tribe ON TOP” principles.”

    I totally agree with you. There are no objective standards or rankings of tribes or cultures. It’s all subjective. We are subjective creatures.

    Subjectively, I prefer my culture and my “tribe”, and I wish to see them prevail and dominate in this land that is currently dominated by them. The more I subjectively detest a culture (e.g. Islam and related ratsnests) the less I want it here.

    And I really don’t give a shit if your subjective opinion of me is low because of it.

  77. @NIV “Yes. You’re importing a consumer! Who thereby creates jobs!”

    I think this only works when the consumer is themselves economically productive in some way. Otherwise the conclusion of your argument is that it is beneficial to import people en masse and give them money to buy stuff.

    I take your point about not providing benefits, also housing etc.

  78. nationalist distinctions are arbitrary and meaningless; the result of invented culture and historical accident. –

    I appreciate anyone`s objections to the current wave of reactionary arse making the world worse, but this argument seems a rather absurd one to me. In this sense almost anything that distinguishes a life with meaning from the bovine, is “invented”
    Were I to play for this chap, let us say, some Beethoven, and invite ‘wonder’ that this man stood on the pivot between the rational age and the romantic sensibility that engulfed the West, what would he say ?
    “ That is all invented, you should be asking n what logical sense playing the piano is any different to sitting on it”.
    I think I might continue the conversation in a da-da-ist language of my own invention on similar grounds although I`m not sure how far we would get.

    I don`t personally see any need to be quite so atomising of man to argue that inflaming ethnic hatred with lies is a bad thing. Take housing for example, it is not true that scarcity would disappear if we turned the lovely South Downs into a vast concrete horror , even if that were a good idea.
    Housing scarcity is a problem in Cairo Sydney and pretty much any economic hot spot ( and Cairo is one relatively speaking ) .There no end of virtually free houses in the North and along the East coast, places where the “left behind” voted to blame foreigners ( or rich people) depending on which idiot you prefer.
    The overall population of the country has roughly increased from 360m to £70m in a period in which housing has increased factor of ten relative to earnings in the South East, more in London
    This is quite obviously not the same subject and the “space not race” thing has always been an attempt to spread toxic lies justifying ethnic hate by charlatans liars and cretins.
    The problems either lack of regional Policy or lack of Labour and resource mobility and these are the problems the EU attempts to solve whilst capturing the benefits of the Free Market and liberalised trade and capital movement,

  79. @NIV “Nationality is utterly irrelevant”

    Unfortunately it isn’t.

    One has to have somewhere to deport them to. If you have a migrant from say Poland who commits a serious crime it is not unreasonable (ex EU) to deport them to Poland.

    A UK national has nowhere else to go unless another country accepts them.

    I quite like what happens in Spain ; currently to access benefits, health and so on, you have to have a residence card. To get this as a migrant to Spain you have to either have a job (not selling the big issue for a day !) or sufficient income to support yourself or be married to someone in that situation. So you can go and live there, sure, but you can’t rely on the Spanish state to house and feed you.

  80. “They’re already here, and they’re mostly British. They’re the voters who created [the welfare state] in the first place.”

    Sure, but why make the situation even worse? The objection people have is to the taxpayer-subsidised immigration that the “we’re a nation of immigrants” folk (who show no signs of repealing the welfare state) are promoting. Taxpayer-subsidised immigration is just as much of a market distortion as closed borders are; in the absence of subsidy it would not happen. There’s nothing free-market or libertarian about it.

  81. @NiV,

    “The questions you should be asking people at the border are not what nationality you are, but do you believe in free trade, in free speech, in freedom of belief? Do you respect the need for law and order, and intend to make your living by legal enterprise and fair competition? Do you believe in letting other people live their lives how they like, without interference or regulation or bans from people like you? And not just foreigners at the border, either!”

    Agreed, but we haven’t and a large section of the left have captured enough institution control to ensure we won’t in the future.

    As to the problems in the West Riding this goes directly to your point. Lots of young men were invited here as, for want of a better phrase, gastarbeiters in the late ’50s and early ’60s in a vain attempt to provide cheap labour to save the mills and associated industries (your economic migrants). No questions asked about their attitudes other than willingness to work cheaply (your consumers). When that failed rather than send them back the argument was made to let their direct families and then extended families join them. And thus a culture was imported that is illiberal and has enough of a stranglehold on the young to make sure that it will be a lot more more than a couple of generations to assimilate and be good liberal citizens (you point about the Irish).

    You remind me of the time I dabbled in LPUK. Lots of great theory that I agreed with, but the problem is that the general argument is lost and it will be impossible to get from here to there – too many people invested in here, your comment on the middle class and their house value being a case in point and one I’ve raised on here on more than a couple of occasions.

    @Paul,

    “I quite like what happens in Spain ; currently to access benefits, health and so on, you have to have a residence card. To get this as a migrant to Spain you have to either have a job (not selling the big issue for a day !) or sufficient income to support yourself or be married to someone in that situation. So you can go and live there, sure, but you can’t rely on the Spanish state to house and feed you.”

    I’m surprised NiV hasn’t raised this because it was a point made by a leading libertarian thinker, William Niskanen:

    Critics of immigration reform worry about immigrants disproportionately consuming public benefits. Instead, they should support legal changes to immigrant welfare eligibility. Eliminating immigrant welfare eligibility for Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or food stamps), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, and other programs would, in the words of the Cato Institute’s late Chairman Emeritus William Niskanen, “build a wall around the welfare state, not around the country.” Doing so would reduce immigrant welfare dependency and could increase the pace of intergenerational mobility among immigrants. Such measures would also be constitutional. This policy analysis shows how to implement those reforms.

  82. “Subjectively, I prefer my culture and my “tribe”, and I wish to see them prevail and dominate in this land that is currently dominated by them.”

    Quite so. Each tribe of authoritarians fights for dominance with all the other tribes of authoritarians. With each generation power moves to a new ruling class, but they all look exactly the same to outsiders.

    “And I really don’t give a shit if your subjective opinion of me is low because of it.”

    I wouldn’t expect you to. Authoritarians are naturally opposed to libertarians. My point is that authoritarians on the losing side can sometimes see the benefits of liberty – it’s better than being persecuted by their hated authoritarian enemy, even if it’s not as good as being the persecutor.

    Every dominant culture eventually loses power. Authoritarianism only makes sense when you’re the culture in charge, and that’s how authoritarians think. Everything is built around the assumption that they’re in control and their viewpoint prevails, so the more power society has to dictate to its members, the better. Libertarianism is the result of thinking about what happens when you lose, when the other lot gain the same power.

    Libertarians propose to build in the safeguards while in power, to protect themselves later when they’re not. You voluntarily give up the right to enforce your view on others, so they won’t have the right to enforce theirs on you. Obviously, it’s not a very popular view, because nobody thinks they’re going to lose.

    “I think this only works when the consumer is themselves economically productive in some way.”

    They have to be to earn the money so they can consume.

    “Otherwise the conclusion of your argument is that it is beneficial to import people en masse and give them money to buy stuff.”

    Not *my* argument – it’s the argument of the protectionists. They complain that the immigrants come over here and take our jobs, undercutting native workers, lowering wages, etc. That was the point of the “the benefit from an immigrant is [value of work done – wages – value of work that would have been done by unemployed Brit + wages that would have been paid – unrmployment benefit paid to unemployed Brit]” argument above – that in taking our jobs they cause native unemployment.

    Rather than give an extended essay on the ‘Lump of Labour’ fallacy, I decided to be facetious instead. It’s more ‘pithy’.

    “In this sense almost anything that distinguishes a life with meaning from the bovine, is “invented””

    “Invented” wasn’t a criticism.

    “The overall population of the country has roughly increased from 360m to £70m in a period in which housing has increased factor of ten relative to earnings in the South East, more in London”

    I think that argument has got scrambled, somehow?

    Do you think that if you build a lot more houses in places where house prices are high, scarcity wouldn’t reduce?

    “One has to have somewhere to deport them to. If you have a migrant from say Poland who commits a serious crime it is not unreasonable (ex EU) to deport them to Poland.”

    Oh, yes. The ‘Jewish Problem’.

    “A UK national has nowhere else to go unless another country accepts them.”

    There’s a camp just outside Calais where they seem to manage.

    “*knows EXACTLY why*”

    Is that a bad thing? 🙂

    “Sure, but why make the situation even worse? The objection people have is to the taxpayer-subsidised immigration that the “we’re a nation of immigrants” folk (who show no signs of repealing the welfare state) are promoting.”

    The objection people have is that they don’t like foreigners, but that’s racist/nationalist and they don’t like to be seen as that sort of person, so they make up an excuse based on economics instead.

    However, the economic reason clearly isn’t their real reason, because they *don’t* object as vociferously to the exact same sort of sponging off the state when British people do it. They’re “our” parasites, so that’s OK.

    If welfare parasites are really your issue, then argue against welfare and leave the immigrants out of it. If you’re nationalist/racist, then have the honesty to admit it and take the consequences.

    “No questions asked about their attitudes other than willingness to work cheaply”

    Would you be willing for the SJWs to ask questions about *your* attitudes before giving you a job?

    I agree that Islam is an issue, being deeply illiberal. I said that in my first comment above. But the issue is Islam/illiberality, NOT the fact that they’re an immigrant. Don’t attack one group pretending to only be attacking another.

    “You remind me of the time I dabbled in LPUK. Lots of great theory that I agreed with, but the problem is that the general argument is lost and it will be impossible to get from here to there – too many people invested in here, your comment on the middle class and their house value being a case in point and one I’ve raised on here on more than a couple of occasions.”

    Agreed! Too many people are too invested in their own authoritarian prerogatives, and too convinced that their moral majority is natural, unarguable, and eternal.

    “I’m surprised NiV hasn’t raised this because it was a point made by a leading libertarian thinker, William Niskanen:”

    It’s a partial solution that neuters the economic “welfare migrant” argument, and so could be used as a compromise to reduce practical opposition, but it concedes the fundamental principle.

    Translate it into free trade terms. The local manufacturers make widgets and sell them to the public at a high price, with the aid of public subsidy. Newcomers from the next town can make them cheaper, and want to do so. The local manufacturers object, saying that if they all come, and receive subsidies too, they’ll suck the public purse dry. So we propose instead that the newcomers should be able to move into town and build their factory, but not get the subsidy. Only locals get that.

    Can you see why libertarians might find that a bit dubious?

  83. Open borders immigration has a number of effects on the indigenous population. Many of these effects may be good or bad depending on your point of view. In the case of the UK, we were never given a vote to decide on whether it should apply here. Or, we were offered manifestos which said they were going to limit immigration or didn’t mention it at all. Never (to my recollection) did the mandate of the incoming government include open borders or the degree of immigration that ensued. That’s the problem, we were never asked. Pretty much makes it an invasion in the numbers we are seeing now.

  84. “Lewontin’s fallacy. What matters is the variation in certain key genes, not the overall variation. So certain mutations on the MAOA gene predispose the owner to violence and anti-social behaviour. These mutations are up to 20 times more prevalent in blacks than in NW europeans – which helps to explain why Africa is largely a shithole and why blacks tend to sink to the bottom of any society they join.”

    True. Culture selects for genetic traits, and genetics is a factor in the direction that culture takes. They are mutually self reinforcing. Which is why inviting people from radically different cultures to live, subsidised and protected, in our Western European culture is immensely destructive to that culture. There is no Europe without the European people.

    Since I prefer European people and European culture above all others, I have no qualms about my opposition to third world immigration when faced with flimsy libertarian word games like those presented by NiV here.

    Places like Japan and Israel have the right idea: the state works for the people. Sadly in Europe we are now ashamed to do this due to the political splophistry of the left, libertarians of course being leftists too.

  85. I have just realised, for the first time, that NiV is Tim Worstall. The use of language gives it away.

    Did everyone else know this before me?

  86. “Libertarians propose to build in the safeguards while in power, to protect themselves later when they’re not. You voluntarily give up the right to enforce your view on others, so they won’t have the right to enforce theirs on you. Obviously, it’s not a very popular view, because nobody thinks they’re going to lose.”

    It’s not a very popular view because it’s utter wank.

    If an invading culture proceeds to dominate it will sweep aside the preceding culture – including any imagined libertarian “safeguards”. Cultural norms, whether authoritarian or libertarian, can only prevail if they are defended.

  87. tomsmith:
    “I have just realised, for the first time, that NiV is Tim Worstall. The use of language gives it away.”

    Not the quantity of use. I don’t think Tim could be arsed to go on and on so much.

  88. “Open borders immigration has a number of effects on the indigenous population.”

    Same applies to people immigrating into a city from the neighbouring towns and countryside. I don’t remember being given a vote on that, either.

    ” In the case of the UK, we were never given a vote to decide on whether it should apply here.”

    And nobody ever *explained* to people in the UK why free trade is good and why that applies to immigration too, to enable them to make an *informed* choice.

    Socialism and protectionism only survive because the average person gets next to no education in economics. It ought to be part of the core maths curriculum.

    “I have just realised, for the first time, that NiV is Tim Worstall. The use of language gives it away.”

    Thank you! I’ll take that as a compliment!

    “Did everyone else know this before me?”

    Dunno about anyone else, but I certainly didn’t!

  89. The point is not that it was not an informed choice but that the choice was never offered while what was offered, ‘control of immigration’ was intentionally never delivered. You may be convinced that this or that, say ‘free trade’ is such an obvious good that it need not be justified but that is not a reasonable argument. After all free trade was a dividing issue in UK politics for centuries and stll is. It’s not a given and neither is excessive immigration.

  90. “If an invading culture proceeds to dominate it will sweep aside the preceding culture – including any imagined libertarian “safeguards”.”

    Only if they can come up with a better argument, or if people forget what the safeguards were for.

    “Cultural norms, whether authoritarian or libertarian, can only prevail if they are defended.”

    Agreed. And I do. But authoritarian norms go in and out of fashion – the arguments for liberty apply to everyone, all the time.

  91. “You may be convinced that this or that, say ‘free trade’ is such an obvious good that it need not be justified but that is not a reasonable argument.”

    I agree, it needs to be justified, and people need to be educated on those reasons. It’s been mainstream economics since the time of Adam Smith. I was assuming that people here already knew what those arguments were – are you saying you don’t?

    Go read Bastiat. It’s a good introduction to the concept.
    http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20161

  92. “Only if they can come up with a better argument, or if people forget what the safeguards were for.”

    If they dominate, they won’t need a “better argument”. And the new dominant people won’t give a shit what the “safeguards” were for.

  93. “ ‘ That is all invented, you should be asking n what logical sense playing the piano is any different to sitting on it’ ”.

    I like how it ends up being Newmania who nicely sums up the value of NiV’s waffling.

  94. “If they dominate, they won’t need a “better argument”.”

    If they do it by overwhelming military conquest, then sure. Nothing you can do will make any difference.

    But most cultural revolutions happen by persuading people that it’s a good idea. If people are ignorant of the arguments for freedom, and used to the idea of enforcing social norms, it seems perfectly natural to introduce the new norms by enforcing them. But if you’ve enshrined principles of liberty into your social matrix, and understand the reasons for them, anyone coming along and proposing society enforce some new norm is the immediate target of suspicion. SJWs couldn’t use bullying tactics against homophobes and racists if homophobes and racists had not previously used bullying against gays and blacks. But so long as we see bullying as a normal way to enforce social conformity, the SJWs are not only going to see that approach as the most obvious way to bring about their desired change, they’re going to get away with it. The tactics we use on others are eventually used against us.

    Liberty still needs to be constantly fought for, of course, but it is at least a more defensible position to start from.

    Free markets work better than protectionism – in ideas as well as economics. It’s counter-intuitive to a lot of people who don’t understand why, and it’s natural to think that the best way to defend your culture is to exclude competing cultures from your territory, in the same way that the best way to defend your business is to exclude competing businesses.

    But our economies succeed so well, pounding every alternative system into the ground, precisely *because* we allow outside competition. We get to be the most powerful and most efficient economy by bankrupting/eliminating anything that isn’t, and reallocating those resources. We provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number by allowing people to choose between the competing offerings freely. We win by being **better**, not by excluding the competition. Our culture likewise.

  95. Don’t give me homework. I know Bastiat. I have a ‘Wealth of Nations’ I bought for a dollar. I haven’t read it, choosing to rely on the PJ O’rourke interpretation. I might even know the arguments of free trade. But I notice that by using it as a given and tacking immigration onto the end you evade the point of the democracy argument. We weren’t consulted. Not because we are not informed but because anyone who might have asked knew what answer to expect so they iied.

  96. @ NiV
    You’re just making it up.
    The consumption by immigrants is not a benefit for the rest of us – it is a benefit for them. Secondly you are using the standard lefty, palpably false, argument that there is no loss to “us” if one of “us” loses his job to an immigrant. The Trades Unions are willing to blackmail the commuting public over the threat of job losses but are quite happy to watch and applaud non-union members losing *their* jobs to immigrants. We have over a million unemployed, most of whom want a job and cannot get one.
    The number of houses is independent of the number of immigrants so your saying we could build more houses is not an answer. The principal reasons we don’t are nothing to do with Tory voters – the Tory councils are generally better at granting planning permissions – but Attlee’s Town & Country Planning Act and petty-minded bureaucrats. My experience of planning includes the Tory Council’s planning committee appproving my plan for a small extension and a bureaucrat blocking it because she thought I should have a glass roof.

  97. “Don’t give me homework. I know Bastiat.”

    So why are you arguing against free trade? Do you think Bastiat was wrong?

    ” But I notice that by using it as a given and tacking immigration onto the end you evade the point of the democracy argument”

    If the people vote for a Socialist government, do you therefore support Socialism?

    “Secondly you are using the standard lefty, palpably false, argument that there is no loss to “us” if one of “us” loses his job to an immigrant.”

    No, the Socialist argument is that there *is* such a loss.

    Socialists more commonly apply the argument to unions. A union closed shop enforces a rule where only members of the union are allowed to work in a particular industry. This is exactly analogous to a rule where only members of a particular nationality are allowed to work in a particular country. The idea is to raise wages for insiders by seeking a monopoly over supply, excluding cheaper competition. Illegal immigrants correspond to union “scabs” crossing picket lines. Nationalism is just the Socialist theory of union closed shops applied on a larger scale. National Socialism is a well-known demonstration that Socialism and Nationalism are not at all incompatible.

    The distinction you’re talking about is actually that between National Socialists, who apply protectionism to workers demands in only one country, and International Socialists, who apply it to workers in all countries simultaneously. (Hitler wrote about the distinction at length in Mein Kampf – it was his biggest argument with the other Communists.) But they’re all Socialists.

  98. NiV: “But most cultural revolutions happen by persuading people that it’s a good idea. If people are ignorant of the arguments for freedom, and used to the idea of enforcing social norms, it seems perfectly natural to introduce the new norms by enforcing them. But if you’ve enshrined principles of liberty into your social matrix, and understand the reasons for them, anyone coming along and proposing society enforce some new norm is the immediate target of suspicion.”

    You seem pretty unfamiliar with the way Islam works to take over societies. I suggest familiarising yourself.

  99. PJF: “If they dominate, they won’t need a “better argument”. And the new dominant people won’t give a shit what the “safeguards” were for.”

    Correct, Islam works by terror and making extreme examples of non conformists. Libertarianism is no defence against this- in fact it is wide open to it because it allows Islam to come. Only strong ethnostates with alternative societal values can successfully resist Islam.

  100. “So why are you arguing against free trade? Do you think Bastiat was wrong?“

    I guess it is because you are being dishonest.

  101. “Only if they can come up with a better argument, or if people forget what the safeguards were for.”

    Incredibly naive. Islam doesn’t work by presenting a better argument. It just gives a stark choice- collaborate (i.e. convert) or die. People collaborate, because they are scared.

  102. Once you have enough Islam present in a country the choice starts being offered (e.g. India with rapes and attacks on Hindus), then it is ramped up (e.g. killings of Christians in present day Egypt), unril finally any remaining objectors are ethnically cleansed (e.g. most of the present day Middle East which used to be Christian, Zoroastrian, and other things). Islam is not seduced by comfort or riches. It remains Islam; that is the hellish genius of it, any why letting it get a foothold in your country is naive and suicidal at best.

  103. “You seem pretty unfamiliar with the way Islam works to take over societies. I suggest familiarising yourself.”

    I’m well aware of it. It’s either by direct military conquest (Jihad, which I already covered), or by infiltration and persuasion (Dawa).

    90% of Islamic morality is the same as old-style Judaeo-Christian morality. They have strict ritual purity rules, they encourage prayer, fasting, and charity.
    No sex outside marriage, and no fraternising with the opposite sex, either. They’re patriarchal, sexist, prudish, homophobic, prohibitionists. They’re very like you guys in many ways! 😉

    The only serious issue with them is that they don’t give people a choice. They enforce their rules and their approved way of life on others, whether they agree or not. And they’ll kill non-conformists.

    However, in every arena they’ve lost to the West. They can’t compete with America militarily. Even tiny little Israel simultaneously defeated the armies of five nations! And culturally it’s their kids wearing Jeans and T-shirts and listening to Western music, not ours banging their heads on the floor. Our way of life is clearly better, they clearly know it, and they’re compromising and converting to our ways just as fast as they can get away with, given that they’ve got a bunch of old fuddy duddies of the previous generation too, horrified at the way their society is going. That was Osama Bin Laden’s primary demand: that Westerners get out of Saudi Arabia and stop corrupting their culture.

    We are winning and we will win. The more cultural contact we have, the faster it will go. But their conservatives of the previous generation will resist social change, just as ours do. That’s what the fight is about.

    You have insufficient faith in the visible benefits and virtues of your own culture. We’re stronger, precisely because we’re open to whatever’s best. We’re not tied down by tradition. Those are our alternative societal values – liberty and freedom to choose.

  104. “If they do it by overwhelming military conquest, then sure. Nothing you can do will make any difference.”

    Or if they do it by demographic takeover, enabled by a corrupt political class and other traitors. Once there is enough Islam in Europe then indeed, nothing we can do can make a difference, apart from fighting. We just ne d to hope that a majority of native Europeans wake to the threat before it is too late.

    The problem with your argument here about free trade is that it is fundamentally dishonest. The European public do not want bare bones libertarian style free trade and no welfare- they want a form of soft socialism so that their less able are cared for. This means that arguments based on the free movement of goods and labour are mere fantasy- can never happen.

    Therefore supporting free movement (while welfare states still exist, as they will continue to, based on the culturally homogenous societies that until recently prevailed in Europe) is evil, because it dishonestly applies the free trade in goods, services, and labour argument to a situation where it will never exist. All that will happen is what we have now- invaders being paid for by the indigenous population who do not want them in the country.

    You probably think that it serves those thick racist socialistic pricks right for being racists, likening their own peopl over other people, and wanting welfare provision for their less able. But that is what they want, and it is incredibly cruel to use their money to finance an invasion of their countries just to teach them a lesson. What kind of cunt would want to do that, in support of the kind of hare brained 6th form libertarianism that can and will never exist in the real world? Beats me.

  105. “I guess it is because you are being dishonest.”

    You’re arguing against free trade because you think I’m being dishonest? Do you think Bastiat was being dishonest, too?

    “Islam doesn’t work by presenting a better argument. It just gives a stark choice- collaborate (i.e. convert) or die. People collaborate, because they are scared.”

    I think that was the same choice offered to gays in this country not that many years ago – convert or die. Or in later years, go to prison or commit suicide.

    It’s the same as any authoritarian society enforcing social norms.

  106. “The problem with your argument here about free trade is that it is fundamentally dishonest. The European public do not want bare bones libertarian style free trade and no welfare- they want a form of soft socialism so that their less able are cared for.”

    Just because people are not persuaded by a correct argument doesn’t make the argument incorrect, or dishonest.

    Unless you’re saying that all the arguments against soft socialism are ‘dishonest’ too?

    If we can never defeat Socialism, we had might as well join it? Is that your argument?

  107. “We’re stronger, precisely because we’re open to whatever’s best. We’re not tied down by tradition. Those are our alternative societal values – liberty and freedom to choose.”

    In your vision we are also open to whatever is worst, like Islam. We appear to actively bring the most barbaric, tribal, and stupid people to live here is Europe, rather than selecting better people from more compatible societies. Some might say that is because we have lost touch with European tradition, and have lost faith in ourselves.

    Again, Europe without Europeans is not the same place at all. Genetics and culture are intertwined, as the 3rd generation Pakistanis still bombing, beheading and raping kuffar shows. Their way of life is not ours and never can be. We are not them, and they are not us. We are not interchangeable automatons working for the globalist agenda. We are a people with an identity, a past and a future, a vision of who we are and where we are going. All we need to do is remember it.

  108. “You’re arguing against free trade because you think I’m being dishonest? Do you think Bastiat was being dishonest, too?”

    Free trade in goods services and/or labour works great at a national or cultural level. Unilateral free trade in labour amongst different peoples with different cultures and genetic proclivities brings about disaster for the unilaterally open borders side, particularly where they have a welfare state, because alien people bring alien culture and genetics to the host nation, and use the welfare state of the host to finance its replacement. Needless to say, paying for your own replacement by a hostile alien culture that is fundamentally opposed to your own is not beneficial for any people.

  109. ^ of course Bastiat was not writing about welfare financing of an invading culture into Europe. To pretend he was is another good example of lefty dishonesty.

    I had forgotten how fundamentally lie prone and leftist libertarians typically are since my short dalliance with lpuk so long ago.

  110. 1 Population has increased from 60m to 70m in a period in which housing has increased by a factor of ten relative to earnings in the South East, more in London. So much for the theory that immigration is responsible for high housing costs
    2 On building more houses reducing scarcity , ceterus paribus yes but ceterus is not paribus . In fact if you make migration into an overheated region of a National economy easy, you are as likely to expand the size of the economy more than the net unit increasing housing costs in the medium term- it is being tried your way now in the South East , let us see who is right .
    3 National sensibility has indeed got shallow roots in many places. In Italy at the time of unification only about 5% of the whole boot including Sicily spoke Italian ads we now know it . Only half of the French spoke French at the time of the revolution , Russification was an active Policy of the Tsars by which they justified pogroms .“ Greater Serbia “ includes areas containing virtually no ethnic Serbs .
    The most “constructed Nationalism of all is probably “Palestinian” a region with no fixed area. describes a place that has never existed in an area inhabited by no more than 350,000 people in around 1850.

    That said , the 19thy century saw a dramatic change in many areas of human feeling and there seems to me no special reason to single out Nationalism as more “constructed” than any other . If as you say , you are not making the case that National imagined communities are “ False consciousness “ but accept they are as valid symbols by which we make our lives meaningful then you are not saying much .

    There is no reason , IMHO to be so extreme as to decry all loyalty to Nation simply to regret self-harming bigotry

  111. “I think that was the same choice offered to gays in this country not that many years ago – convert or die. Or in later years, go to prison or commit suicide.

    It’s the same as any authoritarian society enforcing social norms.”

    What does that have to do with anything? I love how lefties think we are all basically Peter Hitchens

  112. “In your vision we are also open to whatever is worst, like Islam. We appear to actively bring the most barbaric, tribal, and stupid people to live here is Europe, rather than selecting better people from more compatible societies.”

    We have plenty of our own barbaric, tribal, and stupid people. I think a lot of people in Europe classify racists as “barbaric, tribal, and stupid”, yes?

    But you’re missing the point. In a free market, people are allowed to offer bad products for sale. Some small number of people will buy them, too. You don’t get to decide what people ought to have, and make sure they’re only offered what you consider to be refined, cosmopolitan, and intelligent. Anyone can offer anything, and the marketplace decides.

    If the public don’t like classical music, but listen instead to Justin Bieber, *you* don’t get to forbid it, even if they *are* barbarians. What’s “good” is defined by the market, not be the intellectual or ideological elite. The point being, Arab kids like Justin Bieber, too. And that will be be the downfall of Islam.

    “Again, Europe without Europeans is not the same place at all. Genetics and culture are intertwined, as the 3rd generation Pakistanis still bombing, beheading and raping kuffar shows.”

    99% of them aren’t, which shows they’re not.

  113. “Population has increased from 60m to 70m in a period in which housing has increased by a factor of ten relative to earnings in the South East, more in London. So much for the theory that immigration is responsible for high housing costs”

    Never argued anything about housing. WTF are you talking about?

  114. “Population has increased from 60m to 70m in a period in which housing has increased by a factor of ten relative to earnings in the South East, more in London. So much for the theory that immigration is responsible for high housing costs
    2 On building more houses reducing scarcity , ceterus paribus yes but ceterus is not paribus . In fact if you make migration into an overheated region of a National economy easy, you are as likely to expand the size of the economy more than the net unit increasing housing costs in the medium term- it is being tried your way now in the South East , let us see who is right .
    3 National sensibility has indeed got shallow roots in many places. In Italy at the time of unification only about 5% of the whole boot including Sicily spoke Italian ads we now know it . Only half of the French spoke French at the time of the revolution , Russification was an active Policy of the Tsars by which they justified pogroms .“ Greater Serbia “ includes areas containing virtually no ethnic Serbs .
    The most “constructed Nationalism of all is probably “Palestinian” a region with no fixed area. describes a place that has never existed in an area inhabited by no more than 350,000 people in around 1850.

    That said , the 19thy century saw a dramatic change in many areas of human feeling and there seems to me no special reason to single out Nationalism as more “constructed” than any other . If as you say , you are not making the case that National imagined communities are “ False consciousness “ but accept they are as valid symbols by which we make our lives meaningful then you are not saying much .

    There is no reason , IMHO to be so extreme as to decry all loyalty to Nation simply to regret self-harming bigotry”

    To be honest I have no clue who this whole post is directed at. Is there someone else here?

  115. “of course Bastiat was not writing about welfare financing of an invading culture into Europe. To pretend he was is another good example of lefty dishonesty. “

    I wasn’t pretending he was. In fact, I explicitly and repeatedly argued against the subsidies. To pretend I wasn’t is typical of authoritarian dishonesty.

    “I had forgotten how fundamentally lie prone and leftist libertarians typically are since my short dalliance with lpuk so long ago.”

    If you’ll accept any old strawman as truth like that, no wonder.

  116. “We have plenty of our own barbaric, tribal, and stupid people. I think a lot of people in Europe classify racists as “barbaric, tribal, and stupid”, yes?”

    Seems to have no bearing on the current discussion?

    “In a free market, people are allowed to offer bad products for sale. Some small number of people will buy them, too. You don’t get to decide what people ought to have, and make sure they’re only offered what you consider to be refined, cosmopolitan, and intelligent. Anyone can offer anything, and the marketplace decides.”

    There is no free market in labour at work when we have a welfare state which subsidises invaders and when other countries are closed for us to emigrate to for work.

    At this the libertarian cries that well the world should do the same as us. But nobody else in the world is stupid enough to do that, and since Europe is much smaller than the world our experiment in unilateral free trade in labour (and welfare) just results in our replacement. Well done libertarians.

    This is where it is important to understand the difference between what is possible and what is not. Arguing something that results in destruction just because it signals the right belief in principle is about the stupidest thing you can do in the real world.

    “If the public don’t like classical music, but listen instead to Justin Bieber, *you* don’t get to forbid it, even if they *are* barbarians.”

    Listening to Justin Bieber doesn’t result in my daughters risking being spat on, abused and fucked by beardy paedos, bombs going off in my local shopping mall, gangs of angry foreign youths making my town dangerous for my sons, my stupid government clamping down on my freedoms in an effort to protect me, the ghettoisation of towns and cities in my beloved country, the systematic rape and abuse of thousands of innocent children in “sexual emergencies” of the goat fucker brigade, the slow shariaisation of my legal system, probably culminating in executions and stonings in my local town square and extermination of my people. Fuck you, you are welcome to that if you want it, please leave and take your self hatred with you.

    “good” is defined by the market, not be the intellectual or ideological elite.”

    There is no market here, tax payers are subsidising their own invasion by an alien culture.

    “The point being, Arab kids like Justin Bieber, too. And that will be be the downfall of Islam.”

    They also like raping under age girls, letting off bombs, and beheading people. Who knew. Islam was not destroyed by any of the previous decadent cultures it subsumed and it will not happen this time either. The only thing to do with Islam is to keep away from it, and defeat it when it masses armies. It is poison.

    “99% of them aren’t, which shows they’re not.”

    Have a look at Islamic attitude surveys, which show you are talking out of your arse, as per usual.

  117. “I explicitly and repeatedly argued against the subsidies.”

    Well since subsidies are not going anywhere, and since subsidies have given Islam a massive foothold in Europe already, you are pretty much talking make believe then, aren’t you?

    Again you need to talk about what is possible, not what you would like to happen in your sparkly libertarian fantasy land.

  118. Plan B for Islam: build a big wall around the Middle East with robot machine gun placements to keep the fuckers in there. Send all Muslims currently in the West back there. Everyone else relax.

  119. “Seems to have no bearing on the current discussion?”

    Are you saying you don’t see the connection?

    “There is no free market in labour at work when we have a welfare state…”

    I agree up to here.

    “which subsidises invaders and when other countries are closed for us to emigrate to for work.”

    This is just like saying there’s no free trade with countries that impose tariffs and subsidies on their imports, and therefore free trade is bogus/we should impose tariffs and subsidies ourselves.

    Do you really think that?

    “This is where it is important to understand the difference between what is possible and what is not.”

    This is where it’s important to understand the difference between “hasn’t been done” and “can’t be done”.

    We haven’t gotten rid of Socialism yet. Does that mean we shouldn’t try? Does that mean we shouldn’t argue for doing so?

    We haven’t gotten rid of SJWs yet. Does that mean we shouldn’t try? Does that mean we shouldn’t argue for doing so? Are you proposing we give up arguing, because fighting is all useless anyway?

    “Listening to Justin Bieber doesn’t result in …, “

    Exactly my point. Get them listening to Justin Bieber, and all the rest goes away.

    By the way, getting spat on, beaten up, and sexually assaulted was a routine risk for gays and other social misfits in this country, not so long ago. Still is, for many. And the Islamists are not the only ones doing it. So you’re not objecting to it happening, only to it happening to *you*.

    “Have a look at Islamic attitude surveys, which show you are talking out of your arse, as per usual.”

    Most so-called Muslims aren’t, technically, Muslims. That’s why they’re over here, mostly. Did you know it’s actually against Sharia law for a Muslim to live in a non-Muslim country? Because of the risk of them being corrupted by non-Muslim ways?

    But they can’t admit it, because then their co-religionists would kill them. So most of them carry on pretending to be Muslims, and saying all the right things, while quietly doing things differently.

  120. “Plan B for Islam: build a big wall around the Middle East with robot machine gun placements to keep the fuckers in there. Send all Muslims currently in the West back there. Everyone else relax.”

    Brilliant! We’ve just re-invented the Concentration Camp and Ethnic Cleansing!

    Point proved, right? Authoritarians are all the same.

  121. Thud–and yours is the 4th biggest turd of all –after Facepainters 3 coprolites.

    To turn to that deceitful scallywag: While NiV is merely an extreme fool and the product of what happens when libertarianism gets mixed up with SJW shite ( see the US Libertarian Party for the full car crash), you however Facepaint, are treasonous scum. Because the pay is good. A self-serving parasite who would sell out anything to line his own pocket. As twisted as NiV ‘s “principles” are he at least cleaves to them. You are merely an heir to Judas who would be lucky if he could count to 30.

  122. “This is just like saying there’s no free trade with countries that impose tariffs and subsidies on their imports, and therefore free trade is bogus/we should impose tariffs and subsidies ourselves.”

    Absolutely there is no free trade when other countries impose tariffs.

    In terms of goods and services opening our borders to cheap imports can benefit consumers at a cost to producers which may be detrimental in the long term- it is arguable because there is an immediate benefit vs a potential longer term cost.

    Opening our borders to cheap labour while still having a welfare state is not comparable: it is doubly detrimental because in economic terms it Is us directly subsidising the imported labour (which also puts us out of work)- insanity- while changing our culture permanently and forever away from us and in the direction of something alien and hostile, a huge externality which affects only the native population.

    Since we are that native population rather than the invader, it makes zero sense to discriminate against ourselves in this way. It is fully and absolutely detrimental.

    If you were being an honest libertarian, stupid and impractical as that would be, you would argue first and absolutely for the end of all welfare, before even thinking about a free market in labour. That you don’t just shows it is the mischief and destruction you are all about, rather than the supposed economic benefits.

    Ending your genetic line, and that of those closest to you in favour of an ali an population, or reducing its chance of success in the long term, is beneficial to nobody, no matter what economic sophistry you intertwine with your dishonest argument.

  123. “By the way, getting spat on, beaten up, and sexually assaulted was a routine risk for gays and other social misfits in this country, not so long ago. Still is, for many. And the Islamists are not the only ones doing it. So you’re not objecting to it happening, only to it happening to *you*.”

    Nonsense. I don’t want Europe to be invaded by Islam. I have no quarrel with gays and in fact they were not thrown from rooftops and otherwise executed as happens in Islamic countries.

    What planet are you living on? Lol you honestly think everyone that disagrees with you is some kind of fundamentalist religious nutter

  124. “Brilliant! We’ve just re-invented the Concentration Camp and Ethnic Cleansing!“

    There is nothing un-libertarian about protecting your property and keeping dangerous people away from it. Islam is proven to be barbaric and immensely destructive. Until it proves otherwise I see nothing wrong in making sure it doesn’t come here.

    I am perfectly happy for Muslims to keep on raping, bombing and beheading in their own territory, if that is what they want to do. But until they grow up it seems insane to let them come here to the place I love and to bring their cancerous belief system with them.

  125. “In terms of goods and services opening our borders to cheap imports can benefit consumers at a cost to producers which may be detrimental in the long term- it is arguable because there is an immediate benefit vs a potential longer term cost.”

    The long-term consequence of unilateral free trade is beneficial, too.

    “while changing our culture permanently and forever away from us and in the direction of something alien and hostile, a huge externality which affects only the native population.”

    It affects their culture irreversibly, too. That’s the point.

    “If you were being an honest libertarian, stupid and impractical as that would be, you would argue first and absolutely for the end of all welfare, before even thinking about a free market in labour.”

    I did. A free market in labour logically *implies* an end to welfare, since welfare is a subsidy.

    I have consistently and repeatedly argued here against welfare – actually going even *further* than you lot by calling for the end to *all* welfare, not just welfare for foreigners which is what commenters here wanted – and you’re *still* trying to paint me as somehow being in support of it. How is that honest?

    “What planet are you living on? Lol you honestly think everyone that disagrees with you is some kind of fundamentalist religious nutter”

    Nope. I don’t. And since I’ve been accused of being a “lefty” and “socialist” simply for disagreeing with people here, isn’t that a case of the kettle calling the pot ‘racist’?

  126. “It affects their culture irreversibly, too. That’s the point.”

    It doesn’t seem to, refer again to the British Muslim attitude surveys. In fact Islam is specifically designed to resist being undermined by comfort and decadence. This is what makes the West such a soft target for Islam.

    “I did. A free market in labour logically *implies* an end to welfare, since welfare is a subsidy.”

    Then start arguing against immigration until you have your zero welfare society (which will never happen of course). Arguing for immigration without an end to welfare in order to paint others as racists is just mischief.

  127. “There is nothing un-libertarian about protecting your property and keeping dangerous people away from it.”

    But there is in condemning an entire class of people for the actions of a minority.

    All rapists are men. Therefore men are dangerous, and we should throw them all in a concentration camp surrounded by barbed wire and robot machine gun towers, yes? Guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. It’s the same principle. And a lot more Brits have been killed or raped by ‘men’ than by Islamic terrorists. Objectively they’re far more dangerous.

    I’m all in favour of condemning Islam the religion. But that means not becoming just like them.

    “But until they grow up it seems insane to let them come here to the place I love and to bring their cancerous belief system with them.”

    Because they won’t ‘grow up’ without exposure to a better alternative. You defeat them by invading *their* belief system with yours. If you isolate them, they just grow undisturbed.

  128. “Nope. I don’t. And since I’ve been accused of being a “lefty” and “socialist” simply for disagreeing with people here, isn’t that a case of the kettle calling the pot ‘racist’?”

    If you don’t then stop acting like you do. I never mentioned anything about gays, and yet you assume I am happy for them to be persecuted.

    All libertarians are lefties, because they don’t believe in nation state or sovereign peoples, and their rights to communal defence and self determination.

  129. “All rapists are men. Therefore men are dangerous, and we should throw them all in a concentration camp surrounded by barbed wire and robot machine gun towers, yes? ”

    That is not an equivalent argument.

    All Islamic people are Islamic. Islam is a dangerous belief system, and should not be allowed to gain a foothold in the West.

  130. “In fact Islam is specifically designed to resist being undermined by comfort and decadence.”

    Yep. By demanding cultural isolation and the rigid enforcement of social norms. And they’re pretty upset that it’s not working.

    “Then start arguing against immigration until you have your zero welfare society (which will never happen of course).”

    That would be to argue for the opposite of what’s needed. We don’t decline to argue for reduced taxes until government spending has been reduced, do we? But if we reduced taxes without reducing spending at the same time, we’d go broke. In fact, by your argument, we should be arguing to *raise* taxes to balance the budget first!

    Do you think that anyone arguing for reducing taxes is only in it for the mischief?

  131. “Because they won’t ‘grow up’ without exposure to a better alternative. You defeat them by invading *their* belief system with yours. If you isolate them, they just grow undisturbed.”

    Perfectly happy for us to go there again and run their states for them if they want. Not happy for savages to come here in the vague hope they will become unsavage (it doesn’t seem to be working).

  132. “That is not an equivalent argument.”

    Yes it is.

    “All Islamic people are Islamic.”

    True. But not everyone who claims to be Islamic really is.

    ISIS were genuinely Islamic. That’s what it looks like. And it was all the other nominally ‘Muslim’ countries who helped us bomb them into oblivion.

    “Islam is a dangerous belief system, and should not be allowed to gain a foothold in the West.”

    The idea that certain beliefs are dangerous and should be banned is itself a dangerous belief system, and shouldn’t be allowed to gain a foothold in the West. Do the words “Freedom of Belief” mean nothing to you?

    Or do you add the usual authoritarian ‘buts’? – “Of course I believe in freedom, but that doesn’t include the freedom to…”

  133. NiV
    You give the impression of someone who has invented a self-justifying belief system. You dismiss counter-evidence as crap, and you justify your position with endless evasions, fallacies, equivocations, re-assertions, denials of fact, invalid inferences, rhetoric, and non sequiturs. You seem to have built elaborate mental defence mechanisms to insulate your constructed TG-libertarian self from reality.

    As I said above, your vision of an atomised, multi-culti, multi-racial, gender-fluid, low trust society would turn out to be a nightmare. And the lack of trust would rapidly undermine
    the free market.

    See above for several links to empirical research that shows that diversity reduces trust — on which the free market and general life satisfaction depend.

  134. “Not happy for savages to come here in the vague hope they will become unsavage (it doesn’t seem to be working).”

    It’s working just fine. If all 2.7 million Muslims in Britain were fanatical wild-eyed Jihadists, there’d have been a lot more than just 100 terrorists deaths in the past 15 years.

  135. “You give the impression of someone who has invented a self-justifying belief system. You dismiss counter-evidence as crap, and you justify your position with endless evasions, fallacies, equivocations, re-assertions, denials of fact, invalid inferences, rhetoric, and non sequiturs. You seem to have built elaborate mental defence mechanisms to insulate your constructed TG-libertarian self from reality. “

    And there was me thinking just the same about you lot.

    What counter-evidence?

  136. “That would be to argue for the opposite of what’s needed. We don’t decline to argue for reduced taxes until government spending has been reduced, do we? But if we reduced taxes without reducing spending at the same time, we’d go broke. In fact, by your argument, we should be arguing to *raise* taxes to balance the budget first!”

    False analogy. Advocating cutting taxes is not equivalent to advocating the import of people who are subsidised by taxpayers and often live on welfare, and who carry with them a hostile culture that intends to subjugate and conquer us. Similarly cutting welfare (saving money) is not equivalent to raising taxes (expending money). You are such a dishonest person!

    In fact it makes the most sense to deal with the welfare first, since without that the (unilateral) free market in labour cannot work. And of course this ignores the problems of that unilaterality and the associated externalities, with the rest of the world being much bigger than Europe, with people being replaceable and finite, and with the potential corollary that we are swamped and eradicated in our own territory by hostile cultures.

  137. “Yes it is.”

    No it is not. 🙂

    “True. But not everyone who claims to be Islamic really is.”

    Everyone claiming to be Islamic is Islamic to some extent, and therefore not fit for Western society. I am perfectly happy to import some Middle eastern Christians.

    “ISIS were genuinely Islamic. That’s what it looks like.”

    Oh wait, I thought that was a perversion of Islam, didnt you get the memo?

    “The idea that certain beliefs are dangerous and should be banned is itself a dangerous belief system, and shouldn’t be allowed to gain a foothold in the West. Do the words “Freedom of Belief” mean nothing to you?”

    Freedom of belief that is dedicated to my eradication is not something I am prepared to entertain. Let’s also get rid of poncey libertarians, I can live without them too. It is hilarious that you think your silly talking points and accusations of racism and authoritarianism are going to convince anyone that genocide of white people is a great idea. That shit is a thing of the past.

  138. “You dismiss counter-evidence as crap, and you justify your position with endless evasions, fallacies, equivocations, re-assertions, denials of fact, invalid inferences, rhetoric, and non sequiturs. You seem to have built elaborate mental defence mechanisms to insulate your constructed TG-libertarian self from reality.”

    This is NiV to a tee. It’s the dishonesty more than anything else. Might work when you are on the bbc with a lefty audience, can’t work on a forum or face to face. Stupid really.

  139. “t’s working just fine. If all 2.7 million Muslims in Britain were fanatical wild-eyed Jihadists, there’d have been a lot more than just 100 terrorists deaths in the past 15 years.”

    There are a lot more than 2.7 million Muslims here. The thing about Islam is that the number of actors only needs to be low, the complicity of the community is what supports it. Check out the surveys of British Muslim attitudes for evidence.

  140. “Similarly cutting welfare (saving money) is not equivalent to raising taxes (expending money).”

    Didn’t say it was. It’s pretty dishonest to suggest I did.

    “Everyone claiming to be Islamic is Islamic to some extent, and therefore not fit for Western society.”

    They’ll destroy them if they say they’re not, you’ll destroy them if they say they are. Doesn’t leave a lot of choice, does it?

    “Freedom of belief that is dedicated to my eradication is not something I am prepared to entertain.”

    So if they say they’re Muslim but are *not* dedicated to your eradication, they can stay?

    But yes, as I thought. Freedom of belief, but not freedom to believe that. Freedom of speech, but not freedom to say that. Same old same old.

  141. “This is NiV to a tee. It’s the dishonesty more than anything else. Might work when you are on the bbc with a lefty audience, can’t work on a forum or face to face. Stupid really.”

    It works fine. You wouldn’t be getting so wound up about it if you didn’t know I was right. Dishonesty?! Hah!

    “There are a lot more than 2.7 million Muslims here. The thing about Islam is that the number of actors only needs to be low, the complicity of the community is what supports it.”

    Why does the number of actors need to be low? They’ve got 2.7 million actors! More, if you’re claim about the numbers is right. What are they waiting for?

  142. Breeding is what the 2.7 million of your pals are doing to destroy us. While SJW freaks like you inflict any propaganda bullshit you can find to dissuade white youth from shoving it up in a fertile manner.

    They do not need terror–they just can’t help themselves–to take over. Indeed our book thumping pals know all about demographic takeover. Which is why, despite the fact they have taken vastly more black slaves out of Africa than whites did , their own shitholes are not swamped with blacks. They castrated 80%+ of the black males to make sure they didn’t get the demographic treatment.

    So no, they can’t stay and their numbers must soon begin to decline. Stopping the breeding subsidy paid mostly by white Britons is a good start.

  143. NiV reminds me of Minnow, the SJW liar and Grima Wormtongue that used to post on David Thompson’s place before it got banned. Theo has pointed out its modus operandi: evasions, fallacies, equivocations, re-assertions, denials of fact, invalid inferences, rhetoric, and non sequiturs. This is all very reminiscent of Minnow

    It’s interesting to note that even where people provide links to back up their arguments. NiV ignores them. It isn’t interested in open debate, just like Minnow. There is also the same overweening arrogance, on absolutely no basis, in the strength of its argument. On any subject it gets going on, it’s a monomaniacal bore and liar.

    People shouldn’t bother engaging with it. It has nothing of any interest to say that you couldn’t read from thousands of similar tedious dullard commenters on the Guardian CiF or the I-Paper. Like an isometric exerciser, it’s a strain that gets you nowhere and isn’t in the long run worth it.

  144. “Too many links for the spam trap”

    OK, sorry about that. For a moment, I thought I’d posted on Spud’s site!

  145. “Theo has pointed out its modus operandi: evasions, fallacies, equivocations, re-assertions, denials of fact, invalid inferences, rhetoric, and non sequiturs.”

    Yeah. But Theo’s lying about that. There aren’t any on my side, but you figure if you simply *assert* that there are, that suffices for an argument.

    “It’s interesting to note that even where people provide links to back up their arguments. NiV ignores them.”

    You mean Theo’s reading list? They didn’t back up the argument. I don’t even disagree with what they say. You want an extended explanation of why not? Briefly, all they say is that immigrants are associated with social conflict and crime, which of course we all know and which I’ve said myself. It’s not a point in dispute, so I’ve no need to argue with it.

    “It isn’t interested in open debate”

    Open debate is exactly what we’ve been having all day!

    “There is also the same overweening arrogance, on absolutely no basis, in the strength of its argument. On any subject it gets going on, it’s a monomaniacal bore and liar.”

    You’ve lied multiple times in one short post. You’ve said Theo had pointed out my evasions, fallacies, and equivocations, but he didn’t because there aren’t any. You’ve said Theo provided links that back up his argument, but they don’t. You’ve said I’m not interested in open debate, when we’re right in the middle of one!

    You just don’t like “open debates” where people are allowed to disagree with you. That’s what you’re really complaining about. It’s the usual authoritarian attitude to ‘free speech’ – “You have the freedom to agree with me”.

    “People shouldn’t bother engaging with it.”

    As I’ve said before, if you don’t want to discuss it, don’t discuss it. If you *do* want to have a discussion about it, don’t complain when that happens.

    I assume from the number of responses I got that you all do. 🙂

  146. “What are they waiting for?”

    They are waiting for better demographic odds. Once they have those, then Islam will go through the usual routine it executes to attain the subjugation of nations and peoples.

  147. “Didn’t say it was.”

    You sure did (in your analogy). In fact the analogy was crap, as per usual. But I see you haven’t let that stop you.

  148. “You wouldn’t be getting so wound up about it if you didn’t know I was right.”

    Your solipsistic narcissism is quite pathetic. Responses to your manifest errors aren’t confirmation of your views. Moreover, it’s hard to see what you think would count as refutation of the eclectic muddle that passes for your personal ideology.

    Your apparently overweening confidence is probably as shallow as your thought. Posting here or buying a new frock will only postpone your implosion. Get psychiatric help now, before you crash and burn.

  149. “They’ll destroy them if they say they’re not, you’ll destroy them if they say they are. Doesn’t leave a lot of choice, does it?”

    If they manage to get to the U.K. then nobody is putting any pressure on them to say they support Islam, if in fact they do not.

    “So if they say they’re Muslim but are *not* dedicated to your eradication, they can stay?”

    Islam is dedicated to my eradication or subjugation. That is what it is. Therefore Islam is not fit to be part of western society.

    “But yes, as I thought. Freedom of belief, but not freedom to believe that. Freedom of speech, but not freedom to say that.”

    Sorry, still not buying that it is beneficial to Europe to admit adherents of a belief system that has tried for centuries to destroy Europe and has wiped out several other cultures and peoples.

    And since I am a pragmatist and a realist, not a dopey suicidal libertarian and flakey liar, I don’t mind if you call the libertarian police on me for libertarian apostasy, or call me a nasty racist authoritarian.

    I just don’t want Europe to be Islamised, thanks 🙂

  150. Ever been to Luton NiV? It is a shithole because it is full of people that came from other countries and who follow Islam. It is no longer part of Britain and is instead a foreign country.

    If you are white and you go to the wrong part of Luton you will be abused in the street, possibly spat on, and there is a high chance of being attacked by the numerous welfare supported youths that hang around the Islamic areas of the town and the town centre. There is a palpable feeling of menace as you walk the streets there. You need to remain alert or you will be in danger there.

    In later life I have worked a fair bit in Morocco and would say that parts of Luton feel similar or even a bit more threatening than some run down parts of that backward country, which is certainly not friendly to Europeans if you make a mistake in terms of where you go.

    I once took a Pakistani girl to the cinema in Luton when I was young and stupid. Afterwards a large group of Islamic males started shouting at me, followed us out into the street, and I ended up in a scuffle. Luckily I was a national level judo player at that time and also did MMA, so I was able to defend myself. But that was the last time I saw that girl- she walked off with that group of guys, and I walked quickly to the train station and went home.

    You are sitting feeling smug in front of your computer, lying, being evasive ignoring points made and forgetting things accidentally on purpose. It is fun for you I guess.

    But you need to know that the Islamic community in the U.K. despises weak dhimmi people like you, even as you help them take the country from us. They will force people like you to convert, after they have beaten you, and you will do it because you are a lying weakling. They will abuse any wife and daughters you have, punch or stab any sons, murder you and your partner if you are gay. You will need to grovel to them to survive.

    I am sorry but having experienced these people up close a fair bit, I do not want that for myself, my family, my friends, or the people of my nation. I am British even as I get older now I will fight to remain that way if I need to.

    You need to wake up. The world is not your libertarian fantasy.

  151. “Your solipsistic narcissism is quite pathetic. Responses to your manifest errors aren’t confirmation of your views.”

    Heh! You keep on trying the same trick, and it’s still not working.

    Try actually putting up an argument explaining one of these “errors”. So far, nobody’s managed even one, yet.

    “Moreover, it’s hard to see what you think would count as refutation of the eclectic muddle that passes for your personal ideology.”

    Logic? Evidence?

    “Sorry, still not buying that it is beneficial to Europe to admit adherents of a belief system that has tried for centuries to destroy Europe and has wiped out several other cultures and peoples.”

    “Not buying it” isn’t an argument.

    I agree they tried to destroy Europe for centuries – I’d point out that they failed utterly, and we’re even stronger now, relative to them, than we were then. This is supposed to be evidence that we’re in imminent danger?!

    They have landed an army of 2.7 million+ already on our shores, and their jihad has averaged about 7 fatalities per year! Not exactly Mons or Ypres, is it?

    Do you have *any* logical refutation, besides “not buying it”, for thinking that somehow 2.7 million crazed jihadis bent on world domination would be unable to achieve a higher success rate? Or some reason that they would *choose* to be so unsuccessful, if they thought they could win? Or wanted to?

    The West is the most successful, powerful civilisation, both culturally and militarily, to have ever existed in human history. We conquered more of the world, faster, than any other civilisation. We’re stronger than them. We’re better than them. We offer far more than them. We offer economic prosperity and luxury beyond the wildest dreams of some desert tribe. We’re winning hands down, seducing their young away from them, overturning their traditions, encouraging their freedom and modernisation.

    And you seriously think they can beat us?! Pshhaw.

    tomsmith, Thanks for the link. The scary quote they put right up front…

    The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts.

    So, 100,000 / 2.7 million is 3.7%. More than 96% of Muslims don’t even *sympathise* with suicide bombers, let alone support them practically?!

    Excellent evidence! I love it! But what do you think that proves?

    And I’m curious why even 100,000 suicide bomber sympathising jihadis can only manage 7 deaths per year. Or could it be that they go no further than feelings of sympathy…? Could it be that we’re all scared to death of a bunch of momma’s basement internet jihadi wannabe’s?

  152. “Ever been to Luton NiV?”

    Ever been to any poor district, anywhere, ever?

    “If you are white and you go to the wrong part of Luton you will be abused in the street, possibly spat on, and there is a high chance of being attacked by the numerous welfare supported youths that hang around the Islamic areas of the town and the town centre.”

    If one of my trans friends goes alone to any bar or club, anywhere in Britain, they’ll likely experience much the same. From people who are a lot like you guys.

    Feeling pretty smug about that, are you?

  153. “Heh! You keep on trying the same trick, and it’s still not working.

    Try actually putting up an argument explaining one of these “errors”. So far, nobody’s managed even one, yet.”

    Nobody can be arsed, because you already displayed your dishonesty, and everyone can see it would be a tedious waste of time.

    We can all see it though, plain as day. You are not quite in the wormtongue premier league yet. Div 3 maybe?

  154. “Nobody can be arsed, because you already displayed your dishonesty, and everyone can see it would be a tedious waste of time. “

    Hah! Funny, that!

    OK, I can’t be arsed any more, either. It’s been fun.

    Until next time..?

  155. “If one of my trans friends goes alone to any bar or club, anywhere in Britain, they’ll likely experience much the same. From people who are a lot like you guys.”

    And a small number of folk NiV have been assaulted and stabbed by Thai ladyboys in the pursuit of robbery. So what? If you are odd or weird or standout then you have a higher likelihood of trouble anywhere. The least so in the West. I think your pals will have a lot less trouble here than elsewhere so the bleeding heart doesn’t cut it. The West is one of the few places that have standards–sometimes more honoured in the breach as everywhere–but we still have standards of humanity largely unknown elsewhere. The difference is that this is the land for which our Fathers fought and died. Here we decide what goes on not imported dross with 3rd world dog eat dog antics. Were I in charge lots of Luton “takeaways” would be taken away off home where their “manners” might not stand out so badly.

    That we have womi leaders and SJWs like you whinging doesn’t alter the fact that this nation is so “terrible” that the 3rd world wants in for the handouts and the opportunities for predation. And your trannie buddies aren’t going to leave for the 3rd world because odd isn’t always equivalent to stupid.

  156. “Ever been to any poor district, anywhere, ever?”

    Well have you?

    Where I grew up was white and poor. Not the same.

    I lived in lewisham for a bit with a girl, lots of poor black people, dangerous but not the same.

    Islam is different; it is a political ideology and a way of life. All you reveal is that you never experienced it. Why then should we listen to you wibble in about it?

    “If one of my trans friends goes alone to any bar or club, anywhere in Britain, they’ll likely experience much the same. From people who are a lot like you guys.”

    One of who guys? I have never harassed any man pretending to be a lady, and never would. WTF are you even talking about!? Again with this assume I am a bigot shit?

    Also Lol yes I guess you have lots of trans friends..the picture we are building up here is not really of someone with a lot of experience of Muslim Britain 🙂

    Please go to an Islamic area of the U.K. Take a girl or boy/girl or gay lover with you. See what happens.

  157. “Hah! Funny, that!”

    If you don’t want the laughs and prefer a serious conversation then I recommend not lying in future.

    All the best!

  158. “Until next time..?”

    This is a weak surrender. Go back to the drawing board you prick, and get some life experience. I suggest taking your lady boy on train from London to Luton and mincing around the town centre, then going shopping in the Islamabad area of the town. Good luck with that.

    FFS your handlers will not be very pleased that you appear so transparent. This is pathetic. They need to employ some cleverer people, currently about as effective as the anti brexit campaign.

  159. “Were I in charge lots of Luton “takeaways” would be taken away off home where their “manners” might not stand out so badly.”

    If you are white then you would need to be a complete moron to eat takeaway food from Muslims in Luton. Or in general to be honest.

  160. I don’t understand why the left are so keen on the brain-rape of other countries. The left are constantly banging on about getting doctors, nurses, IT experts and scientists from other countries to come to the UK.

    But they were trained overseas. They are needed in their country of origin. It just seems so colonial and imperial to take resources from other countries that are needed in those other countries.

    Why are the left insisting it must be done?

  161. Are there any openly gay Islamic preachers?

    Anyone know if there’s a gay & lesbian group in their nearest mosque?*

    * and I don’t mean a group of gay Muslims tied up on the roof of the mosque awaiting airborne sexual orientation re-education.

  162. “The deeper point, which you’re supposed to realise when the implication above has sunk in, is that nationalist distinctions are arbitrary and meaningless; the result of invented culture and historical accident.”

    Brotherhood of man shit.

    ‘When the music changes then all is broken down,
    Mighty cities laid to ruin, burning to the ground.
    Murder is become the law; you cannot make a stand,
    Chaos rules the world now mortal, brotherhood of man.’

    “Nationalist distinctions are arbitrary and meaningless” is a death wish.

    People organize for mutual protection. Dissolving those organizations means the loss of protection. Anarchy. Death to many. Chaos. Peace to none.

    A death wish.

  163. Timothy, look what happens when you waltz off for a couple of days.

    186 isn’t bad? So the trick is – how to get that in the new joint 😉

  164. @NiV
    No politician really believes that Islam is not a threat, if they did they would have Muslim bodyguards to prove it to “Islamophobes”.
    BTW I am glad that Tim pointed to this story – I was thinking of subscribing to the Telegraph but why if their spin is the same as the BBC

  165. @ NiV
    You are still just making it up: pretending that you haven’t read my next sentence and that the lefty arguments are self-consistent.
    I can do without your smears by the way. I have never given anyone any reason to suppose that I advocate culling all pensioners, disabled and/or otherwise unable to produce as much as they consume. To claim that my pointing out the falseness of your formula for net benefit is equivalent to wiping out everyone who is not a net contributor is disgustingly dishonest.

  166. @Paul
    “I quite like what happens in Spain ; currently to access benefits, health and so on, you have to have a residence card. To get this as a migrant to Spain you have to either have a job (not selling the big issue for a day !) or sufficient income to support yourself or be married to someone in that situation. So you can go and live there, sure, but you can’t rely on the Spanish state to house and feed you.”
    So why can Spaniards get council houses benefits etc here from day one?

  167. The objective is the destruction of Western Civilization.

    The method is disruption of the culture. Demanding men can use women’s bathrooms; unlimited, unassimilated immigration. It’s all the same.

    Yes, Mr Ecks. NiV is engaged in treason. And he’s proud of it. The West deserves to die.

    New boss will kill him.

  168. Are you guys still here? I’d have thought you’d have got bored of commenting by now.

    I can’t be bothered to answer all the new nonsense – I’ll pick on one just for the example. It’s typical of the problem.

    john 77

    “@ NiV
    You are still just making it up: pretending that you haven’t read my next sentence and that the lefty arguments are self-consistent.”

    I’m trying to work out which two sentences you’re talking about here. I don’t recall making anything up. The only lefty argument I’ve made was the trade union closed shop analogy, and I don’t recall pretending not to have read any of your sentences, so I’m a bit short of clues, here.

    “I can do without your smears by the way. I have never given anyone any reason to suppose that I advocate culling all pensioners, disabled and/or otherwise unable to produce as much as they consume.”

    Fascinating! I can’t remember suggesting this either. In fact, I did a quick search of the entire thread to see if I could find the words ‘pensioner’ ‘disabled’ or ‘cull’, to see if I had somehow said something like this and simply forgotten it. The only place these words appear is in john 77’s comment, complaining about me having said it. (I presume this supposed to be the subject of the claimed “smears”.) Hmm.

    “To claim that my pointing out the falseness of your formula for net benefit is equivalent to wiping out everyone who is not a net contributor is disgustingly dishonest.”

    The falseness of my formula? What formula is that?

    And I did a search for “wiping out” as well, and that only appears the once, too. In the complaint. The word “wipe” appears twice, in a comment by tomsmith, and refers only to Islam wiping out civilisations, not john 77.

    So I’m “disgustingly dishonest” for saying something that nobody at all has actually said? Or so far as I can see, suggested? Hmm, again.

    I’m guessing that this is all something to do with john’s comment at 3:17 pm and my reply. john said “Secondly you are using the standard lefty, palpably false, argument that there is no loss to “us” if one of “us” loses his job to an immigrant.” Which I replied to by pointing out that the standard lefty argument actually goes the other way, that outsiders (whether to the union or to the country) come in and steal the workers’ jobs, reducing wages, and that this is a loss to the worker replaced.

    I had hoped and assumed that people here would understand why the socialist’s argument being made for the closed shop was false, and therefore be able to see that the argument with regard to the immigrant was therefore false, too. Closed shops exclude competition for jobs from outside the union, forcing wages up. So if you allow non-union labour, the union member loses their job or has to take a wage cut – a clear cost. What this argument fails to account for is that the cost of their wages goes onto the price of goods sold, and all the workers in the country are all doing the same, so the money gained from higher wages is lost (and more than lost) due to the higher prices needed to pay for everyone else’s higher wages.

    The argument with regard to immigrants is the same. Letting in immigrants forces native wages down, but it also forces prices of goods in the shops down even more, so in fact everyone, including the natives, benefits.

    This is just standard free market theory, such as is explained in far more detail and depth by Bastiat, and such as everyone here ought to already understand.

    So could this be where the mysterious “next sentence” comes from? “The Trades Unions are willing to blackmail the commuting public over the threat of job losses but are quite happy to watch and applaud non-union members losing *their* jobs to immigrants.”

    Well, to be honest I had originally just interpreted this as a repetition of the previous assertion that support for immigration was a “lefty” argument, which I’d already answered by pointing out that immigrants taking union members jobs was diametrically opposed to the unions aims, methods, and motivations. It was obviously false too, by the same argument. Indeed john 77’s post contained so many false claims it would have taken me ages to pick them all apart. But maybe the point being made here is that the unions are nevertheless supporting immigration, despite that being against their own rational interests? Is this the “inconsistency”?

    Well, I was interested enough to actually go look up what the RMT had said about immigration. (I assume we’re talking about the RMT here, since john 77 also complains about the train strikes.)

    So there’s a letter to the editor in their newsletter here that says: “Yet the EU capitalist alliance clearly wants to destroy effective trade unionism and divide the working class on sectarian lines.” and “Bro Randall should read documents by No2EU and CAEF which our union supports –a worthy legacy of our late general secretary Bob Crow. The EU’s so-called ‘free movement’ rules are designed to undermine effective trade unionism purely, simply and brutally.” It’s suggested that the RMT policy was to support No2EU.

    But that’s a mere letter to the editor. Brother Metcalfe could be mistaken. So how about Alex Gordon, President of the RMT, writing on the Communist Party of Britain’s own website? Brother Gordon says “However Swedish TUC (LO) vice-president Wanja Lundby-Wedin pointed out that industrial action is, by its very nature, an obstacle to the activities of a company and free movement. “What, until now, have been regarded as fundamental rights of workers in all democratic states would be undermined in the name of free movement,” she said. The Viking case involved industrial action by the Finnish Seamen’s Union against attempts by the employer to replace Finnish seafarers with cheaper Estonian labour. The employer’s claim was based on EU law was that the industrial action had violated the employer’s rights to freedom of establishment and to provide services, as provided in the EU Treaties, Articles 43 and 49. Both these cases highlight how EU Treaty provisions on free movement is being used as a battering ram against the trade union rights to take collective industrial action even if it is lawful under national law.”

    The President of the RMT has declared free movement to be a neoliberal con, aimed at the union’s aboility to seek higher wages by striking, he opposes free immigration, and the Communist Party of Britain in publishing his views clearly doesn’t see anything heretical in this.

    So in fact the socialists argue that freedom of movement is a threat to their member’s wages, and oppose it, just as I said. It’s so nice to get experimental confirmation of one’s hypotheses!

    Now, far be it from me to suggest that john 77 is arguing “dishonestly”, rather than being merely mistaken. I’d not wish to descend to such a moral depth. But no, I diddn’t suggest that john would “advocate culling all pensioners, disabled and/or otherwise unable to produce as much as they consume”. I didn’t “claim that [john 77] pointing out the falseness of [my] formula for net benefit is equivalent to wiping out everyone who is not a net contributor”. I wasn’t being dishonest in ‘ignoring’ john 77’s (false) claim that the RMT supported immigration, since I figured I had already answered it by pointing out the logic of the unionist’s mission.

    And I’m not the least bit perturbed by such accusations, when they’re so clearly specious. In fact, I quite enjoy the argument!

    However, I have other things to do this evening, so I’m going to skip the rest of the entertainment. Thank you for making me smile!

  169. “The argument with regard to immigrants is the same. Letting in immigrants forces native wages down, but it also forces prices of goods in the shops down ”

    Not when immigrants don’t work and are in fact subsidised by the natives. All it does in that case is increase taxation, reduce personal income, and have the native population subsidise their replacement. Cruel to the point of sadistic, you lying, dishonest, hateful fool.

    And in the case of Islam, even your best case scenario of the imports working and driving down consumer prices still results in rape, genocide and death in the end. Because it is Islam, and that is what Islam does.

    Go spend a few weeks on your own in Luton or Leicester Owen Jones. See what happens.

  170. “Not when immigrants don’t work and are in fact subsidised by the natives. All it does in that case is increase taxation, reduce personal income, and have the native population subsidise their replacement.”

    You’re being idiotic. People on welfare (both native and immigrant) are being subsidised by people with high-paying jobs (both native and immigrant). That means immigrants with jobs are subsidising natives on welfare.

    You’re presenting an argument against welfare, which benefits far more natives than immigrants (both in absolute number and by proportion), but you’re dishonestly only taking the part of that problem that suits you, and ignoring the rest of it when it contradicts your case.

    Immigrant workers subsidise native welfare claimants through paying their taxes, and by doing things cheaper/faster/better, they support poor natives by lowering prices in the shops. As Julian Simon demonstrated, immigrants contribute more to society on average than they cost, even allowing for welfare.

    Immigrants are Group A here, welfare claimants are Group B, and you’re trying to pull the same old dishonest, authoritarian trick. Nobody’s that stupid.

  171. Ecks, Theo and others have already pointed out – they are “our” parasites, welfare scroungers (even scallies).

    It seems to me that a lot of the (much) pointless argument on here has been over the notion of kin. One can be libertarian and still believe in kin, and the gradations, from close family (strong), through friends, community, nation, and beyond that (weaker).

    NiV appears to discount or play it down, for whatever reason. But without it, our civilisation today simply wouldn’t exist.

  172. @ NiV
    11.17 pm
    I suppose it is too much to expect you to remember what you wrote “Make that your rule and dispose of British people as you would foreigners”

  173. To whom it may concern
    Some of us have to work in order to earn money to support, whether by taxes or charities, those who cannot work through sickness or injury or disability or great age or frailty or are widows with children. Therefore I and others are unable to maintain a constant eye upon threads to rebut lies by NiV and his/her likes. Please do not expect a prompt rebuttal of them – but in many cases you may be able to note that NiV’s comments are disproved/contradicted by earlier comments on the thread.

  174. “I suppose it is too much to expect you to remember what you wrote “Make that your rule and dispose of British people as you would foreigners””

    Ah! I see! It would have been nice if you’d said that earlier.

    I had thought it was obvious that treating them “as you would foreigners” meant to keep them out of the country – i.e. deport them, get them out of the country. The dictionary definition is “Get rid of by throwing away or giving or selling to someone else.” – nothing about killing or destroying. You’re putting your own extreme interpretation on “dispose”.

    See also…

    “If lots of inhabitants don’t want lots of foreigners imported”

    Lots of inhabitants don’t want lots of other inhabitants. Suppose we note that the left wing inhabitants don’t want any right-wing inhabitants to stay in the country? (Which I think a fair number do, only they’d go a lot further…) Do we therefore deport all the right-wingers? Do you see where this line of thinking leads?

    The argument being made was that foreigners not paying their way justified excluding them, I was simply saying that if that was really your reason, then you should do the same thing to *everyone* not paying their way, not just the foreigners. Doing the same thing to natives as foreigners doesn’t imply killing them.

    I can see now how you could misunderstand that – mistaken rather than dishonest, as I suggested. It’s a common enough euphemism for killing. But if I can give you the benefit of the doubt, why can’t you do me the same courtesy?

    “To whom it may concern Some of us have to work in order to earn money to support,”

    Me too!

    “Therefore I and others are unable to maintain a constant eye upon threads to rebut lies”

    Me too! I try, though.

    “It seems to me that a lot of the (much) pointless argument on here has been over the notion of kin. One can be libertarian and still believe in kin, and the gradations, from close family (strong), through friends, community, nation, and beyond that (weaker). NiV appears to discount or play it down, for whatever reason. But without it, our civilisation today simply wouldn’t exist.”

    Of course. Humans are tribal. The psychology of the in-group/out-group division in human minds is at the heart of all conflict.

    My point is not to say it doesn’t happen or that it isn’t important to people. (If anything, I was saying the opposite – that this was the *real* reason for your antipathy, not economics or terrorism.) My aim was to point out that it’s not the *only* way to divide humanity into in-groups and out-groups. Under a lot of those alternative categorisations, you are most definitely in society’s out-group. And once you set the principle and precedent of allowing harsher treatment to out-groups than in-groups, you automatically justify all the other groups who want to do the same thing to *you*.

    A lot of people don’t like right-wingers, in the same sort of way you don’t like foreigners. Those on the right are not seen as “one of us”. They talk up the threat that right-wing extremists pose to society. If such people become the moral majority or ruling class, should they be able to do to you what you want to do to immigrants, not because you do any economic harm or pose any serious risk to society, but simply because they don’t like you? Because you’re not “one of them”? Not of their tribe?

    Civilisation (i.e. living closely together in cities) is built on reciprocal tolerance. We tolerate our neighbours, even when we don’t like what they do, so that they will tolerate us, even when *they* don’t like what *we* do. (The history of civilisations growth has been one of ever increasing tolerance, allowing cooperation between ever larger groups. We’ve progressed from mud-hut villages, to economic empires spanning continents.)

    Not everyone shares your tribal definitions. In fact, *most* people in the world don’t. I’m not saying that your definitions shouldn’t be important to you. I’m only inviting you to consider the implications of everyone else having *different* definitions that are just as important to them, and that you can easily find yourself on the wrong side of. (Everything from your politics and religion to whether you smoke or eat burgers or enjoy porn.) What do you want the *general* rule to be? Tolerance or exclusion?

  175. It would be nice if I’d said “dispose of British people as you would foreigners” – no, it bloody well wouldn’t. I’m not called Adolf!
    It is quite obvious to anyone with a grain of intelligence that it *cannot* mean keeping them out of the country as they are British people, so the only interpretation that a sane person can expect me to put on it is that “dispose of” carries it usual nasty meaning.
    Trying to tar me with your own brush doesn’t go down well.

  176. “It is quite obvious to anyone with a grain of intelligence that it *cannot* mean keeping them out of the country as they are British people”

    Why?! The British government have done it before.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depopulation_of_Chagossians_from_the_Chagos_Archipelago

    The Scots have their Fuadaichean nan Gàidheal. The Irish Catholics gt deported under Cromwell, too. You could talk to the Australians about the British and forced emigration as well! 🙂

    History is replete with examples of “ethnic cleansing” where populations who are nominally natives and citizens have been expelled from a country. There’s the partition of India and Pakistan. There was the population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923, and then again in Cyprus in 1975. There was Mussolini’s South Tyrol Option Agreement. There were the Kurds There was the whole Israel/Palestine mess.

    It wouldn’t be popular, but it’s certainly possible. And whether possible or not, it’s the logical conclusion of saying that it’s legitimate to say people *shouldn’t* be allowed to be part of our society because they don’t offer a positive economic balance. Whether or not we *can*, that argument says we still *should*.


    I see a constant tendency to assume that if one of you doesn’t understand something or disagrees with something I said, I must be either stupid, insane, or dishonest. It doesn’t bother me, but it makes a conversation difficult.

    Other people sometimes have different opinions. But it seems very hard for some to understand that it is possible for people of good intent to legitimately disagree on things that they consider fundamental, or care deeply about. At the end of the day, it’s just a different opinion. What does it matter what they think? There’s no need to get emotional about it.

    Debate, and free speech, just means that anyone can express any opinion, and try to defend it, and anyone else can put up an opposing opinion to disagree. When you’ve seen the best arguments adherents of both positions can make, you can make up your own mind. With free speech, there are no opinions you are “not allowed” to express, including the ones people don’t like.

    Conversely, it’s the essence of political correctness to declare some opinions obnoxious and out of bounds, and ferociously attack their speaker with the intention of silencing them or driving them away. And they always take it for granted their actions are justified. They’re so obviously right, and their opponents so obviously evil, there’s no possibility of a question about it.

    You guys keep on saying you don’t like political correctness, but you don’t always act as if you believe it!

    There’s a special word for “Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.” It’s sometimes worth being aware of what words really mean.

  177. @ NiV
    Some of us need to work
    You *claim* that you do, too but every time I look at this thread you have spouted yards of nonsense, which demonstrates that you work a damn sight less than I do although I am semi-retired.
    Maybe your defintion of work differs from mine.
    It is quite clear that you definition of truth does – ethnic cleansing involves removing (either geographically or
    mortally) those already in a geographcal area, not denying entry into it for those outside; Chagossians are not British, Cromwell’s many crimes did not include mass deportion of Irish Catholics,because there was nowhere to which to deport them and the deportation of criminals to Australia was an attempt at leniency and providing an opportunity for reformation for those who would otherwise have been executed for their crimes.
    You are lying all the time when you say my criticism of your lies means that I support proposals that would be roundly dismissed as intolerable by mister ecks.

    No, I do not have time to go through all your lies to refute each of them separately because I do actually (not allegedly like you) have to work and I have a life. So I shall just say that *all* of your responses that I have noticed are lies.

  178. “You *claim* that you do, too but every time I look at this thread you have spouted yards of nonsense, which demonstrates that you work a damn sight less than I do although I am semi-retired.
    Maybe your defintion of work differs from mine.”

    What, one comment a day, the last couple of days?!

    I just write fast!

    “It is quite clear that you definition of truth does – ethnic cleansing involves removing (either geographically or
    mortally) those already in a geographcal area, not denying entry into it for those outside”

    Yes, exactly. That’s what we’re talking about.

    “Chagossians are not British,”

    They were at the time – It was a British Colony.

    “Cromwell’s many crimes did not include mass deportion of Irish Catholics,because there was nowhere to which to deport them”

    They were deported as plantation workers to the Caribbean. Read some history.

    “and the deportation of criminals to Australia was an attempt at leniency and providing an opportunity for reformation for those who would otherwise have been executed for their crimes.”

    Yes, exactly. And how does that not fit?

    “You are lying all the time when you say my criticism of your lies means that I support proposals that would be roundly dismissed as intolerable by mister ecks.”

    The only reason you don’t support them is that you’re being hypocritical. Those are the *conclusions* implied by the *reasons* you give for excluding immigrants.

    My point is not that you support those conclusions, it is that it shows that you are lying about the reasons. It’s not that you oppose immigration because some of them don’t contribute positively, or you *would* support them. It’s that you oppose immigration because they’re *not British*.

    So stop talking crap about there being economic reasons. You don’t like them coming, and don’t care about being fair to them, because they’re *not British* – they’re not in your tribe. That’s all this is.

  179. @ NiV
    When you learn to read all of a post, not just the things that you want to quote out of context, you will discover that I do not, and have not said that I, oppose immigration; what I said was:
    “OTOH, let’s replace the EDF with civilised immigrants: the immigrants that I meet are preferable to them (the first immigrant I met was a Polish RAF pilot who married a WREN in 1944).”
    Your indiscriminate hatred of anyone who points out your errors is not a justification for lying about me.

  180. “When you learn to read all of a post, not just the things that you want to quote out of context, you will discover that I do not, and have not said that I, oppose immigration”

    I was responding to the comment “Secondly you are using the standard lefty, palpably false, argument that there is no loss to “us” if one of “us” loses his job to an immigrant. The Trades Unions are willing to blackmail the commuting public over the threat of job losses but are quite happy to watch and applaud non-union members losing *their* jobs to immigrants.”

    I took that to mean you was opposed to natives losing their jobs to immigrants; that you was opposed to (at least some) immigration on the grounds of native job losses and unemployment.

    How do *you* interpret it?

  181. I don’t need to interpret it. I write in English.
    Try it sometime.
    Or, even better, try reading it.

  182. I do. I did.

    So are you saying I was correct? That you have no alternative interpretation of those words to offer? Fair enough.

  183. @ Niv
    I wrote in English. You have *chosen* to claim that I said something I did not – whether that was just to annoy me or to pretend that you are clever I neither know nor care.
    What I said was that your formula was wrong – you claim that in NiVish that means I am anti-immigration.
    I does NOT mean that in English.
    You are repeatedly wrong, I have shown that are wrong, you have then lied about I said asnd are now claiming that you can read my mind and that what I mean is not what I said. That is rubbish.
    Just crawl back under your stone and shut up – I have no intention of bothering with your comments any further.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.