We should therefore welcome the immigrants?

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.

Yes you can, Rob.

What’s interesting is that the Telegraph has gone down this route.

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 ?

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.

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 .

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..

‘No one living in Britain is truly British.’

So then, there is NO true Scotsman, anywhere?

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.

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.

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

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.

“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.

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

Wait, what?

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.

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.

“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?

“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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Stop fucking helping them then.

“Stop fucking helping them then.”

I’m not. You are.

“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…

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

Would it have happened without has immigration?

“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.

“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.

” 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.

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.

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.

“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!

@ 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.

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?

“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.

“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.

@ 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).

@ 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*?

“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.

“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?

“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.

“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.

“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?

“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.

@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.

@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.

“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.

“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?

“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.

“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.

“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!

“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.

“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.

“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.

@ 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.

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.

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

I guess it is because you are being dishonest.

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.

“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.

“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?

“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.

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

“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.

“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?

Hmmm. Importing people from corrupt countries makes the host country more corrupt:

http://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/crook-crook-he-still-crook-abroad-effect-immigration-destination-country

But don’t worry, we can weed them out at the border by asking them if they’re corrupt; they wouldn’t lie to us now would they?

“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.

A reading list for NiV, and anyone else who might be interested:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2012.00289.x/abstract

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/93/3/1211/2332107

https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/32/1/54/2404332

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0190272515612403

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.2010.00215.x/abstract

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X14001392

https://www.academia.edu/3479330/Does_Ethnic_Diversity_Have_a_Negative_Effect_on_Attitudes_towards_the_Community_A_Longitudinal_Analysis_of_the_Causal_Claims_within_the_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Cohesion_Debate

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283881736_Happiness_in_modern_society_Why_intelligence_and_ethnic_composition_matter

http://faculty.smu.edu/kdesmet/papers/CultureDiversity.pdf

Basically, diversity + proximity = conflict and unhappiness.

“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.

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.

“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

“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.

“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’?

“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.

“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.

“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?

“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…”

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

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.

“Too many links for the spam trap”

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

“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.

“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.

For NiV

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7861/british-muslims-survey

“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?

“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?

“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.

“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.

“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.

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?

“Why are the left insisting it must be done?”

The left are proper racists?

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 😉

@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

@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?

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!

“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.

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.

@ 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”

“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?

“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.

“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.

“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?

I do. I did.

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