UK Population to grow 25%, Britain biggest country in Europe by 2050

A._Badger

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Except from the co-founder.......:cool:



Eugenics...... The policy followed by Adolf Hitler in his pursuit of a White Master Race.

Why does it not surprise me that a front organisation for racists such as migrationwatch was founded by a lifetime member of the Eugenics society.

Two fatal errors. No source for your quote and no attempt to address the arguments.

BTW.. I'd be careful with the 'racist' accusation. It's actionable and only lunatics on the Far Left haven't learned it has become an example of Godwin's Law, extended.

marklv

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Except from the co-founder.......:cool:



Eugenics...... The policy followed by Adolf Hitler in his pursuit of a White Master Race.

Why does it not surprise me that a front organisation for racists such as migrationwatch was founded by a lifetime member of the Eugenics society.

Here we go again - the 'racist' epithet being thrown around like confetti. It's your favourite weapon of choice because it silents argument - or so you hope. But most of us can see through your pathetic lies. People like you are real ignorant morons. Marxist millionaires, who are happy to shaft the rest of society while preaching tolerance and equality - the same !!!!!! who used to be in charge of 'New Labour' and who now dominate the Tory party.

Keep using the 'R' word, it won't silence us.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

marklv wrote: »

Your arguments are only based on raw economics and ignore the human and social consequences of mass immigration.

So you accept that immigration has positive economic benefits?

Immigration is not the solution to solving the issue of an ageing population; the solution should be in encouraging the native population to form family units and have children. This is the missing element in government policy. Governments are afraid of introducing legislation to encourage family life because of politically correct nonsense about freedom of choice etc.

So what do you suggest...... A forced breeding programme?

Gosh, all we'd need then would be a strong leader type with a funny mustache and great presence and Britain would be on it's way again... Yes indeed, reclaiming her former glory on the world stage with a strong generation of purebred children and enforced social harmony.

What could possibly go wrong?

The result is that soon we will see mass immigration from muslim countries where no such political correctness exists. Then we'll see if you are still happy.

Ah yes, that dangerous mass immigration of the Muslims......

Which is somehow different to the previous mass immigration of the Muslims in the 1950's for the textile factories up north.

Or the dangerous mass immigration of the Irish, Jamaicans, East Europeans, Romans, Normans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings..... etc

Xenophobia. It's a disease. Get help.

A._Badger

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Xenophobia. It's a disease. Get help.

Xenophilia - pot, kettle, black.

Kohoutek

Maybe it's racist to say this, but I think it's fairly obvious that the way that Islam is interpreted in many Muslim countries (and by extension by many Muslim immigrants to Britain) is not compatible with traditional Britain values such as liberalism and tolerance.

I'd been interested to hear what arguments people make who do not believe this is the case.

marklv

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So you accept that immigration has positive economic benefits?

I accept that there might be some short term economic benefits.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So what do you suggest...... A forced breeding programme?

Perhaps Prof Coleman of migrationwatch could share his Eugenics knowledge to help you develop a master race.......

You are being facetious. I would encourage familiy friendly policies in order to reward those people from the right social backgrounds (i.e. not the poor or state dependent) to have more children. By the way, there is nothing wrong with Eugenics and this science has nothing whatsoever to do with the Nazis. It was founded well before the Nazis even existed and its aim was the betterment of society by encouraging the more intelligent and economically valuable members of society to have children while discouraging the expansion of the state dependent underclass. The Nazis then corrupted the concept by applying it indiscriminately to any group they disliked. UK government policy since the 1960s has been highly dysgenic, i.e. it has rewarded the underclass with benefits based on family size, while failing to promote the growth of the productive and intelligent sector of society.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Gosh, all we'd need then would be a strong leader type with a funny mustache and great presence and Britain would be on it's way again... Yes indeed, reclaiming her former glory on the world stage with a strong generation of purebred children and enforced social harmony.

What could possibly go wrong?

You are being an idiot.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Ah yes, that dangerous mass immigration of the Muslims......

Which is somehow different to the previous mass immigration of the Muslims in the 1950's for the textile factories up north.

No it's not different, except that now the numbers are much greater and widespread than in the 1950s - actually the 1960s was the time when they first arrived in large numbers. And since then Muslim extremism has grown by leaps and bounds, thanks to Bin Laden and his men.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Or the dangerous mass immigration of the Irish, Jamaicans, East Europeans, Romans, Normans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings..... etc

Xenophobia. It's a disease. Get help.

It's not being xenophobic to point out that some immigrants can be assimilated more easily than others in our society. Britain has always been a nation of immigrants, but until 1948 these were overwhelmingly white Europeans from Christian nations, with similar cultural norms to ours. How many women with burkhas would you see on the streets of London in 1935?

You need the psychiatric help my friend, to wash out the politically correct nonsense from your brain.

StevieJ

Immigration seems to have worked for the largest economy in the world.

A._Badger

Kohoutek wrote: »

Maybe it's racist to say this, but I think it's fairly obvious that the way that Islam is interpreted in many Muslim countries (and by extension by many Muslim immigrants to Britain) is not compatible with traditional Britain values such as liberalism and tolerance.

I'd been interested to hear what arguments people make who do not believe this is the case.

Of course it isn't racist to say it. Religion is a matter of choice. Race isn't.

Bigots like McTavish, however, try to silence debate by screaming 'racist!' as if it were some magical incantation designed to ward-off intelligent thought.

Which, of course, it is.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

A._Badger wrote: »

Two fatal errors. No source for your quote and no attempt to address the arguments.

Sources..... And a detailed address of the arguments in the Guardian.

Migrationwatch Founder.
I'M NOT RACIST, BUT...
Oxford professor defends his anti-immigrant views

Front and 2-page report by Richard Gardner plus comment piece by Terence Blacker, The Independent, 9th March 2007

http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/colemn01.html


Eugenics....

Eugenics was widely popular in the early decades of the 20th century, but has fallen into disrepute after having become associated with Nazi Germany. Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of "undesired" population groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Prof Coleman.....

First, we know that: a) Coleman is a eugenicist; and b) he is against immigration. He is, of course, in the company of many supporters of immigration controls who would not consider themselves racists (although many of us believe that immigration controls are inherently racist, and explicable only by racism).

But the likelihood is that Coleman's opposition to immigration is driven by a more extreme and conscious desire than is the case with most people to preserve some kind of notional purity of British stock.

Second, as Coleman points out with pride, one of the Galton Institute's main programmes is to help Ethiopians to have fewer babies.

At the same time, Coleman argues, in an article in the Galton Institute newsletter of March 2001, that European women should be helped to have more babies: "The root cause of excessive population ageing is very low birth-rates. An effective response must make the workplace, the tax and welfare system and gender relations as a whole more favourable to women, so they can fulfil ambitions, repeatedly stated, to have more than one child."

This chimes with a classic argument of the eugenicists: "better" stock should have more babies, "worse" stock should have fewer.
As for Sir Andrew Green, he says he has no problems with Polish immigration; it is immigration from the "distant cultures" of Asia and Africa that he is against. So much for overcrowding in this "small island".

Coleman cites an article he wrote with the erstwhile progressive economist Bob Rowthorn in the Population and Development Review of December 2004. In it, they try to knock down the strawman that the British establishment wants mass immigration, by saying that its benefits for the British economy and public finances, though they exist, are exaggerated.

The giveaway is in the conclusion. After 31 pages of statistics and economic argument, they say the "more important effects" of mass immigration would be "new and intractable social divisions and a corresponding weakening of national identity and cohesion, with the prospect of an eventual eclipse of the population receiving the migrants and of its culture".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/16/watchingdavidcoleman1

BTW.. I'd be careful with the 'racist' accusation. .

You claimed migrationwatch was a scholarly and academic organisation "without a jackboot in sight".

A claim that is clearly open to question, given the controversial nature of the co-founder.

But their organisations output is certainly used by some nasty people to give cover to racist ideology, and their co-founder is involved with Eugenics and has had prominent anti-racist activists refuse to stand on the stage with him.

I've posted sourced links to media articles, and we'll let the readers make up their own mind.

A._Badger

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Sources..... And a detailed address of the arguments in the Guardian.

Oh, dear Lord, The Guardian!? Well there's an unimpeachable source of impartial analysis!


[QUOTE=HAMISH_MCTAVISH;35298313_But_their_organisations_output_is_certainly_used_by_some_nasty_people_to_give_cover_to_racist_ideology,_and_their_co-founder_is_involved_with_Eugenics_and_has_had_prominent_anti-racist_activists_refuse_to_stand_on_the_stage_with_him.[/QUOTE]

That would be 'nasty people' like the venomous, crypto-fascist (Labour) MP Frank Field, would it?

That would be the venomous crypto-fascist Field who has used, and thus endorsed, Migration Watch research and data in Parliament.

[QUOTE=HAMISH_MCTAVISH;35298313I've_posted_sourced_links_to_media_articles,_and_we'll_let_the_readers_make_up_their_own_mind.[/QUOTE]

Why don't you just drop the SWP ad hominem tactics and address the issues?

I think most intelligent people are getting a bit sick of this knee-jerk 'Racist!' stuff, when we question whether the social experiment of mass immigration has been a success.