The rise of Extremism in Economically tough times

Sapphire

This is true. I find it absurd that white people who are objecting to white individuals from the near Continent (northern and central Europe, for example) coming to Britain are often branded as racists. White people living on the near Continent are of the same race as white people living in Britain.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Racist is getting seriously overused, to the point where if you don't simply welcome everything happening, you become a racist.

Infact, some of those most pro-immigration have been noted to live in gated communities.

Running_Horse

When the time come to have children, how many of our London anti-racist liberal elite choose to up sticks for the Home Counties, or pay to send their children to mostly white schools? Reading Ofsted reports for inner London, it is impossible to find one that is not mostly children of immigrants.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

"not liking foreigners" is quite different to "not liking to live around foreigners".

If someone doesn't like to live around foreigners it's a fair assumption one of the main factors is that they simply don't like foreigners.

Let's call them quite different things if it suits but the numbers of people within both groups has increased. Of course there have recently been a couple of elections which have given people the chance to show off their interest in only limited election issues so immigration always gets a good airing.

However, I don't remember the same anti immigration fervour in the noughties. The main difference is the economy and the resulting move to the right. It's easier to blame someone else than look at ourselves so it's banksters, immigrants, single mothers, the EU, landlords etc.

danothy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

whole the shops catering for the polish.

Whole shops? Oh my! THINK OF THE SOCIAL DAMAGE™!!?!

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The area not being relevant to me does not mean I dislike the people it IS relevant to.

But ... SOCIAL DAMAGE™!

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you can't now take a decision to live somewhere which is relevant to you and your life without being labelled as a racist, all hope is lost.

Fundamental cognitive deficiency on display there. Arguing against immigration isn't "tak[ing] a decision to life somewhere ... relevant" it's arguing that you should be able to limit that decision for others.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't choose to send my children to a faith school. ... I don't choose to send them to a free school. ... It's simply not my preference

Seems like you have a lot of choice regarding schooling. Seems at odds with some previous assertions you have made in this thread:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Many people find ... they can't get school places.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The trouble here is you are up against others who will be competing against these immigrants for ... school places

Onwards:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But by your suggestion I appear to hate all of these people as I am actively deciding that these things are not for me and don't cater for me.

When your avocations suggest that you have in fact decided that we should not be for them rather than that they are not for you it does come across somewhat hatefully.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No one, as far as I'm aware would decide not to live on a street because somewhere on the street a polish family has residence.

I'm sure that in fact there are people like this.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

However, when the whole community changes around you, you may think about moving somewhere that better reflects your lifestyle.

But you argue against immigration on the grounds of SOCIAL DAMAGE™. You've been advocating a right for 'us' to decide where others can't live rather than thinking about where you can go.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If your argument is that you think UKIP supporters would move because an immigrant moved in 4 doors up from them, then I would have to say it's an extremely poor argument. Most people live in a society with people from different backgrounds. But the whole community changing is something quite different.

I think you're actually replied with this last paragraph to something that you've invented from your own imagination.

Generali

wotsthat wrote: »

If someone doesn't like to live around foreigners it's a fair assumption one of the main factors is that they simply don't like foreigners.

Let's call them quite different things if it suits but the numbers of people within both groups has increased. Of course there have recently been a couple of elections which have given people the chance to show off their interest in only limited election issues so immigration always gets a good airing.

However, I don't remember the same anti immigration fervour in the noughties. The main difference is the economy and the resulting move to the right. It's easier to blame someone else than look at ourselves so it's banksters, immigrants, single mothers, the EU, landlords etc.

Rather depressingly I think this attitude has always been there in the background. I think that UKIP has given the racists an acceptable outlet.

Let's face it, you couldn't vote BNP or NF as they were skinhead bovver boys. The leader of UKIP is one of us though. White, works hard, reasonable, drinks warm beer. He even gets on the BBC.

danothy

Sapphire wrote: »

White people living on the near Continent are of the same race as white people living in Britain.

Ahh, the ol' "It's not racist because it doesn't fit the taxonomic definition of race" argument. Completely ignores the broader meaning of race and the identical and still abhorrent cognitive process that leads one to discriminate against another because of a perceived (and often incorrect) perception about a group of people they are inextricably linked with.

Seabee42

setmefree2 wrote: »

The lie is that you will be better off if the immigrants go home/don't come.

You won't - you will be worse off.

Imagine. The USA had 3 million inhabitants in 1787 when they kicked out the Brits. Now they have 313 million inhabitants. Do you think they would be the country that they are if they had remained a country with a population of 3 million?

Firstly the USA is a much bigger space. Space is a key consideration when talking about immigration especially in the south east. Its not like any and I mean any infrastructure has been put in place for the last 5 million immigrants.

Secondly someone may well be better of usually that someone is the 1% that are quite frankly doing very well already. Considering the scale of immigration recently you should have a ready supply of cheap labour to keep you with enough servants.

It is becoming more and more obvious that growth GDP cannot continue for ever there are serious resources issue with this and food water etc are all part of that. That does not mean that the people are actually wealthier in fact GPD per capita has been falling in the UK for a while, because the immigrants are only in general only taking low pay jobs and not increasing the economy.

Debt growth is becoming less and less effective i.e. more debt is required for less effect.

Seabee42

Generali wrote: »

Rather depressingly I think this attitude has always been there in the background. I think that UKIP has given the racists an acceptable outlet.

Let's face it, you couldn't vote BNP or NF as they were skinhead bovver boys. The leader of UKIP is one of us though. White, works hard, reasonable, drinks warm beer. He even gets on the BBC.

Its boring this argument, I completely understand why people want to seek a better life and I certainly do not blame them for coming and trying. What our MPs are meant to represent are the people of this country. Why after an enormous influx of extra people into this country is it wrong to say "hold on do lets take stock here". A net immigration freeze is probably sensible considering the housing situation alone. Oh of course I am racist because your getting rich by it.

Bantex_2

Probably a bit controversial, but there is an argument that racism is a natural hard wired mechanism built into animals. It is all about protecting ones own gene pool and starts with immediate family then to extended (genetic) family and onto tribe nation etc,

I doubt if many people would not put their own children first above others in a dangerous situation and it is just an extension of that.

danothy

Bantex wrote: »

Probably a bit controversial, but there is an argument that racism is a natural hard wired mechanism built into animals. It is all about protecting ones own gene pool and starts with immediate family then to extended (genetic) family and onto tribe nation etc,

I doubt if many people would not put their own children first above others in a dangerous situation and it is just an extension of that.

I think you're confusing 'argument' with 'hypothesis' and possibly 'explanation' with 'justification'.