The Election – What’s The Point? 164


Now that politics have focused down on the election, I find myself thoroughly demotivated.

There is a substantial percentage of the population who wish to see a very early withdrawal from the occupation of Afghanistan, who want genuinely firm measures against the casino banking economy, who are very sceptical about the direction the European Union has gone, and who do not want to waste many scores of billions of dollars on a nuclear submarine system which can wipe out half the world’s population instantaneously and the rest shortly thereafter.

Yet the great “leader’s debate” will be between three people who all follow the same pro-bank bailout, pro-Afghan war, pro-EU and pro-Trident consensus. The political differences between them are insignificant – they are engaged in a Mr Smarm contest. They are not even good at that – Brown is an aggressive churl, Cameron is comfortable only working alongside his team of fellow toffs, Nick Clegg seeks to avoid offending the establishment consensus at all costs.

Only in Wales and Scotland do any significant number of people have a hope of electing anybody who stands outside the cosy Westmnister consensus on key issues.

To work, democracy must present the electorate with real choices.

Our democracy does not work.


164 thoughts on “The Election – What’s The Point?

1 4 5 6
  • Duncan McFarlane

    Also i intensely dislike racists. In fact i don’t believe racists are fit to live in Britain or Scotland. I also believe that racists tend to breed like rabbits, so i want them all out of the country before they swamp the non-racists and ruin over a century of democracy and largely harmonious mixture between different cultures.

    So can all the racist “self-hating losers” get out of our decent countries now please. We’re not forcing you to go, we just want to “persuade” you to leave with your consent so your backwards, bigoted culture doesn’t continue to pollute our non-racist democracy.

    And one other thing – the beaker people were here first before anyone. So, as one of my brothers pointed out, if you don’t have a lot of beakers then by your own logic you should sod off back to the continent.

  • Duncan McFarlane

    and your claims about “bogus arguments” and “false statistics” have a hell of a cheek coming from someone who hasn’t quoted the full statistics on immigrant births exceeding non-immigrant ones in London.

    Google it and you’ll find that nationally immigrant births account for 20% of births in the UK – so despite the rise in immigration 80% of births in the UK are from non-immigrant mothers.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-547871/More-babies-UK-born-migrant-mother.html

    So much for your claim that non-immigrants will be swamped by immigrants.

  • Duncan McFarlane

    sorry correction 21 to 23% are the children of immigrants – which means 77 to 79% – the vast majority – are not the children of immigrants.

    Of course many of the immigrant minority will be white, so won’t worry someone of your persuasion.

  • Duncan McFarlane

    oh and i see from your website you’re Canadian canspeccy – so what does British immigration policy have to do with you?

    Or are you some “damn immigrant” from the UK who’s moved to Canada in order to swamp the indigenous people?

  • CanSpeccy

    Hey Duncan,

    Try an aspirin. I don’t know if it will help with the anti-Canadian xenophobia, but it may cool your fevered brow a little.

  • Duncan McFarlane

    I’ve nothing against Canadians whatsoever. My grandmother lived there for many years as a teenager and i liked the Canadians i met on my last degree course too.

    I’m just confused about what someone who is against the “indigenous population” of countries being mixed with or added to by immigrants is doing in a country whose indigenous population on the timescale you refer to for Britain would be native Indians.

    What are you doing over there swamping the indigenous people if you think non-whites coming to Britain is wrong?

  • CanSpeccy

    Duncan,

    You ask “What are you doing over there swamping the indigenous people if you think non-whites coming to Britain is wrong?”

    I explained above why immigration made sense in Canada (see comment above, addressed to Jimmy). And when I say made sense, I mean serves the interests of the majority. It may even serve the interests of the native people, the fastest growing ethnic group in Canada, who are far from being swamped out, if you mean crowded out, in a country 32 times the size of the United Kingdom but with only half the population. Many native people maintain their identities tenaciously, and here in British Columbia have negotiated the creation of independent native states. Whether these are viable or merely Bantustans is a not clear to me.

    Whether you are mistaken, or I have misrepresented my own view, I am not sure, but I had not intended to advocate any policy on immigration to Britain. What I had intended to do was draw attention to the fact that on opposition to immigration, the criminal wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan, withdrawal from the EU, and on more democratic forms of government, many or most British people apparently support the positions of the BNP, yet will not vote for the BNP and, in fact, back off their declared position when it is identified with the BNP. This is a paradox that seems worthy of consideration.

    I then raised the possibility that the BNP exists to discredit populist policies by associating them with the ridiculous statements and actions and odious past political affiliations of BNP party members. For example, the issue of immigration is, I suspect, for many people primarily an economic, not a racial, issue for reasons that I have stated above and will not repeat. Therefore, by making immigration a racial issue, the BNP creates huge tension about a question that members of a democratic society should be free to decide as they see fit. Likewise, the nose-pulling, the boasts about not having gone soft, and the fascist associations of many party members tend to discredit BNP positions, and thus delegitimize opposition to Britain’s corporatist and part foreign-owned government.

    I have said some other things as well, because many advocates of mass immigration seem to be unaware of the biological reality of what is happening and they seem also to be remarkably callous about the negative economic impact of immigration on Britain’ huge and growing underclass, people no doubt regarded as white trash by the likes of Tony Blair and David Cameron. Indeed, as a result of mass immigration and outsourcing of production, white trash is what they have become: their labour made of little or no value, just as was the case with the poor whites in the southern United States during the era of slavery.

    Cheers,

    AB

  • Duncan McFarlane

    CanSpeccy wrote “Whether you are mistaken, or I have misrepresented my own view, I am not sure”

    So why do you defend the BNP in saying it would “persuade” non-whites (which is not the same as immigrants – and you know it) to leave Britain by “consent”?

    Why did you say that if i didn’t oppose all immigration to the uk then, including that by genuine torture victims and people fleeing for their lives, then “Just don’t be surprised if people think members of the indigenous community who support your view are self-hating losers.” (17th March 4.05pm in this thread)

    You are using the same language as the BNP – where “indigenous” means “white” as it does in their constitution on it’s website. You use the same rhetoric that the BNP use about anyone who doesn’t want to stop all non-white immigrants entering the country being “self hating” white people.

    This also explains why you think white immigration to Canada is and always has been fine, but non-white immigration to the UK is not.

    CanSpeccy wrote “but I had not intended to advocate any policy on immigration to Britain. What I had intended to do was draw attention to the fact that on opposition to immigration, the criminal wars of aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan, withdrawal from the EU, and on more democratic forms of government, many or most British people apparently support the positions of the BNP, yet will not vote for the BNP and, in fact, back off their declared position when it is identified with the BNP. This is a paradox that seems worthy of consideration.”

    No, it’s not. Most people are well aware that the BNP are racists and fascists whose constitution calls for expelling all non-white people from Britain and for segregation between white and black people. They also know the BNP leaders in the late 90s were still distributing anti-semitic literature and denying the Holocaust, before u-turning after September 11th when they realised it was more popular to whip up bigotry against all Muslims than all Jews.

    They started opposing the Iraq war and ending PFIs when they realised those were popular policies that they could gain some votes on in order to promote their racist agenda.

    Do you think the poor in the countries the immigrants are coming from are better off? In Haiti they eat mud cakes mixed with salt to fill their bellies and those of their children as they starve.

    If you want to reduce mass immigration start campaigning for democracy and decent wages and working conditions in sweatshops like Haiti and China.

  • Duncan McFarlane

    P.S I agree that the big parties have abandoned the poorest, but if you think the cause is a ‘soft’ immigration policy you know nothing about the UK’s immigration policy, which is one of the most ruthless and inhumane in the world.

  • CanSpeccy

    I said nothing about a “soft” immigration policy. But if you are saying that Britain’s immigration policy is essentially eugenic, i.e., favoring the fittest, best educated, etc., that must only make it worse for the least competitive members of the indigenous British work force.

  • CanSpeccy

    To finish (perhaps) this conversation, here are some thoughts about the biological consequences of human migration, the determination of immigration policy in Britain and the impact of the immigration issue on British democracy (thoughts I express without apology, since despite my alias, I am both British by birth and citizenship).

    The migration of people to already populated lands has frequently been accomplished by conquest, often with the slaughter of the males and the elderly and the impregnation of the nubile females by the conquerors. This makes good evolutionary sense, in that it increases the representation of the conquerors genes in the future human population, i.e., it an adaptive strategy. It was the strategy of the Mongols, for example, and explains why, according to genetic evidence, Genghis Khan has about 16 million living descendants.

    However, conquerors may bring their own women, as genetic evidence indicates was sometimes the case with the Vikings who settled in Britain. This was also an adaptive strategy, inasmuch as it gave the immigrant population a share of the resources of the country to which they had migrated and thus the potential for greater representation of their genes in the future human population.

    Migration may also occur as the result of invitation, or coercion, by the inhabitants of the land to which population moves. The process is exemplified by the transport of slaves from Africa to the Caribbean and the Americas. The result in the Caribbean was the extinction of the native population, which was replaced by a largely African population: an accidental plus, it seems, for Africans. For the Europeans who undertook the transport of slaves, the benefits are hard to gauge. In Haiti, the French colonists were wiped out in a slave insurrection. In the British colonies, some British genes no doubt persist in a mixed race population. Further, the British plantations generated great wealth that helped finance the industrial revolution, which in turn provided a basis for the expansion of the empire and British colonization overseas, particularly in North America. For the British people, the empire allowed an increase in their worldwide population to several times the present population of the United Kingdom.

    What impact the use of slave labour had on the eventual success of British colonization in the United States is hard to gauge, although it can be considered to have conferred an evolutionary advantage on the African population which now includes something like thirty million Americans.

    In South Africa, reliance on immigrant African labour proved unprofitable to the white settlers, leading eventually to their loss of political control, and their current flight.

    Mass immigration to Britain today, serves the same purpose as the slave trade or African immigration to white South Africa, namely to provide cheap labor. From an evolutionary perspective, this does not seem to be an advantageous strategy, since it will likely result in a sharp reduction in the indigenous British population as it is subject to increasing economic stress imposed by the competition for resources in a severely resource-limited country. For the elite, this may not appear to be of any importance.

    There is no reason why humans should chose to maintain an adaptive policy on immigration or anything else. However, if they do not, it is likely that the society or population to which they belong will not long endure. In considering this outcome, it must be recognized, however, that the evolutionary consequences for the elite and for the mass of the people may be quite different.

    It is possible, for example, to envisage a ruling class that views its interests as more closely allied with those of a global, multi-racial elite, than with the common people of the nation from which they have emerged. That appears to be the situation in the West today, where the indigenous populations are in more or less rapid decline as their place is taken by more highly philoprogenitive immigrants. In Britain, for example, the fertility rate is 1.6 versus a replacement rate of 2.1. In Germany and Italy the fertility rates of the indigenous people are only 1.4 and 1.1, respectively, which means almost certain extinction of the indigenous German and Italian peoples.

    Such situations create the potential for conflict between the elite and the mass of the people. If the people believe, for whatever reason, that mass immigration is to their detriment, which in evolutionary terms it most probably is, the elite will be highly motivated to deny the common people the right to express their view democratically. This seems to explain the concerted effort of governments in western nations to demonize those who oppose immigration as racists, xenophobes, etc., and to inculcate pro-immigration propaganda through the state-controlled K-12+ education system.

    My conclusion, therefore, is that mass immigration which, according to opinion surveys is opposed by 60% of the British population, i.e., more than 70% of the indigenous population, is not consistent with the maintenance of a democratic society. The result is the failure of the democratic system to provide the people with legitimate choice.

    This conclusion has, obviously, nothing to do with my personal feelings about immigrants. Living in a multi-racial society has many attractions. Moreover, it could be argued that the hybrid vigour resulting from miscegenation of Europeans with third world immigrants will yield an adaptive advantage to the host populations in Europe. I am unaware, however, of any real evidence for such a contention, and it is difficult to see an advantage that would outweigh to quantitative loss in genetic representation in the population as a whole that will be experienced by the native populations.

  • CanSpeccy

    The second and final sentences of the last paragraph of the above post should have read:

    Moreover, it could be argued that the hybrid vigour resulting from miscegenation of Europeans with third world immigrants will yield a long-term adaptive advantage to the host populations in Europe. I am unaware, however, of any real evidence for such a contention, and it is difficult to see an advantage that would outweigh to immediate quantitative loss in genetic representation in the population as a whole that will be experienced by the native populations.

  • Duncan McFarlane

    CanSpeccy wrote “It is possible, for example, to envisage a ruling class that views its interests as more closely allied with those of a global, multi-racial elite, than with the common people of the nation from which they have emerged.”

    So asylum seekers are part of the “global elite”? If that’s the case can you explain why they get lower benefits than unemployed British people and are banned from working while their cases are heard?

    Asylum seekers without children get £35 a week – those with children get £42 a week – and their benefits are falling every year relative to inflation.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/04/asylum-seeker-benefits-cut-refugees

    The jobseekers’ allowance for British unemployed people is £50 a week – plus child benefit.

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Employedorlookingforwork/DG_10018757

    Can you explain why Conservative and Labour governments have competed with one another to be tougher on immigration and why the billionaire owners of tabloid newspapers compete with one another to be most opposed to ‘bogus asylum seekers’ and to spread hatred against them, far more even than they focus on native ‘benefit fraudsters’ who take $1billion a year compared to tens of billions taken by billionaires and big firms avoiding taxes?

    The majority of immigrants are even worse off than the poorest people born in Britain and even more victimised by “the elite” here and in other countries.

    So stop pretending that by opposing immigration you’re siding with the oppressed against the elite or defending democracy – you’re siding with the elite against the oppressed and dividing the majority – which only helps the elite conquer them by focusing attention away from Murdoch’s media ownership, tax evasion and deals with Blair and Cameron.

    Your genetic arguments are also political propaganda dressed up as science – stop pretending they’re scientific. You might as well be talking about how the Aryan race is being weakened by Slavs and Jews.

    It also speaks volumes that you think non-indigenous immigration to Canada is great for native Indians ?” genetically and in every other way ?” but non-white immigration to the UK is terrible for the ‘indigenous’ (read white) people. Unless you’re a racist who considers white people superior to non-whites, including native Canadian Indians, this makes no sense.

1 4 5 6

Comments are closed.