|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 16, 2023 7:15:55 GMT
Simple. 1, We keep expending the population to increase the tax take. 2, We don't want anymore people here. 3, We keep living longer and inventing things to help with that. (plus pensions) 4, that means, lie it or not we need more tax. Unless you have an alternative. That would not fill the gaps, 60-70 year olds would only return to work if you made them (cut pensions?) enforced sterilisation in India has no place on this thread, but why not enforced sterilisation in the UK as we're the country that's overcrowded? Obviously Obviously That wouldn't save enough, even if it worked to ignore the rest of the world. Or twist it to their own agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 16, 2023 7:30:36 GMT
Simple. 1, We keep expending the population to increase the tax take. 2, We don't want anymore people here. 3, We keep living longer and inventing things to help with that. (plus pensions) 4, that means, lie it or not we need more tax. Unless you have an alternative. Well that's it isn't it the damage is well and truly done and your only alternative is higher taxation, which might fill the coffers for a short time but it won't change the fact that the majority of voters have been constantly lied too, it has also failed before, it is really just the constant hamster wheel which always leads to the same outcome, more immigration for more taxation while the voters are blamed for getting old by a government of any colour who have not made any actual plans with all the money they have had but spent it propping up a system that hasn't actually worked for the majority of people but a very few. There is no way of pointing at just one psychopath in power when there so many of them, the English will be deemed extinct next for what reason? that they voted for it perhaps? The damage is not well and truly done, we can still stop it getting worse and fix some of it, without the immigration our population would fall and housing and infrastructure would catch back up. We can all sit here and moan about being lied to, its much easier than looking for a solution. And yes its only ever a short term solution, rinse and repeat. But what's the solution. The working class bringing to heal? Is that your solution? How would that work? If raising tax is what immigration is about. Then higher tax for those still here is the solution. That or cut services, but no one wants that either at least not the ones they enjoy. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 16, 2023 7:30:46 GMT
What does that comment mean? That it would suit you to find that immigrants are destroying the UK and that it was a deliberate conspiracy by the ruling elite. Funny I am accused of putting thoughts into people's heads and words in their mouths. The point I made was that the evidence that is accruing is that that evidence lends credence to the 'conspiracy theory' that the aim is to obliterate the English. It is strange how some accept some situations on the flimsiest of evidence yet wilfully ignore vast amounts of evidence as regards other things. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 16, 2023 7:34:43 GMT
That it would suit you to find that immigrants are destroying the UK and that it was a deliberate conspiracy by the ruling elite. Funny I am accused of putting thoughts into people's heads and words in their mouths. The point I made was that the evidence that is accruing is that that evidence lends credence to the 'conspiracy theory' that the aim is to obliterate the English. It is strange how some accept some situations on the flimsiest of evidence yet wilfully ignore vast amounts of evidence as regards other things. But it doesn't. You present no evidence, you just suggest it does. That's how conspiracy theories run. That's why they are so hard to destroy, you cannot dispute the evidence as they offer none. They invite the viewer to prove its not so. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 16, 2023 7:39:34 GMT
That would not fill the gaps, 60-70 year olds would only return to work if you made them (cut pensions?) enforced sterilisation in India has no place on this thread, but why not enforced sterilisation in the UK as we're the country that's overcrowded? Obviously Obviously That wouldn't save enough, even if it worked to ignore the rest of the world. Or twist it to their own agenda. Way back in the 1960s and 1970s was what I meant. We were educated to worry about population at that time and how starvation of large numbers of people was a real risk unless we controlled birth rates. India adopted a large programme of enforced sterilisation. I foresee large euthanasia programmes with Canada being a leading light in this. The points I made were that idiots should grasp the basic problems with increasing population and not consider only the 'benefits'. It is not 'ignoring' the rest of the world it is accepting that charity, welfare, good deeds, consideration, family, friends, relations and society all start here and not in far flung countries. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 16, 2023 7:46:42 GMT
One the one hand hand-wringing about the population's effects on the environment. and CO2 and , on the other, insisting that the third world be relocated into the west.
Is this a random inconsistent combination of ideas or is there an over-arching objective that makes it make some sense?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2023 8:17:17 GMT
One the one hand hand-wringing about the population's effects on the environment. and CO2 and , on the other, insisting that the third world be relocated into the west. Is this a random inconsistent combination of ideas or is there an over-arching objective that makes it make some sense? It is not logically or morally inconsistent to wish to limit CO2 emissions contributing towards climate change on the one hand, and wishing to be compassionate towards the victims of it on the other. Both impulses are actually two sides of the same coin. But you paraphrase it in politically loaded, factually inaccurate and dishonest ways more akin to the worst excesses of the Daily Mail, which is out of place in a part of the forum reserved for intelligent debate. For one thing no one is "insisting that the third world be relocated to the west". Name a leading politician who has said that with a link to the evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 16, 2023 9:09:58 GMT
One the one hand hand-wringing about the population's effects on the environment. and CO2 and , on the other, insisting that the third world be relocated into the west. Is this a random inconsistent combination of ideas or is there an over-arching objective that makes it make some sense? It is not logically or morally inconsistent to wish to limit CO2 emissions contributing towards climate change on the one hand, and wishing to be compassionate towards the victims of it on the other. Both impulses are actually two sides of the same coin. Moving large numbers of people into a western lifestyle is in contradiction to the objective of reducing carbon emissions. I guess it could just be coincidental that both policies, though contradicting each other's objectives, both amount to assaults on the western world. However, it's hard to see how things could line up this well by accident. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2023 10:02:55 GMT
One the one hand hand-wringing about the population's effects on the environment. and CO2 and , on the other, insisting that the third world be relocated into the west. Is this a random inconsistent combination of ideas or is there an over-arching objective that makes it make some sense? I agree, and the more you become aware of the insanity at work the more enlightened you become. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 16, 2023 10:24:36 GMT
One the one hand hand-wringing about the population's effects on the environment. and CO2 and , on the other, insisting that the third world be relocated into the west. Is this a random inconsistent combination of ideas or is there an over-arching objective that makes it make some sense? It is not logically or morally inconsistent to wish to limit CO2 emissions contributing towards climate change on the one hand, and wishing to be compassionate towards the victims of it on the other. Both impulses are actually two sides of the same coin. But you paraphrase it in politically loaded, factually inaccurate and dishonest ways more akin to the worst excesses of the Daily Mail, which is out of place in a part of the forum reserved for intelligent debate. For one thing no one is "insisting that the third world be relocated to the west". Name a leading politician who has said that with a link to the evidence.
So those politicians calling for higher levels of legal immigration and for us to take in more asylum seekers are expecting them to come from Switzerland? Of course the direction of travel is from the third world to the West - it is so basic that it does not need stating. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 16, 2023 15:42:27 GMT
Funny I am accused of putting thoughts into people's heads and words in their mouths. The point I made was that the evidence that is accruing is that that evidence lends credence to the 'conspiracy theory' that the aim is to obliterate the English. It is strange how some accept some situations on the flimsiest of evidence yet wilfully ignore vast amounts of evidence as regards other things. But it doesn't. You present no evidence, you just suggest it does. That's how conspiracy theories run. That's why they are so hard to destroy, you cannot dispute the evidence as they offer none. They invite the viewer to prove its not so. Evidence works on the basis of forming a hypothesis and then seeking out events that fit with the hypothesis. The trick as well is to see if that evidence fits with alternative reasons or counters other stated aims. The most obvious one is the net zero agenda. We are seeking net zero, yet every extra person in the country increases our emissions. The two policies are incompatible so we have to look to other reasons. We also have the race laws that are hailed as seeking equality for all yet actually discriminate against the white population of the UK in their formation. Everyone can form associations based on any criteria they so wish an example would be the Black Police Association yet it is illegal to form a White Police Association. It matters little if people wish to form such an association or that there is mooted to be no need for such but it is illegal. Many years ago a Black only party was proposed where candidates would have to be black and membership was restricted to black people. It did not get off the ground but it was never stated to be illegal. Come forward about five years and teh BNP were taken to cour t for having such a party based on effectively on white people. We are now also subject to the MSM presenting news and drama in discriminatory fashion where race plays a major role in how reports are presented and how casting for everything from adverts to dramas is subject to assessments of race and mixed relationships. In a typical piece of through the door advertising I had just yesterday a brochure was illustrated with a black man on the cover, a black woman on the second page and an Asian man on page three, a white woman on page 4 and a black woman on page 5. The group that represents 40% of our population were absent. This is just for starters these are not isolated incidents they are common experiences. They make very little sense when viewed together but as a whole they indicate the veracity of the 'obliterate the English' conspiracy theory. There is much more and it mounts daily. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2023 18:54:54 GMT
It is not logically or morally inconsistent to wish to limit CO2 emissions contributing towards climate change on the one hand, and wishing to be compassionate towards the victims of it on the other. Both impulses are actually two sides of the same coin. Moving large numbers of people into a western lifestyle is in contradiction to the objective of reducing carbon emissions. I guess it could just be coincidental that both policies, though contradicting each other's objectives, both amount to assaults on the western world. However, it's hard to see how things could line up this well by accident. Apologies because I misunderstood your meaning. I thought you were talking about physically moving the people in the third world into western countries, when it appears that what you actually meant was them all adopting western lifestyles where they are. Western lifestyles as they are right now are the problem. Extending them to ever more people just makes that problem worse. Which is again why western lifestyles need to become carbon neutral. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2023 18:56:50 GMT
It is not logically or morally inconsistent to wish to limit CO2 emissions contributing towards climate change on the one hand, and wishing to be compassionate towards the victims of it on the other. Both impulses are actually two sides of the same coin. But you paraphrase it in politically loaded, factually inaccurate and dishonest ways more akin to the worst excesses of the Daily Mail, which is out of place in a part of the forum reserved for intelligent debate. For one thing no one is "insisting that the third world be relocated to the west". Name a leading politician who has said that with a link to the evidence.
So those politicians calling for higher levels of legal immigration and for us to take in more asylum seekers are expecting them to come from Switzerland? Of course the direction of travel is from the third world to the West - it is so basic that it does not need stating. I dont think anyone is really disputing that. But I do not see any politician calling for the entire third world population to come here. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 16, 2023 19:16:58 GMT
So those politicians calling for higher levels of legal immigration and for us to take in more asylum seekers are expecting them to come from Switzerland? Of course the direction of travel is from the third world to the West - it is so basic that it does not need stating. I dont think anyone is really disputing that. But I do not see any politician calling for the entire third world population to come here. I do not think anyone said the entire third world be relocated just that the third world should be relocated to the West and all that is needed for that is a majority from the Third World or often just a large minority to have arrived. No one is calling for it, in fact for the past 60 years they have been saying that they will not allow large numbers to arrive. The fact they do the opposite of what they say indicates that in general they either do not care or wilfuly misled us and put in place polices they wanted as opposed to said they wanted. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 16, 2023 21:00:21 GMT
I'm just wondering about this process of forced sterilisation in India. Did it ever come to pass?
I understand that earlier this year India overtook China as the most populous country and that its total fertility rate at 2.35 is still well above replacement level.
This is one of the reasons why India is so keen on exporting its surplus population to places like the UK.
|
|
