No limits to immigration

[caz]

So let me see if I have this straight. Someone accuse me of being a xenophobe, the definition of which is: A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.

I point out that I have absolutely no fear or contempt for that which is foreign and back it up with proof that I am in fact widely travelled and have many friends of all nationalities, races and creeds. However I am then accused of being some sort of ‘undercover’ xenophobe who goes around the world travelling and meeting people just so I can secretly hold them in contempt.

Then you come up with the rather sneering remark posted above, which seems to imply that I really am a bigot, in spite of absolute proof to the contrary!

So it seems that to smear someone’s reputation all that is necessary is for someone to stick a label on a person and that is that. Rather a bigoted attitude if you don’t mind me saying!

So in this La La land the only people who aren't bigots are the ones who go around accusing everyone else!

Hi Bob,

Well you didn’t quite get things straight after my first post to this thread so I’m none too hopeful.

If we ever had a hostile visit from another planet, people would soon lose their irrational fear and loathing of human beings from other parts of our world.

So if as you say our fear and loathing of other human beings is irrational - would you go and live in Zimbabwe or Somalia? I think not because you would find that your fear and loathing of certain people is far from 'irrational', but simply a device mechanism to keep you alive.

I was of course referring only to people whose fear and loathing of ‘foreigners’ is irrational, ie based purely on the fact of them being ‘different’ and nothing else.

I didn’t say your fear and loathing was irrational, yet you were quick to try the cap for size. And you are doing it again. If you know you are not a bigot, good for you. You didn't need to deny it or disprove it, and nobody can turn you into one. Bigots generally do all the work by themselves.

Most are bright enough to realise they will look a bit wet if they admit to the primitive response of feeling scared or threatened by anyone a bit different, so they come up with supposedly rational, Daily Mail friendly explanations for these feelings, propped up by the copious use of ‘we’ and ‘us’: “they will take us over, steal all our jobs and make us change our way of life; it will be one law for us and another for them; they will make eyes at our women; the perishers won’t be blamed for nuffing; we are all off to hell in a handcart…”

I wonder how much has really changed since the ripper’s day, and if it’s even possible that he used bigotry to justify his violently irrational misogynistic urges. What was a man to do? Sit back and watch while his territory was invaded, the neighbourhood went to pot and his womenfolk were screwed by the Jews? They wouldn’t get their paws on ‘our’ whores once he had finished with them.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bob Hinton]

Hi Bob,


If you know you are not a bigot, good for you. You didn't need to deny it or disprove it, and nobody can turn you into one.

X

So what you are saying is that people shouldn't worry about being labelled if they know they do not deserve the label? Fair enough but I can't help but wonder if most people would mind being labelled a paedophile – even if they were sure they weren’t one.

Don’t forget the people at the Salem Witch trials were pretty sure they weren’t witches – somehow I don’t think that gave them much comfort as they were being hung - of course I could be wrong there!

[Limehouse]

So what you are saying is that people shouldn't worry about being labelled if they know they do not deserve the label? Fair enough but I can't help but wonder if most people would mind being labelled a paedophile – even if they were sure they weren’t one.

Don’t forget the people at the Salem Witch trials were pretty sure they weren’t witches – somehow I don’t think that gave them much comfort as they were being hung - of course I could be wrong there!

Think about it Bob - how do you think non-law-breaking immigrants feel when they read all those Daily Mail articles? You know - those immigrant who are your friends for instance? Don't you think they feel unfairly labelled? Think about the 'drip - drip - drip' effect of that negative and discriminatory language.

[Bob Hinton]

Greetings.

Think about it Bob - how do you think non-law-breaking immigrants feel when they read all those Daily Mail articles? You know - those immigrant who are your friends for instance? Don't you think they feel unfairly labelled? Think about the 'drip - drip - drip' effect of that negative and discriminatory language.

Well I can only speak from personal experience here but our Polish friends are deeply ashamed that their countrymen could behave in such an appalling manner. They do not for one moment think that others apply the label to them. Ishtaq, an Iraqi shopkeeper I know feels the same way.

And this is the point I have been hammering away at. If we do nothing to root out the criminal element amongst the immigrants and throw them out then eventually all of them will get tarred with the same brush. I have repeated this countless times but do the labellers take any notice of my support for immigrants? No they just keep banging on about how we have criminals as well so it’s all right to let in even more.

But you yourself are now trying to label the Daily Mail. They have never stated or intimated that all immigrants are criminals. You accuse them of using ‘negative and discriminatory’ language. Well it is negative because they are talking about criminals – off hand I can’t really think of anything positive to say about criminals, and discriminatory because obviously they don’t want to tar everyone with the same brush and are discriminating between the immigrant criminals and the decent immigrants.

What they do is to report the facts. Now if they are not reporting the facts then we have a course of action to take. I find it slightly ridiculous when people like LTT keeping banging on about ‘Oh it’s only the Daily Mail – we can ignore them’, completely overlooking the fact that most of the other papers and news services carry the same story. There was one incident that I posted on (Jobs for Ethnic Minorities only whites need not apply) and I gave a link to the story which appeared in the Daily Mail. The LWL then started jumping up and down saying that as it appeared in the DM it was right wing propaganda – completely overlooking the fact that the story appeared in most of the other papers, the BBC and on the councils own website. They couldn’t argue the facts so they tried to divert attention away from them by saying ‘Oh well it’s only the Daily Mail’.


The point about labelling is that it is a well known ploy amongst extremists to stick labels on anyone they want silenced. The Nazis used ‘Jew’, the Soviets ‘Counter Revolutionary’ etc and you still see it today. Take this ridiculous Global Warming fiasco which is now costing us billions for no good effect. Anyone who dared to speak up and say, “Hang on a minute, those figures don’t stack up” were immediately labelled ‘Global Warming Deniers’ to fix them in the public’s mind with ‘Holocaust Deniers’ – evil people all.

Even on these boards if you dare to voice a contrary opinion the loonies try to stick labels on you. On this thread I have been called a racist (the standard label stuck on anyone who dares to try and discuss immigration), a bigot, and a xenophobe and so on. When I object to this I get told ‘Ah well as long as you know you aren’t that’s ok’.

On another thread, Slutwalks, it was sexist, anti-feminist and rapist. Yes LTT actually called me a rapist (I had the post removed).

These bullies when they start slinging these labels around expect you to keep quiet and slink away – when you don’t they go into super waffle.

[Derrick]

– somehow I don’t think that gave them much comfort as they were being hung - of course I could be wrong there!

You are wrong there!

The correct word is hanged.

Unless of course they were being used like a pair of curtains etc.

Derrick

[caz]

So what you are saying is that people shouldn't worry about being labelled if they know they do not deserve the label? Fair enough but I can't help but wonder if most people would mind being labelled a paedophile – even if they were sure they weren’t one.

Don’t forget the people at the Salem Witch trials were pretty sure they weren’t witches – somehow I don’t think that gave them much comfort as they were being hung - of course I could be wrong there!

I'm not certain what label you mean here, Bob, or who's worried about being labelled. But I do concede your point. I can see how British-born Sikhs would not deserve to be labelled jammy, above-the-law turban-sporting motorcyclists, especially not on a thread concerned with immigration limits. So thank goodness nobody has done it in so many words. And I don't suppose immigrants to any country would enjoy being lumped together and tarred with one "unwelcome" brush, whether they are Poles looking for a better life in the UK, or Brits retiring to the Costa del Crime who just want a bit of sun and a steak and kidney pud every night in an English-speaking eatery.

We can all find examples of not very nice people moving away from their own neighbourhood and into someone else's. But that's not a very smart argument for everyone staying put in the small village where they were born and sharing the same surname. That way insanity lies - literally.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Hi Caz

Then you must be a bit concerned about the cousin marriage preference of many Asians? It hasn't produced any bad effects as far as I know. At least, they're still doing it.

[Errata]

Hi Caz

Then you must be a bit concerned about the cousin marriage preference of many Asians? It hasn't produced any bad effects as far as I know. At least, they're still doing it.

Genetically speaking, cousins are perfectly safe unless it happens for about 6 generations. THAT'S when you get things like, Prince Charles.

[Robert]

Errata, as far as I'm aware Prince Charles isn't the product of a succession of cousin marriages, nor is he insane.

It's curious to see a eugenic argument suddenly being introduced into the discussion.

[Zodiac]

Kissing Cousins!!!

Hi Robert, hi Errata,

A rough guide to Hanoverian familial relationships with their consorts!!!

King George I married his 1st cousin
King George II married his 3rd cousin once removed
Prince of Wales Frederick married his 3rd cousin once removed
King George III married his 3rd cousin
King George IV married his 1st cousin
King William IV married his 3rd cousin once removed
Victoria & Edward Augustus were 3rd cousins once removed
Queen Victoria married Albert, her 1st cousin
King Edward VII married his 3rd cousin
King George V married his 2nd cousin once removed
King George VI put a little distance into the Royal gene pool and married his 13th cousin. They were both descended from Henry VII.

Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh are:
2nd cousins once removed through common descent from King Christian IX of Denmark and 3rd cousins through common descent from Queen Victoria and Prince Albert!!!

Prince Charles is said to have proposed to his 2nd cousin, but when she turned him down he proposed to Diana, his 7th cousin once removed.

Mother-son, father-daughter and brother-sister matchs are, of course, a total recipe for genetic disasters. These were practiced in some ancient civilizations, Egypt for example, and up until as late as the 1700's Hawaiian royalty praticed sister and brother marriages, although it was consider taboo to marry one's own children there are a few cases of this happening. Queen Keopuolani, Kamehameha's most sacred wife and niece was the epitome of incestual relations; her father and mother were half-siblings, her grandmother and grandfathers were close cousins. All Hawaiian chiefs at the end of the 1700s were cousins. But unlike some of the pharaohs of Egypt the Hawaiian kings didn't seem to show any genetic birth defects, but they did died really young and were unable to produce children!!!

The Hapsburgs had a particularly nasty penchant for uncles marrying their own nieces!!! Again the risk of genetic defects, both physical and mental, among any offspring of such unions is very high. Repeated generations of first cousin marriages, can approach the same levels of genetic defects and illness as those resulting from descent from an uncle/niece marriage. Of particularly high risk are those involving double first cousins, which is when two siblings of one family reproduce with two siblings of another family. The resulting children are related to each other through both parents' families. Double first cousins share both sets of grandparents in common. Genetically, they are as related as half-siblings.

I'm afraid that it is a sad fact that the Pakistani population in the UK is suffering from advancing rates of genetic disease because of the continued prevalence of first cousin marriages.

As a side note, it has been estimated that any two people of English descent are probably no more than distant than 20-25th cousins. Kate and William are 15th cousins, Prince Charles and President Obama are 17th cousins and Sarah Palin and Obama are 10th cousins!!! Palin... yes Caz, you were right, that way insanity lies!!!

Best wishes,
Zodiac.

[Robert]

Hi Zodiac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTqqLaOv3mA

However, the following song offers a prophylactic against such complications :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpjjzIzdZZs

[Errata]

Hi Robert, hi Errata,

A rough guide to Hanoverian familial relationships with their consorts!!!

Best wishes,
Zodiac.

This was my paper for my anthropology final. All of the royal family trees that don't fork as much as they ought. The Hapsburg lip by the way was astonishingly grotesque.

But the real victory was proving that Queen Victoria's genetic makeup led to the invention of the Hot Pocket. That I was proud of.

[Stephen Thomas]

As a side note, it has been estimated that any two people of English descent are probably no more than distant than 20-25th cousins. Kate and William are 15th cousins, Prince Charles and President Obama are 17th cousins and Sarah Palin and Obama are 10th cousins!!! Palin... yes Caz, you were right, that way insanity lies!!!

My my, Zodiac, what quirky facts. I like to read such stuff. There was a maths professor on TV this morning talking about the likelihood of winning the UK National Lottery and he said that if the first homo sapiens had been buying a ticket each week for the last million (or whatever) years they would still probably have never won the jackpot.

[Zodiac]

Hi Zodiac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTqqLaOv3mA

However, the following song offers a prophylactic against such complications :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpjjzIzdZZs

Thanks Robert,

Love that first song!!! As for the second, all I can say is that ... Well, I'm amazed... This must be the first ever recorded instance of a bloke not only providing but, even rarer yet, actually offering the use of a prophylactic to protect against unfortunate complications!!!

Best wishes,
Zodiac.

[Stephen Thomas]

But the real victory was proving that Queen Victoria's genetic makeup led to the invention of the Hot Pocket.

What's a Hot Pocket?