8 minutes ago, geordief said:

With Britain's history of confronting fascism you would think it it would be burned into its DNA to not give racists an inch but that fight was forced upon us and there were Nazi sympathisers in the population before the Rubicon was crossed.

You're absolutely right, it is always there simmering below the surface in a certain percentage of the British population (and most, if not all other populations). I think that in general the psychological root cause is a sense of weakness, insecurity, inferiority even, that makes them relatively easy to face down when they stick their heads above the parapet. They're basisically cowards, and when called out, they go scurrying back under their safety stone at the bottom of the pond.

However, if society stops facing them down while they're isolated, they'll gain confidence, club together, and find strength in numbers, especially when powerful interest groups begin encouraging them and facilitating their activities with finance and infrastructure. Then they're difficult to stop. There is no reasoning with them, since they're driven by negative emotion, not reason. Ultimately, there's only one language they truly understand, and that comes from the pointy end of a bayonet. Not recommending that as a course of action at all, you understand. It's just what the history books tell me. And an afternoon in my youth spent deep in thought at Bergen-Belsen.

Edited 6 hours ago6 hr by sethoflagos

6 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Only option available (2014-ish). I did research at the time and knew it was BS. Demanded to speak to the departmental consultant, mentioned my aunt after whom the hospital's flagship renal unit was named, and asked politely for my wife to be referred to an alternative specialist. Didn't see the old one for dust.

It is astonishing how weird and controlling some MDs can be when it comes to reproductive bits. Also the difference when the woman in question is white or not...

45 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

However, if society stops facing them down while they're isolated, they'll gain confidence, club together, and find strength in numbers, especially when powerful interest groups begin encouraging them and facilitating their activities with finance and infrastructure. Then they're difficult to stop. There is no reasoning with them, since they're driven by negative emotion, not reason. Ultimately, there's only one language they truly understand, and that comes from the pointy end of a bayonet. Not recommending that as a course of action at all, you understand. It's just what the history books tell me. And an afternoon in my youth spent deep in thought at Bergen-Belsen.

The saddest thing about that is that in Germany classes when to Auschwitz (Osvienčim) and other concentration camps to learn and reflect about the past. Now the racist AfD (also heavily supported by Musk, Vance and their ilk) are the strongest party according to polls. And I think the paths to radicalization are easier now, you do not even need Gleichschaltung (i.e. taking over media and means of information). Social media does the job for you. We can see that in this thread, where OP is happily playing to that tune.

16 hours ago, swansont said:

In the US we’ve actively been taking it to an even worse level - cutting aid for countries, making their living conditions even worse, while shutting down immigration.

Moreover, this is seen as a virtue, even if it costs the US economy (especially in farming).

22 hours ago, studiot said:

I don't recall any pertinent threads about feeding people, but the cost of food is bothering many folks here in the UK.

You want some evidence ?

Go to food bank and ask yourself why a society that is allegedly so rich need to feed much of its population that way ?

The thread I was thinking of was this one here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/140534-taking-care-of-people/

There are some discussions regarding altruism and capitalism there. But bottom line is that fundamentally it is not necessarily a resource constraint issue by itself. And with regard to food banks, there are many answer to that, but I doubt that migration is one of them. Or at least I have not seen compelling evidence to that effect. In many countries cost of living has been rising, regardless of level of immigration, for example. Housing is one area where sudden shocks can increase prices to some degree, but on the macroscale the effects appear to be small. A report in the UK suggests that immigration accounts for roughly 4-6% of house price increases over the last three decades https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-housing-costs-what-does-international-evidence-imply-for-the-uk/migration-and-housing-costs-what-does-international-evidence-imply-for-the-uk-accessible

IOW, it is not a major driver, even as some rhetoric suggests otherwise.

The other side that needs to be explored are the benefits for the economy as @sethoflagos pointed out.

22 hours ago, studiot said:

And where will they find work ?
There are certainly not tens of thousands of jobs listed at the job centre nor tens of thousands of extra school places etc etc.

The UK unemployment rate seems to fairly low as a whole, with UK-born individuals having an unemployment rate of around 4.6%, which is comparable to 2005 numbers and down from the high of 8% in 2011. Among non-UK born, the rate is higher, at 7%, which is still lower than about 20 years ago with 8 and 9 % in 2004 and 2005. So at least with increasing immigration over the last two decades, in those terms the needle has not moved a lot. To me the real question is less about potential extrapolations or finding segments where there are issues. I would rather see a deeper analyses regarding the net cost (or benefit) of immigration to ground the discussion in tangibles, rather than perception.

In housing, for example there are pro and cons, pressure on housing was mentioned, though data shows only a modest effect on the high level. And there are discussions regarding whether immigration can actually help with supply by providing builders (though that discussion is also very simplistic). I think it overall goes back to my earlier argument that this discussion is heavily rooted in assumptions with usually very little comprehensive and holistic analyses. And I would argue that political movements trying to exploit those feelings really don't want these analyses to be done in the first place, as it is easier to just play narratives, rather than root them on facts and analyses.

3 hours ago, geordief said:

He could teach us a bit about slipping out of hostlile territories disguised as a container.

It's more widely known now that Trump is a container, and of what.

3 hours ago, geordief said:

We are still stuck with woman's clothing in a boat to France.

Is that referring to the old movie "Sea Devils"?

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Is that referring to the old movie "Sea Devils"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_MacDonald

(Butter wouldn't melt in her mouth -sure you won't get that!)

Edited 3 hours ago3 hr by geordief