Islamic Jihadists ISIS

[J70]

Sorry for the rambling and probably incoherence!

Got that right.

[seafoid]

Hatred of Muslims is off the scale. It must be very hard to be Muslim in Europe these days .
and Judaism doesn't give a flying f**k.  "Never again" my arse.

[Milltown Row2]

Immigration is needed when the rich control most of the wealth and or when there aren't enough workers  .

Are you say that unemployment levels would need to be zero? because if we have high unemployment a need for immigration is pointless

UK growth in the last 5 years is mostly due to immigration .
If the money was spread out there would be less need for immigration

So take the money off the high earners (which they do, tax) and spread it around to people who are on minimum wage and on the dole? like equal pay for everyone? Now, where did they try that before?

In the UK/US  between 1948 and 1960 . Bonds were savaged. Growth was fabulous

So again, would you want equal pay for everyone and spread the wealth? Explain how that works

[omaghjoe]

J70
I dont know what spitballing is but Im must be doing it to. Basically saying shit well if you do this, can you do that as well?

The later regarding the jungle tribes BTW

As far so what if Fijians died out, well then you couple apply the same thought to anything..what if the Indians died out, what if the Irish died out, and to take it even further what if the world wasnt democratic, fair, inclusive, equal (it isnt anyway)....what if...so what...big deal.

I am sort of bemused tho at your insistence on individual choices change the world given your other views. Anyway in this context individual choices make very little difference as human and society will behave in a certain way anyway regardless of the individual choices, for the Fijian and Indian the only individual choice that mattered was that of the East India company or whoever brought them there.

Anyway I think we have another fundamental difference and that is the right of the individual over the right of society, you appear to strongly favour the former where I would say I probably lean more the other way. After all individual rights are a benefit of society, and tradition and culture are the glue that binds it. The rights of the individual only come when those things are in place and its not that I dont think individual rights are important to society, or that we have an inherent right to them...I do but we will loose them if we let the building blocks fall.

[J70]

No, I haven't turned into a crazed libertarian. I just think that in certain areas a greater good is not necessarily clear. We have laws on public safety, environment, business and so on and on which limit the conduct of the individual for what is an obvious and defensible greater good. But I just don't see limits on individuals in favour of preserving or influencing ethnic or cultural purity as self evidently a good thing.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the East India company or whatever it was in a given case that caused such a circumstance to come about. You can't wind back the clock. The Indians and Fijians are there together and have been for a long time. The situation going forward is all that can be affected.

[foxcommander]

No, I haven't turned into a crazed libertarian.

You keep telling yourself that

[foxcommander]

If the free state of ireland began to experience the same issues as France has right now would that change opinions of immigration?

[foxcommander]

The rights of the individual only come when those things are in place and its not that I dont think individual rights are important to society, or that we have an inherent right to them...I do but we will loose them if we let the building blocks fall.

J70 thinks allowing these building blocks to fall is evolution. Seems quite happy to see the destruction of the social fabric and common decency in order to uphold the rights of scum.

[J70]

The rights of the individual only come when those things are in place and its not that I dont think individual rights are important to society, or that we have an inherent right to them...I do but we will loose them if we let the building blocks fall.

J70 thinks allowing these building blocks to fall is evolution. Seems quite happy to see the destruction of the social fabric and common decency in order to uphold the rights of scum.

Yes. That's exactly what I said! 

[omaghjoe]

Is your pic thatcher foxy?

[omaghjoe]

No, I haven't turned into a crazed libertarian. I just think that in certain areas a greater good is not necessarily clear. We have laws on public safety, environment, business and so on and on which limit the conduct of the individual for what is an obvious and defensible greater good. But I just don't see limits on individuals in favour of preserving or influencing ethnic or cultural purity as self evidently a good thing.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the East India company or whatever it was in a given case that caused such a circumstance to come about. You can't wind back the clock. The Indians and Fijians are there together and have been for a long time. The situation going forward is all that can be affected.

Well I was just trying to say that the individual choices of the Fijians and Indians would make no difference to their outcome, that will be made by more macro factors. And that the main reason for their situation was the indenture system, looked it up it wasnt the East India company my apologies to them, they where a good bunch of ethical chaps that would never be involved in something like that . Anyway my point is that the choices of the individuals rarely make changes to the route things are going unless they influence others at a larger level.

[seafoid]

Immigration is needed when the rich control most of the wealth and or when there aren't enough workers  .

Are you say that unemployment levels would need to be zero? because if we have high unemployment a need for immigration is pointless

UK growth in the last 5 years is mostly due to immigration .
If the money was spread out there would be less need for immigration

So take the money off the high earners (which they do, tax) and spread it around to people who are on minimum wage and on the dole? like equal pay for everyone? Now, where did they try that before?

In the UK/US  between 1948 and 1960 . Bonds were savaged. Growth was fabulous

So again, would you want equal pay for everyone and spread the wealth? Explain how that works

Not equal pay. But the wealth has to be spread around because otherwise we get deflation. And that destroys everything.
They broke the rich in the 50s so it  is not rocket science.

[J70]

No, I haven't turned into a crazed libertarian. I just think that in certain areas a greater good is not necessarily clear. We have laws on public safety, environment, business and so on and on which limit the conduct of the individual for what is an obvious and defensible greater good. But I just don't see limits on individuals in favour of preserving or influencing ethnic or cultural purity as self evidently a good thing.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the East India company or whatever it was in a given case that caused such a circumstance to come about. You can't wind back the clock. The Indians and Fijians are there together and have been for a long time. The situation going forward is all that can be affected.

Well I was just trying to say that the individual choices of the Fijians and Indians would make no difference to their outcome, that will be made by more macro factors. And that the main reason for their situation was the indenture system, looked it up it wasnt the East India company my apologies to them, they where a good bunch of ethical chaps that would never be involved in something like that . Anyway my point is that the choices of the individuals rarely make changes to the route things are going unless they influence others at a larger level.

I'm not disagreeing with that. Obviously if you have half a million Fijians and you plonk 250K Indians down in the middle of them, that is going to have large repercussions for society and culture (not saying they would be good or bad – that's beside the point I'm making and all a matter of perspective). My point is that that has already taken place, and short of the government implementing policies from above (e.g. discriminating against Indians, kicking them out, granting very favourable privileges to Fijians, banning immigration of anyone who is not ethnic Fijian, allowing large scale immigration of non-ethnic Fijians etc.) which would fall under your macro factors, then Fijian society will evolve going forward based on the accumulation of individual choices, whether increased interracial marriage, cultural crossover and absorption of outside influences, etc. I'm not saying that these personal choices will necessarily lead to change or stasis. I'm just saying that I'm not comfortable with the implications of a government imposing restrictions from above on the choices of the people already there in order to try to achieve some desired ethnic or racial outcome and that they should allow things to take their natural course based on individual freedom. Basically, if Indians, who have been there as a group for 150 years or whatever, are outbreeding ethnic Fijians and heading towards a demographic majority, so be it.

[omaghjoe]

No, I haven't turned into a crazed libertarian. I just think that in certain areas a greater good is not necessarily clear. We have laws on public safety, environment, business and so on and on which limit the conduct of the individual for what is an obvious and defensible greater good. But I just don't see limits on individuals in favour of preserving or influencing ethnic or cultural purity as self evidently a good thing.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the East India company or whatever it was in a given case that caused such a circumstance to come about. You can't wind back the clock. The Indians and Fijians are there together and have been for a long time. The situation going forward is all that can be affected.

Well I was just trying to say that the individual choices of the Fijians and Indians would make no difference to their outcome, that will be made by more macro factors. And that the main reason for their situation was the indenture system, looked it up it wasnt the East India company my apologies to them, they where a good bunch of ethical chaps that would never be involved in something like that . Anyway my point is that the choices of the individuals rarely make changes to the route things are going unless they influence others at a larger level.

I'm not disagreeing with that. Obviously if you have half a million Fijians and you plonk 250K Indians down in the middle of them, that is going to have large repercussions for society and culture (not saying they would be good or bad – that's beside the point I'm making and all a matter of perspective). My point is that that has already taken place, and short of the government implementing policies from above (e.g. discriminating against Indians, kicking them out, granting very favourable privileges to Fijians, banning immigration of anyone who is not ethnic Fijian, allowing large scale immigration of non-ethnic Fijians etc.) which would fall under your macro factors, then Fijian society will evolve going forward based on the accumulation of individual choices, whether increased interracial marriage, cultural crossover and absorption of outside influences, etc. I'm not saying that these personal choices will necessarily lead to change or stasis. I'm just saying that I'm not comfortable with the implications of a government imposing restrictions from above on the choices of the people already there in order to try to achieve some desired ethnic or racial outcome and that they should allow things to take their natural course based on individual freedom. Basically, if Indians, who have been there as a group for 150 years or whatever, are outbreeding ethnic Fijians and heading towards a demographic majority, so be it.

Yes but at the risk of going around in circles.... if the reason they got there in the first place wasnt "natural" then it could be argued that an attempt to give the Fijian a fairer crack of the whip is justified.

Anyway I worked with a Fijian Indian chap, he told me that the Indians are leaving and that the Fijians are in the majority again, I think he may have mentioned the junta as a reason for this... but then he also said that it was better to have the junta than the democracy.

Anyway I dont think they have ISIS to worry about......

[J70]

Where do you draw that line though in "righting" the perceived demographic wrongs of the past?

Native Americans...Palestinians... wee six Catholics...

Anyway, we'll not solve it here!