[The Sabbaticus]

It's a pretty informative read on the manner which the UK government and media dealt with the issue of immigration in the UK. Here is a priceless example of how the British media deals with academic propaganda hailing from British 'universities' (bastions of progressive no-border ideology):

In 2013 the centre published a working paper titled ‘The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK’. This working paper (rather than finished report) was exceptionally widely covered in the media. The BBC ran the story as a lead item with the headline: ‘Recent immigrants to UK “make net contribution”’. The story claimed that far from being a ‘drain’ on the system, the financial contribution of ‘recent immigrants’ to the country had instead been ‘remarkably strong’.3 Following the lead of UCL’s own positively spun press release, the national media focused on the claim that ‘the recent waves of immigrants – i.e., those who arrived to the UK since 2000 and who have thus driven the stark increase in the UK’s foreign born population’, had ‘contributed far more in taxes than they received in benefits’.4

Elsewhere the study made the claim that far from being a cost to the taxpayer, immigrants were in fact ‘less likely’ to be a financial burden on the state than the people of the country they were moving into. It also claimed that recent migrants were less likely to need social housing than British people and were even 45 per cent less likely to be receiving state benefits or tax credits than ‘UK natives’. Doubtless some members of the public hearing this claim wondered when all the Somalis, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had managed to put so much money into the exchequer. But the study had performed the usual sleight of hand. It had presented the best-off and least culturally strange immigrants as in fact being typical immigrants. So the UCL study focused attention on ‘highly-educated immigrants’ and in particular on recent immigrants from the European Economic Area (the EU, plus Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein). The working paper highlighted the fact that these people paid 34 per cent more in taxes than they received in benefits while native British people paid 11 per cent less in taxes than they received in benefits. Anybody doubting the financial benefits of mass immigration was suddenly opposed to wealthy residents of Lichtenstein transferring to the United Kingdom for work.

Yet anyone who wanted to delve into this working paper would discover that the reality was wholly different from the spin that the media, and even the university from which it hailed, had given to the findings. For although UCL’s own estimate suggested that ‘recent migrants from the EEA between 2001 and 2011 had contributed around £22 billion into the UK economy’, the fiscal impact of all migrants, regardless of origin, told an entirely different story. Indeed ‘recent’ arrivals from the EEA were the sole migrants for whom such a positive claim could be made. Away from the spin, what UCL’s own research quietly showed was that non-EEA migrants had actually taken out around £95 billion more in services than they had paid in in taxes, meaning that if you took the period 1995–2011 and included all immigrants (not just a convenient high net-worth selection), then by UCL’s own measurements, immigrants to the United Kingdom had taken out significantly more than they had put in. Mass migration, in other words, had made the country very significantly poorer over the period in question.

After some criticism for its methodology, manner of spinning and burial of crucial data, the following year UCL published its completed findings. By that point, and taking into account only UCL’s own figures, the results were even starker. For the full report showed that the earlier figure of £95 billion far understated the cost of immigration to Britain. In fact, immigrants over that 1995–2011 period had cost the United Kingdom a figure more like £114 billion, with the final figure potentially rising to as high as £159 billion. Needless to say, the discovery that immigration had actually cost the UK more than a hundred billion pounds did not make the news and nobody was made aware on their news bulletins of a headline that should have read, ‘Recent immigrants to the UK cost British taxpayers more than £100 billion’. How could they have done when the crucial findings didn’t even make it into the conclusions of the publication that had discovered them?5

[Rugoz]

Here is a priceless example of how the British media deals with academic propaganda hailing from British 'universities'

The author of your little unsourced opinion piece gets all his information from this so-called "academic propaganda". Apparently it's not only journalists who refuse to read.

[The Sabbaticus]

Read.

It was obviously a case of academic propaganda, which was later rectified and soon after buried. And what's notable about this situation is that the media (investigative journalism, fact-checking) almost failed completely. These are two institutional cornerstones of society that simply decided to hoodwink the British population on the issue of immigration. An issue which has been on the minds of the British population for decades and has increasingly come to influence elections.

The university in question should have been forced to pay that 114 billion pound bill.

[Potemkin]

These are two institutional cornerstones of society that simply decided to hoodwink the British population on the issue of immigration.

Since when have the "institutional cornerstones" of British society not been hoodwinking the British population, Sabb? Back in the 1950s, the great and the good were telling the British people that nuclear power stations were completely safe and would make electricity so cheap that it would be pointless to meter it. Yet at the same time they were making these pompous, authoritative pronouncements, they were constructing the nuclear power stations on the coast of the far north of Scotland, so if they ever blew up or spewed out radioactive dust clouds, they would only take out most of Scotland, which they didn't care about, rather than contaminate the Home Counties, which they did care about. And the price of electricity never noticeably declined while those nuclear power stations were operational. In other words, they must have been lying. Why should it surprise you that they are still lying now, Sabb?

[B0ycey]

Nuclear power plants get a raw deal. I would much rather live by one than a coal power plant anyday. The actual fatality rate of Chernobyl means that the dangers of them are inflated considerably IMO.

Not to mention it would solve the UKs lack of electricity shortage in a decades time if we had actually build more when we had the pissing money to do so (instead of relying on Chinese/French money). Scotland should be grateful they have such infrastructure.

[noir]

@B0ycey

Posted today an exerpt from the book (below)

viewtopic.php?p=14877485#p14877213

[noir]

Another excerpt from the book

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=172399&p=14872214&hilit=Murray#p14872214

[B0ycey]

Sure, there have been some wankers who have manipulated vulnerable women and trafficked them into a sex ring in Rotherham. These wankers happen to be Muslims. And perhaps due to their religion the police didn't respond to the crime as quickly as they should due to fear of being called 'racist'. But we see things differently @noir. While you blame the entire Muslim race for Europe's problems today, I am more pragmatic. The vast majority of Muslims are not rapist, terrorist or criminals. Most want to intergrate into society. This is a fact. But sure there are some that don't. Some want to abuse the hand of acceptance. But they are no different than the Yob right-wing patriot who wants to see all Muslims blown up by drones, see the ME grounded into ash and witness Europe become entirely white again. Every race, sex and religion has scumbags in their ranks. Muslims are no different. But I don't single them out due to some wankers abusing women. The same way I don't brand all white-males as sexual predators because Weinstein and Spacey wanted to use their power for sexual pleasure.

I will always put things into perspective before judgement.

As for people converting to Islam, that is up to them. I personally don't care for religion that much but as long as you treat your fellow human with respect and dignity you can believe in whatever you like for all I care.

[noir]

Religion can be silly and bloody thing but in our world when you don't believe in your story, whether it's religion or other ethos, you are left to manipulation by those who are certain by theirs perfection. That why the American Evangelists will be the last barrier of the Western civilization. They are the only sect in the Western world that can stand the onslaught. They are the inly folk who believe in their story without murmur or doubt. For many educated Westerners it's hard to swallow.

[noemon]

The American Evangelicals are not the only religious Christians, they are simply the ones that are temporarily convenient to your zionist cause noir, but as soon as they no longer are convenient to you, you will start insulting them just like you are insulting the French, the British, the Christians, and a whole bunch of others who are not parroting your propaganda.

The British put you in Palestine, the French gave you nukes, the Christians as a whole destroyed the Ottoman Empire, the Ottomans gave you shelter, Obama gave you a 40 billion charity check, yet here you are posting vile insults against them all. Chances are you will be posting vile insults against American Evangelicals soon enough.

[B0ycey]

You would get along with Victorious Spolia @noir. He has said the same thing to me once before. Personally I think in Western society all religion will fall in a generation or two as there is no reason to pray for good tidings. IMO the only thing keeping religion alive today is the older generation.

[Potemkin]

Religion can be silly and bloody thing but in our world when you don't believe in your story, whether it's religion or other ethos, you are left to manipulation by those who are certain by theirs perfection. That why the American Evangelists will be the last barrier of the Western civilization. They are the only sect in the Western world that can stand the onslaught. They are the inly folk who believe in their story without murmur or doubt. For many educated Westerners it's hard to swallow.

In other words, you think we should give up on the Enlightenment, noir. I don't think Europe is ready to do that quite yet, and nor do I think we need to. Besides, even during the high Middle Ages, Europe never quite succeeded in establishing a theocracy, despite the Vatican's best efforts. We're even less likely to succeed nowadays.

[noir]

I didn't ask to abandon Enlightenment, just pointed that the American Evangelists will be the last guard who will stand for Westeren civilization. Get the nuance?

[Potemkin]

I didn't ask to abandon Enlightenment, just pointed that the American Evangelists will be the last guard who will stand for Westeren civilization. Get the nuance?

No, not really. If the American Evangelicals are the last great hope to save Western civilisation, then you are essentially claiming that the Enlightenment is a failed project which is now threatening the continued existence of Western civilisation. The logical implication is that it should be abandoned in favour of theocracy.

[Rich]

I love the Enlightenment. I like to honour its three great leaders, Oliver Cromwell, William of orange and Frederick the Great.

[Oxymandias]

@noir

I'm fine with the US ending up like Iran. Then we won't be the only ones with authoritarian theocratic dictators at the head of our state.

Evangelicals of all types provide change yes and defend against aggressors well, but they attack anyone indiscriminately and usually these victims end up being anyone the regime finds dangerous or anyone that the regime needs to scapegoat against. First it'll be liberals, then it'll be blacks, then Hispanics, then Jews, then moderate right-wingers, then Evangelical Christians who disagree with the regime on certain theological matters, then regular Christians with slightly different religious practices, then people who wear different clothes from regime approved clothing, then people who... and on and on and on until there's no one left.

[ThirdTerm]

Elsewhere the study made the claim that far from being a cost to the taxpayer, immigrants were in fact ‘less likely’ to be a financial burden on the state than the people of the country they were moving into. It also claimed that recent migrants were less likely to need social housing than British people and were even 45 per cent less likely to be receiving state benefits or tax credits than ‘UK natives’. Doubtless some members of the public hearing this claim wondered when all the Somalis, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had managed to put so much money into the exchequer.

The UCL study's "recent immigrants" are mostly Poles and other Eastern Europeans, who are hardworking immigrants. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had settled in the UK at least a generation ago and they are treated as UK natives, who are more likely to be receiving state benefits.

The government estimates there are 984,000 Polish nationals living in Britain – an increase of 141,000 on 2014’s figures. Unlike other immigrant communities, the Poles are well spread out across the country, with Polish food shops popping up everywhere from Inverness to the Isle of Wight. By local council estimates, as many as 10,000 are now settled in Wakefield, which is home to various Polish beauty parlours and hairdressers, estate agents, off-licences, dentists and doctors and a string of Polish delis set up by enterprising Kurds. One night last month, the Tequila club on Westgate was advertising “Disco Polo Night Sexy Friday”. It appeared to be some sort of dubious hookup night where revellers were given coloured wristbands to indicate if they were “szukam” (looking), “skok w bok” (up for a fling) or “zajęta” (taken).

In the 12 years since Poland joined the EU, the earliest arrivals to Wakefield now speak with broad Yorkshire accents, such as Agnieszka Piekarz, who moved to the UK in January 2006, aged 19. She has spent the last decade working her way up the career ladder, starting in a freezing-cold meatpacking factory, taking in stints as a picker and packer and in office admin, and ending with her dream job as a head chef in a hotel.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... te-britain

[The Sabbaticus]

Since when have the "institutional cornerstones" of British society not been hoodwinking the British population, Sabb? Back in the 1950s, the great and the good were telling the British people that nuclear power stations were completely safe and would make electricity so cheap that it would be pointless to meter it. Yet at the same time they were making these pompous, authoritative pronouncements, they were constructing the nuclear power stations on the coast of the far north of Scotland, so if they ever blew up or spewed out radioactive dust clouds, they would only take out most of Scotland, which they didn't care about, rather than contaminate the Home Counties, which they did care about. And the price of electricity never noticeably declined while those nuclear power stations were operational. In other words, they must have been lying. Why should it surprise you that they are still lying now, Sabb?

It could have been because Scotland was simply more sparsely populated, making it the ideal location for containment, but I agree with your point. Certainly not the first time the government lied to the public.

Anyway, another priceless quote:

Although the pretence remains that the mosque-going, teetotal arrivals constitute a seamless transition of native traditions, from such visible aspects of identity it is obvious that the results will be very different. And the causes that lie behind such differences are the harder ones to deal with. The same story and the same silence can be applied to the Turkish and North African suburbs of Amsterdam, the suburbs of Brussels like Molenbeek, areas of Berlin such as Wedding and Neukölln, and any number of other cities across the continent. In each case the price that local people were made to pay, for taking anything but the most positive attitude towards the arrival into their towns and cities of hundreds of thousands of people from another culture, was just too high. Whole careers not only in politics, but in any walk of life, could be ruined by any recognition of the new facts, never mind any proposed alteration to them. And so the only thing left for people to do – whether locals, officials or politicians – was to ignore the problem and lie about it.

In time both politicians and the public began to favour the wilfully optimistic version of events. So a minor or unimportant cultural trait – such as queuing or complaining about the weather in Britain – would be picked up on and run with. The fact that a particular immigrant enjoyed queuing or talking about the weather would be used as a demonstration that this immigrant – and by extension all immigrants – had become as integrated as anybody else. After the suicide bombers of the July 2005 attacks on London Transport were identified as British-born Muslims, it was discovered that one of them had worked in a fish-and-chip shop and had played cricket. Much was made of this, as though the hijacking of this perfectly English individual by a terrible hatred remained the main mystery. The idea that an entire culture had been transmitted to him through the medium of fish and chips was a way to delay facing up to the unpleasant discussions that lay beneath.

As the multicultural era started to break down, a scramble began to identify any country where the experiment had been working. During the aftermath of the 2005 attacks on London the British debated whether the model of French laicité did not perhaps point the way towards dealing with problems of integration. Then, after the growing number of home-grown terrorist attacks in France, there was a discussion over whether perhaps the Anglo-Saxon model had some merit. Meanwhile, much of the time Scandinavia was held up as providing a particular solution, until the problems of those countries in turn became clearer. Overall, members of the public could see what the policy-makers could not, which was that despite the differences between these various European countries, each one had failed in turn to assimilate the new arrivals.

The entire book is like this.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No, not really. If the American Evangelicals are the last great hope to save Western civilisation, then you are essentially claiming that the Enlightenment is a failed project which is now threatening the continued existence of Western civilisation. The logical implication is that it should be abandoned in favour of theocracy.

I don't have a problem with this claim.

[Rich]

If we are to return to the values of the enlightenment, then we have to abolish votes for women.