Thank you for all your replies
I shall add a summation here - and will not reply to any nore individuals, because I think I have said everything necessary.

If you all refer back to my original post, you will see that - in the context of this QOTW's topic, ("Prejudice") - my post was not primarily an anti-immigration rant: it was to point out the prejudice that exists among so many people, including B3ta readers, against people like myself.

It started out as an interesting debate. As Legless and a couple of others pointed out, no-one had called anyone a cunt. But then it degenerated.

If you philosophically disagree with me about such points as border controls, nationhood, "ownership" of a country - etc etc - then you have the right to do so. You may engage me in intelligent debate, and if you make a coherent case, then even though I may disagree with you, I will respect you as a person.

Unfortunately we have not just seen intelligent debate. We have had personal attacks and name-calling.

We've had:

* Sarcasm (PsychoChomp)
* Exaggeration, sarcasm and assumptions (Flapjack)
* Personal insult (Wicca'd Witch)
* A stupid, pointless reply (Gawain the oven safe flan tin)
* Someone direclty calling me a "racist", even though my points have nothing to do with race (nraphael)
* Unnecessarily inflammatory language (the mighty badger)
* Ignorant assumption and sarcasm (Green Spanner)
* A couple of idiotic, sarcastic attempts to quote me by writing "forrins" in place of "foreigners" - in the childish belief that by somehow associating a mis-spelling with my opinions, it will be an effective counter.

Let me make some basic points clear here, for anyone who doesn't have the capacity to work it out for themselves:
* The government does not have an unlimited supply of money to give to benefits scroungers*
* The money must, therefore, come from somewhere.
* It comes from tax-payers.
* The money that the British government gets comes from BRITISH tax-payers only. It does not take a cut of all the tax which is paid the world over.

* Since our currency is not pegged to anything solid, theoretically there is an unlimited money supply, in that we can just print more of it: but that causes inflation, which is an indirect form of taxation on EVERYONE else, because it means your earnings and savings have reduced purchasing power.

Now, bear in mind that the anti-immigration viewpoint which I have expressed is NOT rallying against hard-working, tax-paying immigrants who contribute. (This is aside from the issue of absolute capacity on this island, and whether or not we should concrete over green space, which is a different debate - just suppose the British citizen birth rate was much higher, and we faced a population of 100 million in a few years.. that would have nothing to do with immigration. I am not talking about that.)

Bearing in mind the points made above about tax - it stands to reason that a country which has more people contributing and fewer people taking, will have a more successful, healthy economy than a country which has fewer people contributing and more people taking.

Take an example: Country A has a population whose workforce comprises 90% of the people. However, Country B has a population whose workforce comprises 10% of the people. Any idiot should be able to see that, as a proportion of populace, the tax revenue generated within Country A is a lot higher than that generated within Country B. Citizens of Country A enjoy first-class education and healthcare. They have wonderful subsidised public transport. On the other hand, the citizens of Country B have a tough time: because there is so little tax collected, and there are so many people to support, their school class sizes are over 50 children per teacher, and the healthcare is dreadful. The roads are full of potholes, because there's simply no money left to fix them.

This should all be very obvious. I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence, but I feel that it's necessary to spell it out, because there are so many people who unfortunately do fail to grasp the basics.

The basic point about immigrants who come here in order to take more than they give is that when this happens, the rest of us suffer - either through increased taxes, or through reduced public services.

I would like the United Kingdom to be like Country A. Unfortunately, these days it's looking more and more like Country B, with more "takers" and fewer "givers".

And if one of the causes of a country heading towards the state of B is that so many of the "takers" have immigrated for the primary purpose of being a taker, then it is perfectly reasonable to wish to take a stand against it.

We may expand this whole discussion to include one's personal philosophy on the question of nationhood. B3ta member "the mighty badger" said: "[If] you truly cannot see how utterly fucking bigoted you are because you are referring to other human beings as a defined group by nationality first, as if you can define like that."

No, "the mighty badger", you are incorrect. I am not de-humanising anyone - and I certainly don't refer to people "by their nationality first". However, in the modern world there does exist the concept of nationhood. There does exist the concept of people being a citizen of a particular country. I realise that in an absolute, universal sense that this is meaningless - but for the purpose of human society, it is useful to consider that a localised land mass has a certain population, who have the right to call that land mass "home". And if you have a massive influx of people who do NOT call this place "home", but who STILL want to be a "taker" from the "givers" who DO call it home - then it's a recipe for tension.

And yes, there are indeed many British "takers" for whom this IS their home - and there are many non-British "givers" who are good for this country. Again, let me repeat that I do not have a problem with immigrants who contribute. But we should not have to accept non-British "takers".

Now back to the point about the insults, sarcasm, prejudice etc which is directed towards people like me who dare to make their views known...

One of the most reviled figures in history was Hitler - and rightly so. He was a bigot and a racist, and he persecuted people because of their ethnic background. It is a very good thing to see that now, over half a century after his horrible acts, he is still remembered with loathing - because by keeping it in the public consciousness, it ensures that racism can be quickly recognised, and stamped out.

However, it is also possible to go too far the other way. One of the legacies of this memory is that - because Hitler's acts were so awful, and because racism is so reviled, some people these days will bend over backwards just to try to show the world that they're not a racist. They even try to expand the definition of "racism", so that it doesn't just mean persecuting people because of their ethnic background - but so that it also means you're not allowed to support your own country.

The left-wing brigade in the UK are those self-loathing individuals, who feel no pride in their own country, and who - by the mere fact that they have white skin - are so paranoid about being associated with the aforementioned vile dictator, that they go out of their way to stamp out any kind of patriotism or national pride in other people.

Look at those morons who "protested" outside the BBC when Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time. They were not immigrants, or ethnic minorities (two different things!) They were self-loathing British people.

Nick Griffin is a racist. But the correct way to shoot down his views is to engage him in intelligent debate, and to show him up for what he is. Not to throw eggs at him.

And here, within this debate - even though my views have nothing to so with race or ethnic background (and I even said so explicitly in my original post) - the self-loathing lefties have brought it up, called me a racist and insulted me. Just because I happen to support my own country (tribalism is a natural human behaviour), and I don't want to see it go down the pan.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is prejudice.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 12:50, 17 replies)

I dun smelly guff on yor neck lol

( Donkey Gums @mattcomedy, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:12, closed)

mi bum cheeks went brap brap together and Paul Higgins did a laugh spit den wrote abot it in hiz homework dyre lol

( Donkey Gums @mattcomedy, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:31, closed)

my willy has gone hard :(

( Donkey Gums @mattcomedy, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:34, closed)

I called you a tit. It's an insult, but hardly a personal one.

( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:14, closed)

I don't have any pride in my country
because it's full of immigrants.
(rnuk http://flickr.com/rnuk, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:18, closed)

Sarcasm is a valid tool during any debate.

(PsychoChomp, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:18, closed)

i like breasts

( broadsword now that's fresh, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:18, closed)

All I can read there is
Wah wah wah.
( Blue Star was working part time at the 5 and Dime, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:20, closed)

Also
I wasn't aware I was a self loathing white person. OH GOD NO.
( Blue Star was working part time at the 5 and Dime, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:41, closed)

I'm a lefty and I think I'm ACE.

( TFD is sporting this season's finest necropants, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 16:56, closed)

I've got 3 WAAAAAAAAAHBULANCES on standby.
But I'm tempted not to send them, and let him drown instead.
( Dave Trouser ; the people's choice - 75% agree, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:42, closed)

That's pretty much how I read it too
"Wah, I wanted a free flat but they wouldn't give me one so it's the forrin's fault!"
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 18:01, closed)

I hate it when people think I'm being like Hitler when I'm walking around being white.

(rnuk http://flickr.com/rnuk, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:22, closed)

TL:DR

( The Baroness The Harlot Pimpernel, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:25, closed)

He's being mean to me stef
MEAN
(PsychoChomp, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:26, closed)

To be fair
I called you a bigot, not a racist.
You refused to produce any facts besides your repeated assertions that you work with asylum seekers, and remained silent at the production of facts that contradict your paranoid fantasies.
Regarding your little porkie pie that "the anti-immigration viewpoint which I have expressed is NOT rallying against hard-working, tax-paying immigrants who contribute", I quote "Even for the "good" immigrants who come here to work, you need to understand that they're still allowed free healthcare and education for their children. It's not uncommon for a family with several children to come here - where one person is working and the rest are his/her dependants. They're perfectly legal, sure. And they're not bad people.. no way siree. I have nothing against these people as individuals. But if you account for the cost of healthcare and schooling, it is very common for this hypothetical family to actually be taking MORE from the public purse than the main wage earner pays in income tax. The result is a NET LOSS to the United Kingdom."
And having mentioned "self-loathing whites", you only need to bring up the New World Order and you score a full house on the Internet Rightwing Fruitloop scale.

If society is prejudiced against you because of (say) your skin colour, you can't do anything about it. That's unfair, and that makes you a victim of prejudice. No-one was prejudiced against you (except nraphael, who I suspect of trolling or idiocy), there was no pre-judgement; you were judged on the opinions you hold and how you present them.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:26, closed)

Just so you know
I'm not a self-loathing leftie. I'm perfectly happy with my life and I'm fairly right wing, especially economically, as many here will testify.

None of the people who tried to sensibly debate with you called you racist. We said that you were nationalist and that is simply racism with a different hat and a shiny badge. Which it is. Unless you'd care to explain why treating people differently on the basis of nationality is somehow a world removed from treating people differently on the basis of race?

But let's clarify here, since you bring up something I've said in a separate post, it obviously matters to you. You deny that you are de-humanising by lumping people by nationality. And they YOU FUCKING DO IT AGAIN, IMMEDIATELY.

I ask again. What on earth makes you think that it is OK to accept "British" scroungers but not "non-British" scroungers? neither has made any contribution to the country. And I ask again, do you then want a justice system that punishes people by nationality and not by the crime they commit? because it's the same thing.

I tried to engage you in intelligent debate, but you didn't bloody reply to any of my posts, so I can only assume you've got no answers to what I have to say?

Incidentally, if you follow your "contribution" argument, if I was born here and pay tax and you weren't and don't then I have the right to be treated by the NHS and you don't. Because I've contributed more and it's "my" country. Right? I'm all for letting people die in the street because of their nationality and their tax contribution. Excellent plan.

and inflammatory language? Please. This is isn't kindergarten, and you hold what I consider to be a fairly unpleasant opinion on a highly emotive issue. If the best criticism you can find of me is that I use naughty words, maybe you should go and play somewhere a bit quieter, eh?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 14:10, closed)

Well...
...I still have a huge problem with what you're saying despite your very coherent and "reasonable-SOUNDING" efforts to justify it.

Basically you're confusing two separate issues. One: the cost to the taxpayer of the benefits system. Two: the issue of immigration.

The fundamental problem with your arguments is this: if you look at the statistics, it is quite obviously clear that immigrants are not responsible for the vast majority of the cost of the benefits system. We're talking about demonstrable, provable evidence. Whereas what you have done is taken a reactionary stance based, one suspects, on what you have been repeatedly fed by a self-interested media who know that moral panics and fearmongering sell papers.

Find some proof from a reliable source to support your viewpoint or even show that illegal immigrants claiming benefits is a seriously significant problem, and you may get some support. Unfortunately, you won't be able to do that because it's not true. Frustrated about having to pay too much tax? Try blaming the corporations who refuse to pay UK taxes because they are too rich and powerful for the government to be able to make them, and if the govt tried, they could simply desert the UK and set up somewhere else, taking jobs with them. Here's a statistically-provable fact: if all the corporations and businesses paid all the tax they are supposed to by law, all income tax for private individuals in the UK could be abolished without any reduction in the total amount of tax revenue collected. FACT.

And you still think immigrants are the problem? In terms of problems actually affecting the UK, immigrants claiming benefits is way, way down the scale.
(rampants, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 14:17, closed)

Well 160 posts later and here I am...
I have to say it has been a bit of a rollercoaster. Also very interesting to see this debate remain intelligent most of the way through (and yes, if people get a bit hot-headed when dealing with this sort of issue, well, it's understandable. As long as emotion isn't stopping argument I say fair play).

For what it is worth, here are my thoughts:

1) Where we are born is irrelevant. We are human. I don't feel any great loyality to Britain over the rest of the world simply because i was born here. "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"- Samuel Johnson (although perhaps I'm missing a subtle difference between Nationalism and Patriotism).

"However, in the modern world there does exist the concept of nationhood. There does exist the concept of people being a citizen of a particular country. I realise that in an absolute, universal sense that this is meaningless - but for the purpose of human society, it is useful to consider that a localised land mass has a certain population, who have the right to call that land mass "home""- yes, it is completely meaningless so let's change it. No point carrying around a defunct belief system just because it's the status quo. The World isn't flat. Neither are there lines that surround verious countries.

2) Britain became a "Country A" by destroying the economies of other nations as Mighty Badger said. It still does- The Free Market prevents many 'developing' countries from getting to their feet.

3)There is easily enough money/resources in this country (and world) to support us all. If it's not distrubuted evenly it's not an Immigrant's fault, even if they are a 'scrounger', it's the rich elite. As for scroungers, why is it ok for someone who was born in a rich family to do nothing with their life yet live off their parents money, while it's not if you don't have family money? It's a pure random occurance which family you were born into.

I think the 'problem' of immigration and most of the other 'problems' that the Daily Mail comes out with are just symptoms of an unfair global society. There's no point trying to treat sysmptoms. It's the root we need get.

I'm sure there's more but I can't think of it now. Sorry for the boring post.
(ab1kenobe, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 16:36, closed)

patriotism is pride in your country of birth or residence
Nationalism is the belief that your country would be better served with complete independence and disassocaition from other countries. It is very, very difficult to argue a Nationalist cause without the subtext that different nationalites (therefore the people) are fundamentally different. While it's absolutely not racist, It's not really different from arguing that racial segregation is acceptable as long as it's not discriminatory. Like I said, two equally unpleasant sides of a very mucky coin.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 17:38, closed)

Out of interest...
Where you stand on Welsh, Scottish and Irish Nationalism? Would you argue that Plaid Cymru, the SNP and Sinn Fein are right wing leaning seperatist organisations?

Also - why are all of the above acceptable...but mention English Nationalism and you may as well shave your head and put on a Union Jack T-shirt?
(Audax Victor, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 6:49, closed)

Sinn Fein's not a prima facie example of a desirable political organisation, is it?
I don't find any of them acceptable insofar as they enact nationalistic, protectionist policies. Do you?

It is something that seems to have eluded a lot of people, though, you're right. I also think the political under-representation of the English is not an acceptable "fair trade" for their economic dominance.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 8:04, closed)

Plaid?
Well, I'm an Englishman in Wales so probably not the best person to ask. I have ever decreasing respect for the political class as a whole and am torn regarding England having some kind of parliament: Seems logical if the rest of the UK has them, but on the other hand...MORE fucking politicians???

You'd probably disagree with me on my views on nationalism though. I see nothing wrong with it to a point. I used to (not any more) be proverbially proud to be British and proud to be English. I thought Britain and England was the best place in the world. In the same way my mum is the best mum in the world.

It's possible to love your country without hating everyone else. The who nationalist thing has been skewed by events of the 20th Century. It's understandable (and noble) to regard national borders as artifical constructs because that's what they are. On the other hand it's understandable (and noble) to look after your family (and your family writ large?)

Personally though my viewpoint on the whole thing has shifted (and continues to shift) because my utter dissatisfaction with this country in recent years. I feel no loyalty. I feel no patriotism.

On the other hand you'd probably consider me self absorbed and selfish because my one loyalty is to me and mine (which I guess you could retort by saying something like `the human race' - but as I say...)
(Audax Victor, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 8:57, closed)

what you describe is patriotism, not nationalism.
Being proud of your country is one thing. Believing that your country would be better off without all the others (nationalism) is a whole other.

I'm a (mostly) Englishman in Scotland, so I'm in the same position I guess.

A loyalty to you and yours is a perfectly understandable position, the problem becomes when it starts to actively include "to the deliberate detriment of others" ... but that's a whole other kettle of worms. More specifically, in this case, the "Loyalty to you and yours to the active detriment of others" holds "yours" to be "the British" and "the others" to be every other nationality and I think that's a pretty nasty position to hold.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 9:28, closed)

I agree (though I wish I didn't)
It's incredibly hard to not be 'selfish' and want to look after your own. I know I do it. But as a species, in order to progress we really need to start seeing that our own is everyone.

I hate to sound like a Bolshie Leftie but it is Capitalism (and especally this hard-line ultra-captialism we have now) that makes us act in competetion, when we really don't need to.
(ab1kenobe, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 11:32, closed)

I never said nationalism was right wing
but, yeah, definitely separatist. I find them fairly distasteful to be honest. And I don't think they are acceptable. I think they are "accepted". There is a bit of a difference, IMO. The only real difference between those you mention and the BNP is that they never campaigned on a race card.

But the point you make about SNP (say) vs English Nationalism is a good and important one. Although from my point of view, I'd ask the opposite - why is it that the others are tolerated?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 8:33, closed)

thank you
for clearing that up. :)
(ab1kenobe, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 11:23, closed)

"The money that the British government gets comes from BRITISH tax-payers only. It does not take a cut of all the tax which is paid the world over."
Er, no, the money comes from tax paid by workers in Britain. No matter what nationality they are.

And that, my friend, is the sound of your argument deflating.
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 18:05, closed)

I think I can summarise the above posts thusly:
Oh snap.
( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Wed 7 Apr 2010, 23:30, closed)

"Ignorant assumption"?
I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Also lol "left-wing brigade".
( Green Spanner and his magical lack of activity, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 10:51, closed)

If what Flapjack said is true:
"Total UK welfare 140bn
cost of asylum seekers under 1bn.

So less than 0.7% of that fraction of tax that goes on benefits is spent on asylum seekers, including the ones who are rightfully here."

then you're really barking up the wrong tree. In fact if that's all that's being spent on them I would strongly advise you to turn your wrath onto the legions of British scroungers as evidently they're the ones causing the problem.

Oh and as to immigrants families costing the taxpayer money in services, again I think you'll find that the families of British scroungers are costing us much much more.

As a result if you give a shit about reducing the vast majority of the tax spent on benefits I'd suggest that you'd be better served arguing for benefit reform (as I do) rather than stopping immigration.

We can't kick out British scroungers, but we can stop giving the cunts money to piss up the wall and smoke away. That, my friend, is where the problem with the benefits system lies and talk of immigration really is the stuff of Daily Mail headlines.

The right wing press give much more of a shit about the 'traditional British way of life' (TM) being changed rather than the monetary cost, but they bleat on about it all the same in order to give force to their argument.
(The man with the flan swashed his buckle on, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 11:13, closed)

I would also like to say...
That apart from the fact that I completely disagree with your view point, I admire the way that you have stuck to your guns, remained calm (ish) and suplied argument without name-calling. Kudos.
(ab1kenobe, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 11:34, closed)