An example of how democracy doesn't really affect power bases.

You can vote Conservative all you like but all the traditionally conservative institutions have been completely taken over by the left.

Their very long march through the institutions was completed at least ten years ago.

[Link]

This is happening in Tory run Britain.....Not a peep from Johnson or the Tories in general.

I'll repeat....when the right ran these institutions the left were employed there and allowed to lecture and teach.

However, since the left have taken over they have proven far more intolerant than anything I've seen in my lifetime.

Peter Hitchens on the finished march through the institutions.

[Link]

I've come round to his view that social conservatism can only return in this country if we get rid of the so called 'conservative party'.

He says Britain's finished and thinks that most conservatives don't understand that because they believe all the slogans.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Dec 2020 1.50am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Globalism does not have to come with mass immigration. Both China and Japan are forefront examples.

These are all political choices presented disingenuously as inevitable.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

We always debate this point, but I think it's not as simple as 'well China doesn't need immigration to thrive in a globalist economy therefore no one does'.

Main reasons being China, firstly, has a massive population. Secondly, it has an almost endless supply of in house cheap labour from lesser educated populations spread across the country which means it doesn't really need to rely on immigration to fill the low paid manufacturing jobs that (currently) form such a large part of its economy.

Western countries are basically now post-industrial and highly educated in comparison – the focus is no longer on manual labour and manufacturing jobs. More people in education and more focus on service and technology (and therefore education) means higher wages and less 'native' cheap labour. Therefore, someone has to fill the gap.

Japan is an anomaly, but only for so long – as a service led economy with high levels of education it also needs to be able to fill the low paid, labour end of the job market. And it is steadily increasing both immigration limits and working visas to cope.

Clearly though, the gradual, slowly slowly approach is far less disruptive than the accelerated model employed almost everywhere else in the western world – but there is of course a trade off to that approach. Gradual vs. explosive economic growth.

Ultimately, currently the Japanese model is to become a country of immigration. It's not a matter of if, but when. The population is on course to decline, and there is already a workforce shortage. Add into the mix that the median age of Japans population is the second highest in the world, unless something radical happens they really have little choice.

The difference is they are doing it at their own pace to attempt to reduce potential social friction in what has always been a very conservative, protectionist and racially intolerant country.

So, ultimately, it's not as simple as your statement implies. To me it seems the only way to avoid needing to resort to mass immigration to support your economy once it starts transitioning away from industry and towards service and technology (quickly or slowly, doesn't really matter in the end) is to somehow incentivise educated populations to do the opposite of what they do now, and have more children. Then, you'd also need to incentivise those same people to forgo education and choose pathways to high labour, low paid jobs. Personally, I can't see that happening.

This only ends once low paid jobs become automated, and the only jobs left are service led. Then you've got an even bigger issue of mass unemployment, but that's for another century.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Simple no...but am I accurate in what I stated that these are political choices and not necessities...I believe and hope so yes.

What you are stating are the current easy reasons for China not requiring immigration, which is fair enough.

Your intital description of the west as basically a service industry that imports is certainly generally correct. However again, these were political choices made in the past to solve short term problems but have created long term weaknesses.

Certainly in China, national industries wouldn't have been given away to foreigners nor would they have allowed their manufacturing base to outsource to create the situation you describe.

It's a given that Britain couldn't have been as economically isolationist, however it's also true that it never needed to globally drop its drawers in these areas either.....but it did.

As for 'someone has to fill the gap', I strongly disagree with this. No, what needed to happen was national readjustment and investment into both birth rates (as Hungary are doing successfully). If this had been done pre-emptively these issues would have been significantly less.

Like I said, political choice....short termism.

Firstly I'd say calling Japan an 'anomaly' sounds more to me as an admittance that the only modern economy to have enacted these principles has succeeded with them as I'd suggest that there are no such things as decades old economic anomalies.

Now you refer to your recent changes in political noise coming from some parts of Japan....mainly some of the elitist globalist sectors. This doesn't represent the will of Japan.

What we have seen is small changes to work visas, mostly issued to citizens of neighbouring countries however these came with assurances from their PM that Japan wouldn't become a country of immigration.

I know that Japan has become a focus for those pushing immigration and other agendas and that they wish to remove it as a rallying cry for nationalism. However, a few comments from some Japanese elites does not equal a major change....I certainly hope not anyway.

You refer to birth rates and worker shortage and that this means that Japan will eventually become a country of immigration and....like Europe lose its actual genetic heritage and control of its own destiny and future.

However, I'll counter this future with a different outlook. Firstly Japan can tackle birth rates using the same incentives that Hungary is successfully employing. Secondly, it can keep what immigration and work vistas it does use to mostly Asian peoples and hence maintain the visibility of its nation. Like us it is an island nation and unlike us it can decide to control who enters....as recently it has with the virus.

Thirdly automation can be used to reduce both the need for worker employment while still maintaining high technological living standards. None of us are certain how automation works out in terms serving the elderly, however, AI nor robots do not need payment nor many resources.

I predict that technologies and policies can and will play there part in reducing these issues.

There is no need for Japan to lose neither its genetic of cultural nature and survive and thrive in a global environment.

You describe Japan as 'racially intolerant', which is your lens, however I would describe it as 'racially protective'. As for conservative and protectionist, I would suggest that conservative is a positive while protectionist is dependent upon the situation.

I see I have in part answered this section already. I repeat myself of course but I think the future of automation, while being difficult to predict can counter some of these age old employment and productivity problems.

Perhaps the real discussion to be had is why we both differ on desiring different futures and why we think they offer better ends.....while recognising that both involve unfortunate journeys for many.

Edited by Stirlingsays (15 Dec 2020 1.51pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

No, Japan will only accept immigration because it will be pressured to do so by outside influence and subversion like we have. These are forces outside of it's own culture.

What has empire got to do with it? Even when the empire was at it's height we were an ethnically homogeneous country.

"No-one wants illegal immigration" that's relatively small problem. Most people do not want mass immigration. Never have.

"Ensuring we get the skilled workers we need" - why not train our own or are they just too stupid?

We should have no "international humanitarian duties". Why is it always down to us to step in for the civilisationally incompetent?

"We have a reputation to protect which we destroy at our peril" - why?

England is what our forefathers built, left in our trust and defended with their lives. Nobody fought wars for meaningless abstractions like "British values". They fought it for their own people, their own land and and their right to exist as a sovereign nation free of foreign interference.

How is or ever was mass immigration good or fair for indigenous working class English people?

Ha ha, very good, not as good as the don , dancing with the saudi princes,in a line, then saying "beautiful, beautiful". Great to see Putin congratulate president Biden today, the worlds wheels are turning, without the don!