Bill Eldridge

The needs of capitalism is a cause of population growth in this already crowded island.The Uk population was going to fall prior to the immigration of the last 50 years.With modern technology this population could have managed ok if wealth distribution had been more even ,dispite the greying of the population.The quality of life would also have been much higher.But from a capitalistic perspective this would have resulted in a smaller workforce and probably a more demanding and difficult one to control.So immigration to keep the social cost and taxes down whilst providing cheaper labour and larger profits and better control of the workforce with ever widening disparities in wealth and income has been our experience.All this dispite the objections of the existing population who instinctively,and not for racialist reasons, realised the longer term implications.Over the years propaganda,manipulation and repression, somtimes subtle and sometimes less so have weakened the objections and we now face the prospect of 70-100 million people by mid century. We will need to continue to concrete over naturally fertile ,well watered land ,whilst in other countries a fortune will be spent to try and make land productive. What would be the point of making more of Australia habitable and agriculturally more productive unless the religious,cultural and poverty problems of the potential immigrants are resolved.If this was not sorted first they would simply overpopulate Australia.Just look at India ,Bangladeash ect they do not constrain their populations even when at bursting point and make up a disproportionate part of the population growth in the Uk in recent years.The sub continent will overpopulate everywhere the diaspra is allowed to reach;just look at fiji. A more viable approach to overpopulation would be to prevent those populations whose beliefs ect cause them to disregard the negative impact of continuos high fertility from disgorging their excess population elsewhere,until such irresponsibility is curtailed. While we have capitalism we must face the hard fact that everything is about supply and demand(baring cartels )and this goes for human beings;the more there are the less individuals are generally worth.We cannot protect ourselves while people can be "imported "from other places and we are all beggered. With capitalism there are always cheaper places to get labour or exploit populations;we need to realistically resist this and not be brainwashed into accepting our own demise by these ruthless tactics.

kathy,I used the name Cassius Clay rather than M.Ali because like you I think he was at his best then before becoming embittered by the brotherhood.Thank you for explaining the ideas he was subjected to.Incidently I agree with your relative that Jack Dempsey was a terrific fighter having witnessed his ferocious demolision of fighters on video.However, he was too small to have beaten Clay who was as a great a boxer as he was a great person.

I agree with you about Muhammed Ali. There was never anyone like him and never will be. I just wish he hadn't gotten involved with that crazy religion. This religion states that white people were invented by black people way back when. And that white people were an experiment gone wrong. According to Louis Farrakhan, the Mother Ship is coming to take the black people to a new place. A cloud follows Farrakhan wherever he goes. Inside this cloud is the Mother Ship that will take him soon to Paradise. Though I think Farrakhan will outlive us all. Back to Ali: When he won a certain boxing match and yelled into the camera, "I'm the Champion of the world!" It brings tears to my eyes. He was so bright and funny. My great uncle, Jackie Farrell, was Jack Dempsey's manager. About Ali and Frazier my uncle said, "To me they're both bums and neither one of them could step into the ring with Dempsey." Oh, well. Kathy

What about that great american wit Cassius Clay with his devastating political quips and great courage in refusing to go to Vietnam.Also that great Detriot middleweight Henry Hank and David Thoroux of Walden Pond and U.S Grant whose wisdom and insight at the end of the civil war in not taking revenge probably ensured that the war did end at that juncture.

Whilst what Peter writes is sound reasoning I think it ignores the probability that only states in the so called advanced countries who can retain their national identity and historical roots have any chance of resisting the globilisation to which he refers. The irony of this is that these states are the ones losing these potentially powerful assets from the destabilising rates of immigration they are subject too, which Peter thinks are justified by the globilising activities of western interests. So the mass immigration is furthering the goals of those promoting the globilisation process

Can anybody explain to me why after 50 years of mostly non white European immigration of dubious quality if not quantity who mostly settle on a permanent basis we suddenly get a stronger than usual surge of anti immigration aimed at Eastern Europeans who carry a much more assimilable culture and who not only work in the economy across the board and demand little,but the bulk will return on a permanent basis to their own nearby countries.Nothng is said about the continuous emigration from all parts of the world.I suspect an anti white anti european bias but for the life of me cannot understand why.I'ts clear that the winners from immigration are the rich who own the country and like cheap labour and high profits.The indigenous poor struggle with ridiculous house prices and food prices stoked by the demands of an ever increasing population mostly of new arrivals who need everything in a short space of time.

It seems to me that the biggest loss from immigration was the lost opportunity to create a better quality of life than we now enjoy,as a consequence of having an additional 20million poeple.This is a lot of extra people for a small geographical area,five times the total population of New Zealand which is about the same size as the uk.I think that this disrupted the social processes that existed after the war,distorted economic decisions to the detriment of the indigenous population and halted the drive to greater equality.The problem of an ageing population will come up again in the future but instead of being a probem for a total popuation of 45million it will be with 70 million.It would have been better to have dealt with this problem as required without resorting to immigration.Not that I think this was the reason for immigration which was to keep wages down though the addional labour whilst creating useful social divisions at he same time.Recent immigration is driven by the examples of the city states like Hong Kong and Singapore and the capitalists see the Uk in these terms and don't give a damn about the long term implications for the populace and even less for the pre war population.White children have been systematically stripped of the knowledge of their history and roots and are simply a comparable ethnic group ,one amongst many,and the consequences are often to appalling to behold.The population has been slowly forced to accept these historically transforming changes by subtle psychological force and conditioning to the point where the think they are racist because they feel like objecting to being screwed like a bunch of idiots unable to protect themselves from forces which seem outside of their control.The winners are now rich beyond avarice and are citizens of the world and can go to live anywhere ;meanwhile back here...................!!

First I would like to say how exellent Andy Walpole's site is at capturing the essentals of Harold Hill and that it evoked many memories for me and transported me back to those times.It reminded me of a story my sister told me years after which emphasised the gulf between some people on the Hill and those living off the estate within a couple of miles.When we came to the Hill in 1951/2 there were no local schools and she had to go to Gidea Park where a Miss Samuels was the headmistress. We were surviving from day to day and whereas the school demanded dinner money paid weekly my mother could only give it to take on a daily basis.This caused my sister a load of grief because Miss Samuels could not grasp the notion that she could not pay on a weekly basis and made my sisters life a misery.In addition my sister also attended in wellington boots one day simply because it was the only footware she had and my mother was insistant that she still attend school.This became an additional source of anxiety for my sister as the headmistress got on her case.There was also a tendency for the the girls from the Hill to be treated like second class citizens.Another girl from Harold Hill who had also had similar problems to my sister was with the headmistress while my sister was waiting to see her about the wellington boots saga.Suddenly this child shouted at Miss Samuels in sheer frustration at being unable to penitrate the head mistresses stubborn ignorance of her situation "Why don't you xxxx off back to Jeruselem".She was immediatly expelled. Del Smith's contribution about the Albermare and the drugs situation on the Hill brought home to me how quickly that scourge had gained ground in the culture.I was unaware of this degree of change since I was a youngster 4-5 years earlier when drinking was the main pastime.I remember Del saying in about 1963 that everybody he knew was on blue bombers and I remember that I was not familiar with this behavour although grass was common enough by then locally. Like a lot of people who grew up on the Hill from the early 50's I loved the freedom of the environment and the great people who lived there.Never felt deprived in any way and in fact felt lucky to be living there.One downside was that it was monocultured.The only professional we met was the gp and everybody was working class which gave me a socially restricted view of the greater society and I think reduced options in educational and career prospects.

First I would like to say how exellent Andy Walpole's site is at capturing the essentals of Harold Hill and that it evoked many memories for me and transported me back to those times.It reminded me of a story my sister told me years after which emphasised the gulf between some people on the Hill and those living off the estate within a couple of miles.When we came to the Hill in 1951/2 there were no local schools and she had to go to Gidea Park where a Miss Samuels was the headmistress. We were surviving from day to day and whereas the school demanded dinner money paid weekly my mother could only give it to take on a daily basis.This caused my sister a load of grief because Miss Samuels could not grasp the notion that she could not pay on a weekly basis and made my sisters life a misery.In addition my sister also attended in wellington boots one day simply because it was the only footware she had and my mother was insistant that she still attend school.This became an additional source of anxiety for my sister as the headmistress got on her case.There was also a tendency for the the girls from the Hill to be treated like second class citizens.Another girl from Harold Hill who had also had similar problems to my sister was with the headmistress while my sister was waiting to see her about the wellington boots saga.Suddenly this child shouted at Miss Samuels in sheer frustration at being unable to penitrate the head mistresses stubborn ignorance of her situation "Why don't you xxxx off back to Jeruselem".She was immediatly expelled. Del Smith's contribution about the Albermare and the drugs situation on the Hill brought home to me how quickly that scourge had gained ground in the culture.I was unaware of this degree of change since I was a youngster 4-5 years earlier when drinking was the main pastime.I remember Del saying in about 1963 that everybody he knew was on blue bombers and I remember that I was not familiar with this behavour although grass was common enough by then locally. Like a lot of people who grew up on the Hill from the early 50's I loved the freedom of the environment and the great people who lived there.Never felt deprived in any way and in fact felt lucky to be living there.One downside was that it was monocultured.The only professional we met was the gp and everybody was working class which gave me a socially restricted view of the greater society and I think reduced options in educational and career prospects.

What worries me is the stress the war causes between Europe and the US.Please remember the things common to both and shared by both ,not least our common biology.For example there is now more of my personal historical biology in the US than in the Uk and this matters more than short term difficulties.

It is my belief that Jesus Christ was a revolutionary philosopher. This is best expressed in his teachings on power and violence. Jesus said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” As it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle I think he is suggesting that rich individuals will find it very difficult to get to heaven. After all, Jesus made it clear that he wanted people to share their wealth with the poor. If they did not decide to do that then they didn’t deserve to go to heaven. Anyone who has spent anytime at all studying the life and words of Jesus knows that he was probably the world’s first socialist. However, it was the pacifism of Jesus Christ that caused him more problems than his socialism. The most revolutionary thing that Jesus Christ did was to encourage his followers not to serve in the Roman Army. This was the reason why Christians were “thrown to the Lions”. The Romans were very tolerant of other religions as long as religion did not become political. When persecution did not work, the Romans nationalized Christianity. Once under its control, Christianity was used to justify the status quo. The same is true today. Over the centuries some true Christians have attempted to return to the teachings of Jesus Christ. The best recent example is Martin Luther King. He did it so well that he became as dangerous as Jesus Christ and had to be treated in the same way. However, killing pacifists will not destroy the movements towards a non-violent society. We will eventually get there, with or without the Christian Church. Here is an article by Bob Murphy you might be interested in reading: http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy60.html Jesus was clearly a revolutionary thinker who challenged the seemingly natural idea of retribution. Rather than vengeance, Jesus commanded forgiveness (Mt. 18:22). Instead of the pagan ideals of strength and power, Jesus offered the Christian ideals of humility and meekness (Mt. 5:5). Jesus went so far as to demand that His disciples love their enemies (Mt. 5:44). The above is not in dispute. Even most atheists would agree that Jesus’s teachings were wise precepts concerning the uselessness of hatred and revenge. But did Jesus literally require pacifism? A straightforward reading would suggest that He did. He literally (given the translation) commanded "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Mt. 5:39). But perhaps this was just a specific rule? Well, immediately before this famous injunction, Jesus also gave the general rule, forbidding resistance to evil. It is this passage that inspired Christian pacifists such as William Lloyd Garrison and Leo Tolstoy, and I find their interpretation entirely plausible. Of course, Jesus often spoke in metaphors; one should be very careful in deriving categorical conclusions from a few Gospel passages. When studying not merely His words, but His actions, does it seem that Jesus was a pacifist? I for one think this is the only sensible conclusion. He rebuked Peter for drawing his sword during His arrest. And of course, the entire purpose of Jesus’s coming to Earth was to suffer unjustly at the hands of evil men, despite the fact that He obviously had the power to prevent this. Such an argument alone doesn’t prove the case for Christian pacifism, but it does show that the doctrine is consistent with Christianity. Horrible things happen to good people all the time. The use of violence won’t ever "solve" this. Most people would agree that it is impermissible to murder someone, even if so doing would save (through a heart transplant, say) a child from death. Yet most people believe that it is permissible to kill someone in order to prevent him from killing a child. The apparent inconsistency is evaded by classifying the latter case as justifiable defense, and by classifying the dead man as a criminal, worthy of less respect and rights than "civilized" people. Yet it is precisely this mentality, I claim, that Jesus sought to overthrow. The kingdom of God can only be approached when everyone voluntarily renounces violence against his neighbors. And isn’t it just possible that the best and surest way to reach that goal is for each of us personally to renounce violence, for whatever reason, right now? To say, "I will lay down my arms just as soon as all the evil people do first" is to guarantee that you will never see the kingdom of God during your life.

I was born in London of Anglo Saxon/Irish stock which accounts for my good looks and intelligence. Moved to Essex aged 11 years and had a secondary education of which I failed to take advantage of and left school without qualifications. My parents tried to encourage me to do better but I think they realised that they could not penetrate my indifference/ignorance. Like most kids on a wholly working class estate the only professional I knew was the GP and he seemed to come from another planet so the horizons/experiences were restricted by the mono world we inhabited. For several years did a variety of mostly dull, poorly paid jobs and then went into further education at the age of 27 years after which I worked in local authority residential units and finally qualified at the ripe age of 35 years as a care manager and remained in this work until retirement. Live in Brentwood, Essex a town 17 miles from London. My political leanings have always been to the left and I sang "Vote, vote, vote for Mr Attlee, chuck old Churchill down the stairs" etc at the 1951 hustings with my mates, a bunch of ragged arsed ragamuffins. However, my political beliefs have always been a confusing, contradicting rag bag of constructs, but fundamentally left of centre. Likewise my religious beliefs are always unsettled, in flux but Christian at root. The great pleasures are meeting friends,walking in new interesting places/locations, music, reading, cinema, art and being in the sun on a warm day in a garden perhaps with a drink and good company. And being sparked by a new notion whether at a theatre by a radio/tv programme or by a personal contact.