Would people really care about Britain's booming population if it was driven by WHITE families having more babies, Boris Johnson asks
- Mayor called for a 'proper conversation' about how many people live in UK
- He asked whether it was 'foreigners' that voters were really bothered about
- London mayor said there should be a national debate about population size
People
with concerns about Britain's booming population should ask themselves
if they would be bothered if it was fuelled by a surge in white Anglo
Saxon protestant babies, the Mayor of London has said.
Boris
Johnson called for a 'proper conversation' about how many people live
in the UK and how far voters would be prepared to go to reduce the
numbers.
During
a phone-in on BBC London 94.9, he questioned whether it was
'foreigners' that voters were actually concerned about rather than the
size of the population.
Boris Johnson insisted that no country had enjoyed sustained economic growth without an increase in its population
'Is it people who speak a different language? Is it people who cook a different type of food? What is it?' he said.
Mr Johnson insisted that no country had enjoyed sustained economic growth without an increase in its population.
He
added: 'All I'm saying to people is there is a trade-off and if you go
for a reduction there will be an economic price to pay.'
The
Conservative mayor said a state should be 'able to control its
frontiers' and 'proper controls' are needed at Britain's borders.
He added: 'I think we need a proper conversation about what we think the ultimate size of Britain should be.
'We are are now at 62/63 perhaps even 64 million now. Is that too many?
'If it is too many then by how many would people like that number reduced and how would they like it to be reduced?
'And,
what are they seriously calling for? Are we calling for sterilisation?
Are we calling for a Chinese-style one-baby policy?'
Boris Johnson will appear on this
week's 'The Jonathan Ross Show' to promote his book 'The Churchill
Factor: How One Man Made History'
He added: 'How would people feel if the population pressure was caused entirely by white Anglo Saxon protestant babies?
'How would they feel about that?
'I just think there is a lack of clarity about that and I think people need to ask themselves what they are really...'
8 comments:
How officials let sex offenders, peadophiles and a rapist drive your Taxis. Manchestereveningnews.co.uk Some BNP members, ex-BNP members in the East London,South West Essex area may wonder why the BNP activist (the one that wasn't a member, wouldn't stand and nobody knew where he lived) who kept asking questions all the time is still driving a black cab. Did try to warn you.
Johnson knows nothing about money and economics.
There was a 2 hour debate on the creation of money in parliament 3 weeks ago during which the government minister accepted that the high street banks create almost all our money "ex nihilo" (out of nothing) as debt.
I didn't see Johnson sitting in the public gallery when his old chums heard the news that he would deny.
In fact, only about 30 MPs bothered to show their greedy fat faces.
The rest still think the government issues our money interest free.
Anyone interested can watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBSlSUIT-KM
Cranks like Eddy Butler and the Joke from Bradford should look away now.
HOMOSEXUAL TERRORISM SUPPORTED BY GOVERNMENT,
http://www.tomatobubble.com/homo.html
Good to see you back HENRY.
I am doing some research on the war within the General Staff in WW1 and the pressures from the zionists like Lloyd George,Weitzmann,Jabotinsky,Mark Sykes and many others. And possibly any mileage that Kitchener was in fact assassinated, as he was not in favour of 'leaking' troops out to Palestine and would have helped Russia and staved off 'revolution'. Any info on this area would be greatly received. :-)
Return Of The Jewish Neocons.
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=989
".......the high street banks create almost all our money "ex nihilo" (out of nothing) as debt."
Don't think they do, the ~97% of money that is credit not specie/cash is not in substance ex-nihilo but instead the product of the banks monetising/publishing promissory obligations of citizens, corporates, government &c. This is the analysis of Montagne, Migchels and others who make sense to me (disregarding the older writers who long ago discussed all this to no effect also).
For an introductory populist effort there's not a bad discussion of money creation and usury here, at least once you've stripped out the delusional C.I. kookery
http://christogenea.org/system/files/audio/CHR-Euro-2014-12-14.mp3
http://fascovereign.blogspot.com/2014/12/christogenea-europe-usury-in-europe_15.html
I don't think the MP for the City was even at the 20 November debate on money creation and society. In fact numbers of MPs attending it were as perfunctory as the number of them who attended a week later at this:
https://blairzhit.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/child-sexual-abuse-debate-house-of-commons/
Money and nonces - British politics summarised in three words.
If that's what Anthony Migchels is saying then he's misrepresenting his own heroes, Arthur Kitson and Frederick Soddy. Perhaps it's the only way he can justify his own attempt to create an electronic currency....out of nothing.
Migchels says that his money, which he calls the "Talent", will be fully "convertible to Euro/Dollar", but just as Migchels misrepresents Kitson and Soddy, he also misrepresents convertibility in order to jump on the "money from nothing" bandwagon for it's the limitations of "convertibility" that demonstrates the extent to which banks create the 'nearly' money which sidestepping cranks like to call "credit".
In April last, the Bank of England stated in its quarterly report that banks create money when they make a loan, thus...
".....In the modern economy, most money takes the form of bank deposits. But how those bank deposits are created is often misunderstood. The principal way in which they are created is through commercial banks making loans: whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money. This description of how money is created differs from the story found in some economics textbooks.”
Source: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/news/2014/051.aspx
Try to understand that "whenever a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money" - The bank does not wait to receive the deposit from a saver but instead, creates the deposit by itself going into debt. It simply increases its own liabilities then passes this debt to the "borrower" who returns it with interest. When the borrower returns the sum created plus interest, the bank clears its debt, but retains the interest.
Migchels should drop his Rothschild fantasies and reread his Kitson and Soddy.
In 1921 Frederick Soddy explained what is happening when bankers and economists foolishly claim that something can be made from nothing and passed around, when in fact, it can't.
Soddy wrote:
"....A ham merchant working on what he is pleased to call a 10 per cent basis of profit, may buy ten hams for the same sum as he sells nine. He may be pleased to think he has made a profit of one ham, but he certainly has not made a ham. There were and remain ten, whereas if anyone had made a profit of one ham, there should now be eleven."
F. Soddy, Cartesian Economics: The Bearing of Physical Science Upon State Stewardship. First published 1921.
'Adolf Hitler - The Greatest Story NEVER Told' Parts 1-27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnu5uW9No8g
Post a Comment