Manchester No Borders bringing the joy

Clue: if MigrationWatch, the Optimum Population Trust and the BNP praise your work as Immigration Minister: UR doin it rong.

Fuckwitted racist-or-cowardly Immigration minister Phil Woolas got pied when speaking at Manchester University yesterday. First in the queue, Manchester No Borders, who called him out on his economic and ecological nationalism.

“You can’t do that, he’s a Government minister”


4 responses to “Manchester No Borders bringing the joy

  1. This seems like a rather immature stunt, on the part of MNB. Yes, he may be a bit of a bawbag, but he should be countered with intelligent rhetoric and debate, not slapstick props.
    I can’t see what MNB’s disagreement with the Optimum Population Trust is – ignoring Migration Watch and the idiotic BNP for the moment – they do point out some rather uncomfortable truths. Any area of land, particularly an island, has a specific biological carrying capacity for its current productivity levels; our productivity levels could be interpreted as our agricultural outputs, discounting food produced in foreign countries. Our current population requires imports of food, and therefore it is maintained artificially, unless I am missing something.
    Surely we should strive towards self-sufficiency, rather than relying on external, globalised, sources of food? And if this island requires a lower population to do so, then is there really anything wrong with simply suggesting this? Looking for a lower population does not automatically preclude immigration.

  2. The only “uncomfortable truth” that the Optimum Population Trust bring up is the tendency for some environmentalists to slide into misanthropy. Ecology plus nationalism is a particularly toxic ideology and they don’t recognise (or care about) this.

    To argue that there’s some kind of objective “biological carrying capacity” limiting population levels ignores technology, land use patterns and, crucially, social organisation: vital factors that challenge powerful interests. Which is why there are more well-funded population-limiting think tanks than there are “just transition” ones.

    They’ve argued that allowing immigration is damaging and they used superficially green language to do so. One of the first pieces of prop we put out included a polemic against the combination of nationalism and environmentalism and its good that other groups are starting to recognise that this is a dangerous trend.

    I also take issue with the idea of imports of food being “artificial”. Why should self-sufficiency over-rule the ability to import foods, which has been happening for 1000s of years (as long as civilisation).

    If I was to rely on food produced in my particular area of land, I’d be even skinnier than I am. Without the serotonin in bananas I’d be even more prone to moodiness. And without imports of coffee, I wouldn’t be able to get up in the morning. Imports are good.

    In an energy-use trade-off, coffee imports would beat plasma screen TVs, trust me 🙂

  3. Hmmm, good points. I would concede that I have a bit of a primitivist streak in me, which may explain how I’ve interpreted this issue.

    But I would still maintain that a smaller population is preferable to a larger one, if only in terms of repairing our already fragile ecosystems. The UK’s population growth through the 20th century claimed ~50% of its old-growth woodland.

  4. Pingback: “No Borders” film night tomorrow « Edinburgh Anarchists

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s