Leaving aside the idea that Howard proposed an alliance with the BNP (he clearly didn't) have you considered why this type of policy plays so well ?

You say :

"every human beings right to live wherever they so choose"

I'm trying to treat you with respect and get my head around this.

Trying to work out - under what sort of circumstances could this be a just and practical reality.

If the new arrivals were to be treated as in every sense equal to the long-time inhabitants (which I think is what you mean) then I think we would need either:

1. The abolition of all benefit or welfare or health systems relying on infrastructure and capital resources which had been built up over time by the prior inhabitants. So that the new arrivals were not benefitting unfairly from the (compulsory) savings of others, who had allocated a substantial partr of their lifetime's work to building up these resources for themselves and their children.

2. The abolition of all such systems funded from current compulsory payments extracted from other citizens, except perhaps in the form of a loan, with serious penalties for non-repayment.

Anything else would involve one group of people being compelled to work for the benefit of another, or to hand over property they have worked hard for over previous years. This would be a serious infringement of THEIR human rights, a form of enslavement. It could only be justified if it could be shown with certainty that thrse payments would pay off in the long term, with a net benefit to the "slaves" over a longer time period.

I have heard this last argument put forward, but obviously it is a fine calculation, and could not be valid regardless of the number of new arrivals. How many arrivals there would be no-one knows, but presumably (like water flow in physics) it would go on until the attractiveness of living in the new country had equalised with that of staying in the old, one rising and one falling.

But we want (on humanitarian grounds) to ignore calculations like this and allow complete freedom of movement for all earth's inhabitants.

So to avoid enslaving and violating the original inhabitants either we must make everyone stand proud and equal on their own two feet, or we must devise a way of helping the new arrivals which is VOLUNTARY.

Since you can only personally volunteer to help people you see personally, I think this implies total decentralisation of society and the adoption of individual immigrants by small local communities who assist the new arrivals personally through the difficult first months and years, offering homes, food, work etc until they're on their feet.

Since we could not retain the big national systems (welfare, health service) for the locals, and then deny access to the arrivals, these would have to be abolished for everyone (as in 1. and 2. above), with of course a compensatory abolition of taxes. Each vilolage would need a local doctor who got paid by his patients. The unwaged would need the voluntary help of their neighbours, same as the new arrivals. Though perhaps they (as previous investors) could be given a share of the huge sell-off of state assets which would keep them going for a bit.

Is what I describe anything similar to what modern anarchists propose ?

Please note I am not trying to express any personal VIEWS here. I'm just trying to see how this humanitarian principle could be followed without simply violating the human rights of one group in order to benefit another.

One extra thing. I think it could be fairly suggested that inhabitants of our previous exploited colonies have some right to a share of the infrastructure we built partly on their exploitation. But I dont think that applies to people from eastern europe, so my logic above applies.

So help me - is this in line with anarchist proposals ? Almost no tax. No benefits. Local voluntary action ?

has "anarchist proposals" got to do with the original missive, freddie?

Sorry if you think it's too far off track.

I just genuinely need a bit of help to understand where Douglas GA Murrray is coming from, and how it is that so many here seem to hold similar drastic views. It would obviously need some BIG changes in the world. Trying to work out what those changes might be.

I don't want to dismiss other peoples views just coz I don't immediately see how they could work......

Freddie sounds like dodgy so called 'anarcho-capitalism' to me. Some of what you say sounds good and would make sense, decentralisation, local communities, voluntary and community help and integration, and so on, but the rest is capitalist crap - medical care is a human right, and its ludicrous to abolish welfare and benefits which keep going single mothers, poor families, etc. Immigrants actually contribute to the economy more than they take anyway, and following your logic infants and children shouldn't be allowed benefits because they've only just got here and haven't contributed, or children of people who for some reason have never worked (maybe disabled or something).

i predict howards visit to burney will increase bnp vote and racists attacks. by banging on about immigrants and asylum seekers as if they are a problem will only provide respectablibity for the nazis.

we need a united front to smash the facists, it is likely that the bnp will gain euro mps and may even get gla members. this will increase their racist platform, the bbc and the like will give them more oxygen and will became a more of a political dangerous force.

we desperately need to organise against them and provide a real alternative.

on the bright side, the left and anti-racist are getting their act together by forming the unity coalition.now is the time for all of us to combine our forces and unite in a broad and common front against this coomon threat.

UNITE against facism RALLY with music & entertainment
25 february 7pm
london astoria
157 charing cross rd WC2

speakers incl-lemar R&B singer,jenny francis choice FM,jason stanton&jason flemtng from Lock, Stock and two smoking barrels,natalie roles from the bill,billy hayes CWU gen sec,billy bragg,will mellor from the bill,ken livingston

c u there

p.s get people to vote respect and give people hope

Jewish by nature, turns up in small town Lancashire promoting the very cause he should be most adverse to, The richest wards in the town voted in the neo-fascists,not the most deprived, so he could have a point