and now this gem...
The problem with the Guardian of course is that it is the largest-circulation, allegedly left-wing newspaper in the UK and a natural focal point for people who would like to see a gentler, fluffier world
Personally, I would describe the Guardian as an authoritarian allegedly left-wing newspaper
...and there's nothing fluffy about authoritarianism
A little while back a friend complained to me about the media treatment of an issue he is interested in and he said, in an exasperated tone, 'Even the Guardian is deleting my comments!!'
when my laughter had died down a little, and he was able to get a word in edgewise, he followed up with something like 'Come to think of it, that is a pretty knob end thing to say...'
plurality of debate - the very cornerstone of CiF policy....
158 comments:
This comment has been removed by the person that thought it up.
Additional comments may be self-censored in the interests of the non-committal of thought crime.
Komment Macht Frei indeed.
Never mind shutting down free speech, how about shutting down alleged uranium enrichment facilities?
- Was Stuxnet a joint US-Israeli project?
Of course, if a bored 14 year old kid had created a similar thing (which, of course, they couldn't given the know-how and resources required to so do) that'd be heinous crime of hugely punishable proportions.
All of which minds me very much of this sort of thing.
Never mind shutting down free speech, how about shutting down alleged uranium enrichment facilities?
- Was Stuxnet a joint US-Israeli project?
Of course, if a bored 14 year old kid had created a similar thing (which, of course, they couldn't given the know-how and resources required to so do) that'd be a heinous crime of hugely punishable proportions.
All of which minds me very much of this sort of thing.
The Gruniard an "allegedly left-wing newspaper"?
Nah, it's just a fount of NWO bullshit -- beautifully illustrated by the Jenkins article you referenced:
"I was asked some time ago by a university-educated Texan, in the nicest possible way, what it was like to live in a country of "baby-killers" about to be "overrun by Muslim bad guys". I inquired where he had gained this bizarre impression of Europe, which he had never visited. "
Thing is, if you call partial birth abortion, i.e., killing a fetus that is capable of independent life as it emerges from the womb (a hideous procedure described here) baby killing, and I don't see why not, then Britain is a nation of baby killers. Then of course there are the regular abortions (181,000 in 2005 and rising).
As for the Muslims, well they only have a just over a thousand mosques right now, but they're aiming to have a lot more; they have sharia courts in Britain and they breed a lot faster than the Brits. So what's wrong with talking of Britain being overrun?
As for bad guys, well most male muslims in Britain between the ages of 20 and 24 consider themselves Muslim first, British second, which is not, I would have thought, exactly what you'd expect of folks you'd call good guys, even if they not all of them went over to Afghanistan to fight our guys.
So what is this Jenkins person saying? That the right of free speech must be suppressed when important truths are at issue, since otherwise the lies we here at the Gurudian spend our time propagating would become too transparent to maintain.
The Gruniard an "allegedly left-wing newspaper"?
Nah, it's just a fount of NWO bullshit -- beautifully illustrated by the Jenkins article you referenced:
"I was asked some time ago by a university-educated Texan, in the nicest possible way, what it was like to live in a country of "baby-killers" about to be "overrun by Muslim bad guys". I inquired where he had gained this bizarre impression of Europe, which he had never visited. "
Thing is, if you call partial birth abortion, i.e., killing a fetus that is capable of independent life as it emerges from the womb (a hideous procedure described here: http://forum.sofeminine.co.uk/forum/carriere1/__f65_carriere1-Tony-blair-supports-partial-birth-abortion.html) baby killing, and I don't see why not, then Britain is a nation of baby killers. Then of course there are the regular abortions (181,000 in 2005 and rising).
As for the Muslims, well they only have a just over a thousand mosques right now, but they're aiming to have a lot more; they have sharia courts in Britain and they breed a lot faster than the Brits. So what's wrong with talking of Britain being overrun?
As for bad guys, well most male muslims in Britain between the ages of 20 and 24 consider themselves Muslim first, British second, which is not, I would have thought, exactly what you'd expect of folks you'd call good guys, even if they not all of them went to Afghanistan to fight our guys.
So what is this Jenkins person saying? That the right of free speech must be suppressed when important truths are at issue, since otherwise the lies we here at the Gurudian spend our lives propagating would become too transparent to maintain.
As for that fucker Monbidiot, he's a goddam 9/11 truth conspiracy theorist. He believes that Newtonian physics were repealed on 9/11. Here, don't use yer brain, just believe what George tells ya:
"Far from being impossible, the collapse [of the Twin Towers] turns out to have been inevitable. The planes cut some of the support columns and ignited fires sufficient to weaken (but not melt) the remaining steel structures. As the perimeter columns buckled, the weight of the collapsing top stories generated a momentum the rest of the building could not arrest, etc. ..."
There ye go. George is as clever on 9/11 as he is about the verminous human race setting fire to the planet.
It's clear, the entire left from St Julian Assange and his co Sam Amson "Integrity in Espionage" medal winner, former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, to John Pilger, CounterPunch and just about anyone you read on the Web has been co-opted.
Remember, the US is an empire now and it creates its own reality. You don't do that without a bit of organization and without shutting the mouths of potentially credible witnesses to the truth.
Here's what you gotta believe:
White people are racist scum, especially when they talk about being overrun by Asians and Africans. What white people should be worrying about is not their own self-destruction in accordance with the dictates of political correctness and the imperial war on European nationalisms and western civilization, but the terrible AIDS epidemic in Africa, where mortality due to this horrendous plague has made absolutely no impression on the ongoing population explosion (400 million extra mouths to feed since 1980, i.e.,an increase greater than the entire population of western Europe).
"The reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts—and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal ’struggle for existence,’ it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed—and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.”
– Charles Robert Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871)
Extrapolating the birth rates of 1st generation economic migrants is a dishonest slip of the demographic hand
My grandparents knocked out four kids a couple. My generation hasn't even replaced itself (so far anyway). We've also lost the devout Catholic thing along the way somewhere
As for the imposition of sharia law bullshit, that is straight out of the NWO 'Clash of Civilisations' playbook and even in America, where the numbers of Muslims are trivial and outnumbered, and outbred, by Mexican migrants, operatives on the right have been set the task of trying to wind the US populace up about the impending clash of cultures
and back in the UK, it is only the same handful of dubious rent-a-fanatics who bang on about imposing sharia law
in a country where Muslims have virtually no penetration in banking, the law, politics, the security forces, or the media, you really have to work quite hard to even start to pretend that they pose a threat of over-running or imposing anything on anyone
And I'm not pretending that large-scale migration over a relatively short period of time into the West hasn't caused problems. It has, but the sharia thing is a canard intended to set the plantation workers at each other's throats
I ain't buying it
and I can think of a whole lot more immediate things to worry about than my 'race' being over-run by the fuzzy wuzzy hordes in three, four or five generations time - assuming the very unlikely scenario that they manage to keep their birth rates up.
They would certainly have to stop drinking the local water
Did someone mention George Monbiot: denial, petards and the true colours of ‘radical’ left politics?
WRT to CanSpeccy's outpourings, I would despair...
However, the particular worldview espoused in each and every contribution by CanSpeccy to the comment threads on FF15MP is so clearly based on closed-minded prejudices and the verbatim parroting of "the NWO 'Clash of Civilisations' playbook" that just about everyone with an ounce of understanding of the way in which the world, and propaganda, works can see straight through it all without skipping a beat.
It's old, it's tired, it's racist, it's bigoted, and it's very far removed from any sort of reality recognised by anyone who actually lives in a world that exists outside of their own head.
@MrAnchovy
it's complacent talk like that which enabled the feckless papist celts to over-run this once proud land
Quite.
Whether a landmass is sufficiently conscious enough of anything be anthropomorphised into being proud of whoever or whatever happens to be living on top of/off it, or whether a 'proud land' is an abstraction of a misguided generalisation and the projection of whomever's personal views, is probably a discussion for another time.
Long live the dark ages. HH, etc.
"probably a discussion for another time"
Indeed
I've never been especially nationalistic myself but, there again, neither are the interests which seem to be busy consolidating lots of national farms into three or four big ones
that Darwin quote is favourite of mine for more than one reason...
- it demonstrates that allegedly scientific demographic extrapolation isn't always what it's cracked up to be
- it highlights that Darwin was a genuinely racist old scrotum
- it shows, from the horse's mouth, that 'survival of the fittest' doesn't exactly mean what most people believe it to
and...
- it gives an insight into how that clan of genocidal supremacist bastards the Darwins/ Huxleys viewed the lower orders
I had a similar exchange about the sharia-imposing Mooslim hordes with some EDL/ BNP types over at Old Holborn's blog last year sometime
After he'd run out of fallacious arguments one of them socked me with a line about appeaser scum like me always being the first up against the wall
This is a familiar variant of the 'Scum like you deserve to be taken out by a suicide bomber' line which has been played here a few times in the past when I've questioned the War on Terror fairymyth
and a cowardly way of declaring that anyone who challenges the BNP/EDL line should die
And, as it happens, and as I pointed out over at OH's blog, it's usually the brownshirt dickheads who are first up against the wall once they are more of a hindrance than a help to the New Order - however loyal they are to the Volk and their Kultur
And much as I love the desk lamps, chairs and typographical flourishes of the 1930s, on balance, I'm personally not keen on a revival, economically or politically
And in those last four comments exist further demonstrations of quite why an accurate class analysis and perspective is required with regard to all the issues raised.
Useless eaters of any stripe are still useless eaters as far as the ruling classes and owners of the means of production are concerned.
In that respect the useless eaters are all as equal and expendable as each other when they have served their purpose or become surplus to immediate requirements, whichever occurs soonest.
If that wasn't convincing enough, as the Conspiraloon™ SADS™ campaign amply demonstrates, the ruling and owning classes are quite happy to bump off members of their own class when they too have outlived their usefulness.
stef said, "I've never been especially nationalistic myself "
I regard nationalism as an expression of voluntary servitude, as discussed in that essay written by Etienne de la Boetie back in the 50s. That is, the 1550s.
Stefz quotes C. Darwin:
"The reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members ..."
But this used to be rubbish, as Adam Smith observed, though the reckless, feckless degraded and vicious members of society may produce many children but they are unable to raise them successfully to adulthood. Thus, in Smith's view natural selection (he did not use that term but he clearly understood the mechanism of evolution) works against the reckless and the feckless.
However, with the welfare state, we have turned the tables on the cautious, the responsible and the virtuous by making them pay for the maintenance of the recklessly multiplying underclass.
So when Darwin made his statement it was false, as is evident from the fact that Britain was overrun neither by the Irish or the Italians. But there is every reason to think it likely that Darwin's assumption is applicable today, although it does not directly address the differential fertility of immigrants versus indigenous inhabitants.
Stefz said:
Extrapolating the birth rates of 1st generation economic migrants is a dishonest slip of the demographic hand
No one was extrapolating. The fact is that when more than half the births in many areas of Britain are already to foreign born mothers, it does not matter if the descendants of those foreign born mothers have a birth rate comparable to that of the indigenous population, the indigenous population will still be a minority.
Stefz said:
As for the imposition of sharia law bullshit, that is straight out of the NWO 'Clash of Civilisations' playbook
No, it's straight out of the Times (September 14, 2008):
Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts
AnchovyFish said:
It's old, it's tired, it's racist, it's bigoted, and it's very far removed from any sort of reality recognised by anyone who actually lives in a world that exists outside of their own head.
And much else of the same ilk. This is how the agents of the NWO order work. No arguments. Just crude epithets. Racist, racist, racist, bigot, bigot, bigot, moron, moron, moron.
Paaathetic.
AnchovyFish said:
"Useless eaters of any stripe are still useless eaters as far as the ruling classes and owners of the means of production are concerned."
That "Useless eaters of any stripe are still useless eaters" seems true as far as TheAnchovyfish is concerned too. Otherwise, why the enthusiasm for mass immigration (307,000 non-European immigrants in 2010, so with the illegals and the Europeans, say five to 10 million per decade) when something like one quarter of the UK workforce is unemployed, partially employed or too psyched out to look for work.
People tend to classify their experience according to pre-determined categories and principles. TheAnchovyFish and his alter ego Stefz see things through the filter of lib-left categories and principles (actually pretty much the Jenkins, Mobiot, Guardian distorting lenses).
Thus they automatically see preference for family, region, nation as racism, crypto-fascism, Nazism etc., notwithstanding that the survival of individuals and nations has always depended on such loyalties.
Likewise, they probably dismiss religion as meaningless superstition exploited by paedophiliac priests etc., yet with the fall of Christendom, the West has adopted the path of self-destruction. Consider Italy: the fertility rate is down to 1.1 per female, half the replacement rate. It may be called racist to say so, but the Italians are committing suicide. Within a generation they will be a minority in their own home. Likewise the Germans and most, if not all, other European nations.
gyges said:
I regard nationalism as an expression of voluntary servitude,
And what is wrong with voluntary servitude. Is it the service you don't like, or the voluntary aspect?
CanSpeccy said...
AnchovyFish said:
It's old, it's tired, it's racist, it's bigoted, and it's very far removed from any sort of reality recognised by anyone who actually lives in a world that exists outside of their own head.
And much else of the same ilk. This is how the agents of the NWO order work. No arguments. Just crude epithets. Racist, racist, racist, bigot, bigot, bigot, moron, moron, moron.
Paaathetic.
Shit! Foiled and exposed as an agent of the New World Order.
Hot damn!
Word verification: "sharie" which is almost like "sharia" which means that the Mooslims have definitely taken over the universe.
Whitey better start fucking for victory or we're all doomed to be ruled by Tim Osman.
I lived 2 years amongst the Mooslims in Sudan.I found them to be very courteous folks,,infact I never had any problems.When in Rome.
The Uk is fucked anyway,,the idea of a British person is now redundant.The UK is a melting pot as is Germany where I now reside.In Germany you have Turks, Russians Polish and various other types from Bosnia and the Balkany parts one, big melting pot,,with increasing dashingsd of Oriental types I may add,,Chinks,,infact my wife works at the Alfred Wegner institute and most of the scientists are Chinese or Ruskies!!so I´d like to teach the world to sing in perfect Harmony,,,
YouTube - Coke Coca Cola Original I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing
Yes, TheAnchovyFish really has little if anything of interest to say.
He, she or it fails to understand that the NWO is a leftist project. It was conceived by the Fabians -- see H.G. Welles book entitled "The New World Order."
The NWO is a global system of governance, it is the World empire, and like all empires it seeks to destroy national loyalties, local cultures and non imperial civilization.
That is what the lib-left in Britain stands for: the destruction of the British nation. No more voluntary servitude as demanded by JFK:
"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. ...".
No more for England, Harry and Saint George "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers, For he today who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother..."
No more Shakespeare for that matter.
And no more "we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender..."
No. No service, no loyalty, no culture, except service to the empire, loyalty to the empire and culture of the empire.
This is longstanding Guardian policy. In the thirties it was the Soviet Empire they expected to rule the world. Then as now, they refused to acknowledge evidence of imperial genocide -- the Holodomor, the organized death by starvation of six to 10 million Ukranians, or of course the mass murder of millions of ordinary Russians for all manner of insane reasons.
At least the Brits can be thankful the Empire speaks English, otherwise they'd have to trash their language as well as their cultural and genetic inheritance.
Anonymous said:
"The Uk is fucked anyway,,the idea of a British person is now redundant..."
Well, at least someone agrees with me that the British nation is being destroyed.
The only difference between us on the question of race seems to be that he feels free to refer to the Chinese as "Chinks", whereas I know very well that if I, as an advocate of the English nation were to refer to "Chinks", "Wops" or whatever it would be proof that I am a racist. That's a good illustration of how the pre-existence of mental categories makes most people absolutely subordinate to the propaganda -- i.e., in Britain the propaganda of the lib-left NWO.
Incidentally, is it Anonymous's contention that because Muslims are "very courteous folk" that there should be no limit to the mumber of them free to come and live in Britain?
An odd basis for national population policy, surely.
Do you not have freedom of religion in Canada then? Or is it just that you'd rather live in a theocracy if it's badged to your liking?
It is fairly hilarious to try and imagine your "indigenous Christian Brits" of yore.
CanSpeccy, you talk about how nationalism etc. is considered bad by the 'NWO'. But you sound exactly like a cardboard cutout of the type of nationalism that the NWO supposedly vilifies.
The broad-strokes of race/religion that you use are not very sophisticated in my opinion. And play into the divide and conquer fog.
Now I've known muslims in the UK growing up, and indeed some are intolerant of western liberalism. (btw, ever seens brits abroad? not pretty sometimes)
Some of it is fueled by the difference in culture, but sometimes also due to racism felt.
But by and large, the majority I have known, and lived with are not like this. Especially 2nd and 3rd generation.
I'm also on board with the theory that utopian globalists see erosion of national identity as a good thing. As well as the evils of P.C. I'm also for better immigration controls etc.
But blaming people who are simply looking for a better way of life abroad, as opposed to the people who make unmitigated immigration possible in the first place is not really getting it, IMO.
By and large immigration is largely done for economic purposes anyway, which typically favor the wealthy.
Tom asked:
(1) Do you not have freedom of religion in Canada then?
No we do not, "not have freedom of religion in Canada." Why do you ask?
(2) is it just that you'd rather live in a theocracy if it's badged to your liking?
No, but why do you ask? Britain has never been a theocracy, unlike the Islamic states and unlike the Islamic state that some British Muslims would like Britain to become.
You seem to provide a further example of someone constrained by the the lib-left "cognitive framework" which prevents one from evaluating an argument that does not support the NWO agenda.
If a position is not for the destruction of all nationalisms, for the establishment of global governance, for the trashing of western civilization, then it must conform to some belief system that can be dismissed as "racist," "theocratic" or "patriarchal," or disposed of with some other claptrap.
On a national scale, the result of this mentality is national suicide as was well described by Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's history mentor at Georgetown University:
Long study of the history of many social organizations has convinced me of one thing: When any such organization dies -- be it family, business, nation, religion, civilization, or university, the cause of death is generally "suicide." Or, if we must be more specific, "suicide by self-deception."
Like most truths, this one has nothing very new about it. The Hebrews and the Greeks, who are our cultural parents, and our own western civilization descended from these two, have always agreed that the only sin, or at least the greatest sin, is pride, a particularly aggressive type of self-deception. And anyone who is concerned with the health of individuals knows well that neuroses and psychoses are basically simply forms of self-deception, combined with an obstinate refusal to face the facts of the situation. ....
You say It is fairly hilarious to try and imagine your "indigenous Christian Brits" of yore.
Funny? In what way? The Brits of yore generally were Christians. Think of Sir Tomas Becket, Isaac Newton, Samuel Johnson, William Eward Gladstone.
True Newton's researches to determine from study of the Bible the exact age of the Earth seems a little quaint. But for the rest, though I don't share their belief, I find nothing hilarious about it.
I personally could not give a fuck how many Mooslums come to live in the UK,,I take each person as I find them.They can all come over and settle ,who gives a shit.Even though I was born in the UK I keep having to pinch myself and remind myself I´m British at times.
If anything sets the British apart from other nations I´d say it was their sense of humour and resilience in the face of adversity and when they have to be, inventiveness.
Fact is though for the past 30 year or so the UK has been governed by total cunts who don´t have a fuckin clue about themselves and life in general,easily manipulated self serving wanker like Blair and the latest fuckwit Cameron.Flush all these fucker down the toilet with a can of Zyklon B..
Feel better after that.
Anonymous:
I don't disagree at all that it is quite wrong to blame people (i.e., immigrants) who are simply looking for a better way of life abroad, as opposed to the people who make unmitigated immigration possible ...
And I have no reason to doubt that there are many very fine Muslims in England and throughout Europe.
One reason I am convinced that Western civilization is finished is the strength of the Muslim culture and the virtues of its adherents.
you know a lot of people will attack anyone opposed to mass immigration by accusing them of racism. But what does it mean to be a racist? I assume it means to regard the races as differing in inherent merit, or of advocating differential treatment of people according to race.
However, I hold no such views. In fact I might be described as a lover of multi-racial society. At least I enjoy walking down Government St here in Victoria on a sunny spring morning and seeing all the pretty women from every continent on earth.
But to truly love racial diversity means preserving each and every racial entity. I would be horrified to see, say, Vietnam turned into a racial melting pot, for in a racially mixed nation all those exquisitely pretty Vietnamese girls with their beautiful noses would disappear from the face of the planet.
The fact is, the lib-left loves biodiversity, except among humans. This is a huge mistake and when expressed as self-hatred as seems the case among many of the British, e.g., "the British are fucked" etc., it is a form of suicidal insanity.
Canspeccy said,
"And what is wrong with voluntary servitude. Is it the service you don't like, or the voluntary aspect?"
I draw parallels between the situation where people argue that it should be alright for people to sell their kidneys, their children, etc ...
As for your specific points: I was persuaded by Etiene a long while ago; as yet, my mind hasn't changed.
Is Anonymous at 20:07 the same as Anonymous at 20:27. If so, I was wasting my time in responding to the former, since he or she is clearly beyond rational debate. Someone, indeed, for whom political debate is no more than a form emotional venting.
Gyges:
I draw parallels ...
Could you, perhaps, give us an explanation of what you are talking about rather than making obscure statements supported, supposedly, by obscure sources without detailed references?
"One reason I am convinced that Western civilization is finished is the strength of the Muslim culture and the virtues of its adherents. "
I get where you are coming from. The lack of 'traditional' values in the west, due to the lack of a moral code, that used to come with religion and nationalism.
Cormac McCarthy I gather comments about this in his book (made into a film) No Country For Old Men.
My own opinion is that basic spiritual connectivity as moral guidebook is indeed lacking in the West.
Who will rid us of this turgid priest?
wv: bungleaf
Anonymous said:
My own opinion is that basic spiritual connectivity as moral guidebook is indeed lacking in the West.
The problem arises because of the extraordinary material success of western civilization.
In 325, when the tenets of Western Christianity were laid down by the council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea by the Roman Emperor Constantine I, Christian theology was in no way refuted by contemporary science or scholarship.
Today, we know that the Christian story can be no more than a myth and a fantasy. Thus, today, Christianity is mainly for the simple minded, the folks taken in the the televangelists and the hot gospellers. But for those of normal intelligence and a good education, the literal truth of the virgin birth, the miracles (all derived from legends that long antedated Christ), the resurrection, etc. is impossible to accept.
Thus you have people like Oxford Professor for the popularization of science, Richard Dawkins, heaping ridicule on religion. But what a more intelligent person can see is that religion, quite apart from it's literal truth, has a social effect. One might have expected that a biologist, as Dawkins is supposed to be, would have realized this and would have considered this social effect and the possible biological function of mankind's susceptibility to religion. Instead Dawkins is like someone who discovers that the human digestive system functions without reliance on processes of analytical reasoning and concludes, therefore, that we'd be better off without it.
If there is a means for the West to survive, which I very much doubt, it may involve a reinvention of religion to conform with our present knowledge. Central to such a new religious belief system would have to be the recognition of the social function of religion in maintaining social cohesion and promoting personal responsibility and moral integrity.
More likely, however, Western civilization will fail. It has existed for over a thousand years during which time it has destroyed almost every civilization it has come into contact with. Now, however, it confronts at least two other important civilizations that seem to possess greater viability: Islam with its enormous reproductive capacity and its well established form of political control and Chinese Confucian/communism with its immense productive and intellectual potential, but with a political system of questionable stability.
My own bet would be on the Chinese, although the Islamic system may win out due to its greater stability. But one must also consider the Hindu world, yet to reach its political and economic apogee, and the Russians, who have no intention of trashing their totalitarian/Orthodox system.
CanSpeccy
you come across as an intellectual snob mate intoxicated at times by the exuberance of your own verbosity.
Politics just like religion sucks and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
By religion I mean the organized type,,the wankers in fancy frocks and smocks etc,,religion is just a form of emotional politics that give people like you the opportunity to show just how figured they have the world.
Tom-as-a-Bucket asked:
Who will rid us of this turgid priest?
But the point about Becket, or Bucket if you prefer, of significance was not that he was turgid -- in fact he was anything but, since he mortified the flesh with a most meager diet, but that he believed what he preached, an impossibility for those who preach today, whether from the pulpit or from Downing Street.
Thus when confronted by his murderers he is reported to have said:
"Here I am ready to suffer in the name of He who redeemed me with His blood; God forbid that I should flee on account of your swords or that I should depart from righteousness."
Anonymous said:
you come across as an intellectual snob mate intoxicated at times by the exuberance of your own verbosity.
And you, my dear fellow, come across as an ignoramus angered at your own incompetence to argue the point. Also as person of dual personality. Or are there two people posting under one name?
But don't mind me. Just vent away.
Your arguments for indigenous rights would probably carry more weight if you weren't of such an obvious colonial bent.
Tom said
Your arguments for indigenous rights would probably carry more weight if you weren't of such an obvious colonial bent.
A "colonial bent"? What is this?
If you mean to imply that I'm for imperial wars of conquest, then take a look at my web page where you will see I have been against the war of colonial occupation in Iraq from the outset. In fact, from before the outset, when I published this article by my late friend of almost 50 years, Postman Patel, whose picture graces this website.
Since then I have staunchly opposed Nato's war of occupation in Afghanistan and the Zionist program of genocide by salami tactics in Palestine.
But tell me this: Do you despise the rights of the indigenous people of Britain while supporting wars for US global hegemony?
Or do you despise the the rights of the indigenous people of Britain notwithstanding that you defend the rights of the indigenous people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Iran?
Or do you accept the imperial agenda, which is to destroy all national cultures, identities and hereditary characteristics?
My impression is that you cannot shed the politically correct and deeply entrenched view of the lib-left, which is that the rights of the British people should be sacrificed without limit to the immigrant interest, yet you have no argument to support that view -- it's just imbedded in your cognitive structure!
My sharp response to some anonymous poster who called m a snob and a fool, was, obviously, merely irritated reaction, whereas the question I should have raised was this:
If you believe, when you say that "Politics just like religion sucks and [that] discussing politics is a waste of time," why do you comment on a blog seemingly devoted to the discussion of politics.
Or am I wrong Stef? Is this blog meant solely for nihilistic rants?
To me, political discussion seems eminently worthwhile since without knowing what people in a nominally democratic society think, what their cognitive apparatus is, what their preconceptions and prejudices are, how can one understand that society?
Further, one might even learn something. I have not infrequently been put right on a matter of fact or logic. And since I like to be right, I don't too strongly object to correction provided it is not done with brutality, for I can then avoid error in the future.
My response to Tom seems to have been twice deleted. Censorship?
Hm.
canspeccy
I think you worry too much.
However, I am curious about the life changes you have personally made to address the:
Western fertility problem
The New World Order
The rise of socialism
The failure of christianity
The strange lack of beckettesque politicians
...and all those fertile foreigners popping up in every sovereign nation
If anyone needs a bargain basement michael hoffman, you can count on my reference.
Paul said:
"If anyone needs a bargain basement michael hoffman, you can count on my reference. "
Ha, the insinuation of anti-Semitism. The last resort of the exposed lib-leftie. LOL
Not really, having read mf's stuff, there is a striking resemblance with canspcs stuff, as he would say:
check the material and judge for yourself.
From my reading MF is at pains to be antisemitic, whether he is sincere or not, I have no way of knowing.
Connecting an observation of rather obvious similarities amounts to nothing other than reasonable conclusion regarding the ragbag of opinions presented.
What are you doing about the real problems anyway?
If there was an insinuation, it would insinuate an intolerant, exclusive,dismissive, reactionary, life hating bent of mind, rather than the social libel of anti-semitism.
And you, my dear fellow, come across as an ignoramus angered at your own incompetence to argue the point.
there is no point to argue.you are creating arguments that don´t exist.
Well that's a relief.
I've just unlocked a few comments from Blogger's spam filter
If a comment you've just posted disappears, the chances are it's not dead, just resting
The fact that I'm on the receiving end of such zealous, unsolicited protection from Blogger makes me feel warm and snuggly all over
"My response to Tom seems to have been twice deleted. Censorship?"
The only comments that I've ever deleted from here fit into one of two broad categories
1. Stalker fucks mocking the death of friends of mine
2. Adverts for penis pills
As far as I could tell, your reply falls into neither
Blogger.com - back to being a PIA
I think what would sting most if someone accused me of being a bargain basement Michael Hoffman is not any implied accusation of anti-semitism. Along with being identified as a paid shill that's part of the landscape on the path we have chosen.
Nope it would be the bargain basement bit
Even at today's exchange rates Hoffman is still not what I would consider expensive
I don´t think this blog is a political blog at all.
I would define it as an attempt at evaluating the events of the day outside the box so to speak which may or may not include the subject that is called politics,,politics to me is mere word play and the sport of buffoons!
I like the cut of your jib anon
One reason I am convinced that Western civilization is finished is the strength of the Muslim culture and the virtues of its adherents.
^ Sounds like cultural penis envy.
curiously enough that last comment *didn't* go straight into the blogger spam bin
western culture, whatever that might be exactly, is remarkably flexible, and corrosive
and, besides, I'm confident that some scion of the Huxley dynasty is supervising ground-breaking research on estrogen-flavoured samosas and fluoridated kebabs as I type
Too busy with the fall of western civilisation to eat or brush your teeth?
try my new dentudogs!
100% halal meat blended with only the finest flouride!
I liked them so much - I bought the company!
Well, it was hardly worth waiting for that famous reply. Speccy, let me spell it out for you so you can't miss the point this time:
The queen of Canada isn't indigenous to the area. I suspect that you are not either. Does this not call into question your whole line of reasoning?
As someone who wouldn't exist but for immigration, may I extend a hearty "fuck thou" to someone who I suspect doesn't realise his own bigotry?
/ still working through these comments
and here's a link Étienne de La Boétie's Discourse of Voluntary Servitude in case it hasn't been posted here recently
and thanks to gyges to switching me onto it in the 1st place
"The essay asserts that tyrants have power because the people give it to them. Liberty has been abandoned once by society, which afterward stayed corrupted and prefers the slavery of the courtesan to the freedom of one who refuses to dominate as he refuses to obey. Thus, La Boétie linked together obedience and domination, a relationship which would be later theorised by latter anarchist thinkers. By advocating a solution of simply refusing to support the tyrant, he became one of the earliest advocates of civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance"
Fact is though for the past 30 year or so the UK has been governed by total cunts who don´t have a fuckin clue about themselves and life in general,easily manipulated self serving wanker like Blair and the latest fuckwit Cameron.Flush all these fucker down the toilet with a can of Zyklon B..
Feel better after that.
as I would to
...o
This thread is already way too cumbersome a beast for me to add as many of my own responses as I'd like, some of which will probably creep into subsequent posts
On the migration thing though, I personally don't label anyone as a racist just because they have concerns about large scale immigration. Large scale migration into, say, Canada clearly did not have an entirely beneficial impact on the pre-existing population
It's also worth suggesting that the UK has been relatively socially stable for the last X hundred years, not because royalty is great, but because it was able to bleed out a large proportion of its discontented population to its colonies where the relocated serfs could piss down instead of trying to piss up
I'm old enough to remember back when outfits like the National Front focused a lot of their attention on West Indians
What's interesting to me, a generation or two later, is that the EDL/ BNP pay virtually no attention to Afro-Caribbeans at all
and it's easy enough to figure out why that would be and why the EDL/ BNP have embraced the Clash of Civilisation crap
It's also worth pointing out, I think, that much of the Classical learning upon which 'White Christian Culture' is based only exists today because Muslims kept it safe for us over the Dark Ages so that it could be nicked back during Crusades 1.0
Much of the concern over Islam, I think, derives from the fear that Muslims might behave like alleged Christians do when they have the upper hand. History does not bear that out
In fact, rather than buy into the Clash of Civilisations myth I am constantly amazed at just how much shit Muslim people have taken and how (relatively) little shit they give back
But he seems to think immigration should be based on religious beliefs, regardless of the numbers aspect, and that just doesn't make any sense. I suppose it does to a monarchist who supports WASP supremacy enshrined in the Act of Settlement.
and complaints about White Nationalists being labeled as racists would carry a lot more weight if those self-same fuckers didn't play exactly the same game, often in the same breath
'those marxists are labeling me a racist!!'
oh, the irony
"But he seems to think immigration should be based on religious beliefs"
Apologies, my replies are on the scrappy side
Personally, if someone is concerned that their country doesn't have enough teachers, doctors, houses or jobs to handle a spike in population I can't see that as being inherently racist
But if that was your concern it wouldn't matter what the origin of the migrants was
But the EDL/ BNP clearly are concerned about the ethnicity of the migrants so whenever they play the constrained resources card they are, surprise surprise, not being entirely straight
and putting my example of the colonization of Canada another way
Imagine you were a native standing on the beach when the first Englishman landed in New England, Spaniard in South America or, more recently, when the flow of Jewish settlers into Palestine started rising in the 20s and 30s
If you knew what the future held how would you and your fellow natives deal with those first arrivals whilst they still had only a tenuous foothold in your home?
This is the scenario the EDL/ BNP types are painting
The nationalists are worried that 'They' will behave like 'We' have done in the past
...only they don't phrase it the way I have just done because that would be just the teeniest admission that, on an historical basis, 'Our' culture might be the one everyone else should be scared of
this guy makes sense.
Gilad Atzmon
"The nationalists are worried that 'They' will behave like 'We' have done in the past"
And your view is that the Brits deserve it if they do?
The absurd thing about arguing with the politically correct is that they have no arguments, since all their ideas are the result of indoctrination and propaganda which they mistake for education.
Thus when confronted with an assertion that contradicts the canon of political correctness, they can resort only to sneers and bigotry. Paul, for example, by reference to someone I have never heard of insinuates, apparently, that I am a holocaust denier, which is quite good since I was alleging not denying a holocaust, assuming that holocaust is your preferred term for genocide.
Then there is idea that the "'Clash of Civilisations' playbook'" is something "that just about everyone with an ounce of understanding of the way in which the world, and propaganda, works can see straight through it all without skipping a beat." Except that Chrisendom and Islam have been at war on and off for over a thousand years, the Muslims reaching as far as the gates of Vienna and throughout most of Andalusia, the high water mark of their westward expansion -- until today, of course.
I do understand that the policy of western governments is to deracinate Muslim immigrants and compel them to accept the materialism and nihilism that has succeeded Christianity in the West. But it is far from clear that this project will succeed. And if it does, in what way does it benefit Britain to replace British Yahoos with Yahoos from elsewhere?
The previous comment is by CanSpeccy.
The reason it appears to be anonymous is that the system will not post anything that I sign!
You must have a politically correct blog host!
Stefz said:
"If you knew what the future held how would you and your fellow natives deal with those first arrivals whilst they still had only a tenuous foothold in your home?"
We should have killed them when they first arrived." I believe that is an exact quote by a Western Canadian native leader, although I cannot find a reference. In any case, it seems reasonable, except it was not feasible. In the age colonization, Canada, a vast, largely empty space, was bound to be colonized. The Russians were already just up the coast in Alaska, the Spanish were in the neighbourhood. The French had settled in the East, and the Americans were putting pressure on the southern border. And, of course, the Europeans had the guns, the natives did not.
So I do not see the relevance of that experience. Britain is a modern state that has the means to control its borders. Moreover, 65% of the population express the desire that the government do just that and stop the flood of immigration. So are you for democracy or for totalitarian political correctness?
As for the grounds for objecting to mass immigration, they are obviously various, and different people no doubt have different reasons for their view. But I see nothing disreputable about wishing to keep Britain what it has been for the last 9000 years the homeland of a largely Celtic population that migrated from the European mainland following the last ice age: i.e., the argument against racial obliteration.
But there is no doubt that mass immigration radically changes the culture of a society and changes the people's sense of identity. Many British Muslims identify with their religion before the identify with their country. Many British, seeing what is happening in their country adopt the nihilistic view that "the British ar fucked" as a contributor here put it. So what we are seeing in Britain is a process in which a race, a culture and an identity are being eradicated. This conforms exactly with the definition of genocide, given by Raphael Lemkin, who coined that term.
In addition, many Britons, whether indiginous or inmmigrant must see that bringing literally millions of mostly rather poor people from elsewhere into Britain has a negative effect on the standard of living and the quality of life. More people, means more competition for jobs of which there is evidently a scarcity. It also means more competition for living accommodation, which means higher property prices. High housing costs depress the reproductive potential of the native population -- though before the politically correct begin to howl, I will admit you need to think about how that works before it becomes apparent why severe competition for resources disadvantages those experiencing a declining living standard, i.e., most native Brits, than those experiencing a rise in living standard, e.g., many immigants from Africa and Asia, and Eastern Europe. And not least important, mass immigration increases competition for schools, maternity wards, university places, all of which means higher taxes to create new infra-structure.
Stefz said:
"Personally, if someone is concerned that their country doesn't have enough teachers, doctors, houses or jobs to handle a spike in population I can't see that as being inherently racist"
Are you saying it is inherently racist to have an immigration policy that denies entry to all and sundry?
If so, 65% of the British population are racist. Perhaps, you should consider emmigrating to Iran or somewhere more tolerant. LOL
Hm, OK, the system allows me to speak in my own name. Very good.
Stefz said:
"on an historical basis, 'Our' culture might be the one everyone else should be scared of ..."
Not necessarily scared. Western civilization has spread around the globe because there is much to be said for it. That is why many Iranians preferred the Shah's secularist tyranny to the Mullahs religious tyranny.
That is why the Indians still use English as an official language in government and education, why they still employ Newtonian physics and why they aim to beat the shit out of the west economically by applying the puritan work ethic and by becoming leaders in what was Western science and technology.
Not only does western civilization allow greater personal freedom, it allows much greater prosperity, health and welfare.
People are not necessarily scared by such things. What is scarey, is Islamic fundamentalism, and all other fundamentalisms, with their brutal intolerance.
canSpeccy,
"What is scarey, is Islamic fundamentalism, and all other fundamentalisms"
I´m not scared at all by the above,,only a brainwashed idiot would be afraid of such stuff,however
I´ll tell you what is scary.
The fact that 911 was an inside job as were the London bombings! what is more scary is that, "they got away with it!Emboldened by those successes we can expect bigger and better surprises in the future.
The UK has been in decline for years and has went down with manufacturing and decline in North Sea Oil.China and India have been going up with the increase in manufacturing etc etc.
Terrorism is just another western industrial mechanism to control the regular punters and masses.
Failing miserably however.
The little ray of Sunstein, Canspeccy tried to illuminate this comments thread, re Sharia courts when he said,
"No, it's straight out of the Times (September 14, 2008):"
Whilst the Times said,
"Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case."
So, under the umbrella of the law of England and Wales we can have Jeddi Knight courts, Sharia courts etc by using the Arbitration Act 1996. To suggest, on this basis, that the law in the jurisdiction of England and Wales is Sharia, or Jeddi Knight, is somewhat disingenuous.
Further, Muslim finance is an extremely important part of contract law which allows people to participate in Islamic Banking and such.
To suggest that we are subordinate to Sharia law because our law of contract allows the incorporation of terms into a contract that are theoretically derived from Sharia law is, again, somewhat disingenuous.
Nonetheless, the fallacy is quite interesting and is made by millions of people.
Can anyone classify the fallacy for me?
Stef said,
"I am constantly amazed at just how much shit Muslim people have taken and how (relatively) little shit they give back"
I would never rest if a parallel of what happened and is still happening (re deformed babies) at Fallujah happened here.
The phrase, "how much shit" seems to trivialise what happened and is happening.
I think this Can Speccy character is just shadow-boxing. I just saw him quote Stef trying to partly defend him and turn it round as if it was supposed to mean the opposite.
Maybe he needs to learn to read as a matter of urgency.
Hi Stef
a post of mine must've gone to your spam trap. It's about how this blog was illuminated by the ray of Sunstein, Canspeccy, with regard to Sharia law.
Well you kiddies seem to have your hearts in the right place. The obliteration of Fallujah was surely a war crime. And, yes, 9/11 and 7/7 were false flags. But the criminality of Blair and Brown is no reason for inviting the self-destruction of your own nation.
What you fellas need do is go away and read some stuff. Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order," for example. Perhaps then you would not be quite so sure about the absence of real differences among civilizations.
But more interesting than Huntington is Carroll Quigley's "The evolution of civilizations," which provides a picture not only of what a civilization is but how civilizations interact, and how they evolve.
A key feature of western civilization is the capacity for rapid evolution, which in the past has been the key to its success (i.e., in economic growth, global domination, spread of knowledge, etc.).
However, evolution of civilizations can be as blind as organic evolution, which means it can lead down a blind alley. That is what seems to have happened with Western civilization. The scientific spirit has destroyed the religious beliefs and moral codes that once ensured society's coherence, its constructive tendency and its success in contending with competitors.
Just as the impact of western civilization destroyed many other civilizations and peoples, so now, it is destroying its own. This is manifest as nihilism among many ordinary people, and betrayal of the nation by most of the elite, who now see themselves not as British, but part of a global elite for whom the unemployed in Britain, those the demoralized, are so much (mostly) white trash.
But it seems sad, that after 9000 years of illustrious history, the Brits should just give up. However, if folks prefer to stay plugged into their ipods, and be distracted by every other triviality -- immersed in a culture that is no more than the profit maximizing bi-product of the commercial system -- while the nation is destroyed, so be it.
"Well you kiddies seem to have your hearts in the right place."
I was one of the anons that partially agreed with you. But wow you are conceited.
Your focus on Muslims is irrational.
Are Muslims controlling the dominating farm system currently known as Western Civilization aka Globalization? Nope.
You know what civilization/the city state really is? A minority of people getting a majority of other people to slave for them. The rest is just window dressing, done by bullshit artists with too much time on their hands, thanks to the slaves/cattle.
I'm of Welsh descent. Many welsh tend to have olive darker complexion and I've read we have strong genetic links to the Basque, another people who survived in the mountains. Both the Welsh and Basque supposedly have the strongest genetic links to the original European settlers/ancient Britons, predating the Celts and Anglo-Saxon barbarians. So if the Welsh language dies, then it truly will be a sorry state of affairs for Britain.
You need to stop shadowboxing here, you are not impressing anyone. Try reading Orwell's Animal Farm again (I am assuming you have already read every book under the sun). That book describes civilization succinctly.
"What you fellas need do is go away and read some stuff [...] Perhaps then you would not be quite so sure about the absence of real differences among civilizations."
How about:
The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia (Yale Agrarian Studies) ~ James C. Scott.
"..challenges us with a radically different approach to history that views events from the perspective of stateless people and redefines state-making as a form of 'internal colonialism'."
'Spam' realeased yet again
And, yes, there does seem to be some shadow boxing going on here
Can Speccy is promoting the neo-con Class of Civilisations meme but appears to acknowledge that the high-profile acts of terror which have been used to support that meme are very possibly a lie
I am the voice of your conscience, CanSpeccy. Please stop fighting me.
I have no doubt that there are some absolutely bonkers Islamic supremacists out there
But there are also absolutely bonkers Jewish, Christian, Atheist and all sorts of other supremacists out there
Why the exaggerated focus on militant Islam?
China is a way bigger and more immediate threat; demographically and economically, not that I would advocate demonising the Chinese either
And whilst Militant Islam has had absolutely no impact on my personal freedoms, those who claim to be protecting us from Militant Islam have taken away shit loads and wish to take away a whole lot more
We have to destroy our way of life in order to save it, eh?
I understand why zionists/ the MIC/ people in the illusion of security business whip this nonsense up
But why would someone who claims to see through their motives and actions still promote their myths?
As someone has already commented this is all very Sunsteiny and Cognitively Dissonant
And there's also some shocking dissonance on display in the context of the West's history of migration/ colonisation into countries unable to deal with the West's superior military technology and devil may care attitude to indigenous property rights
The West triumphed largely because, after centuries of warfare, 'we' got rather good at killing people, playing them off against each other and taking their stuff - not because the locals had a vote and invited us in to disseminate our wonderful language and individualistic culture
and on the subject of reading as a matter of urgency
films are sometimes good too
"Your focus on Muslims is irrational."
I'm not particularly focused on Muslims. What I am focused on is the survival of the British race.
Muslims in Britain probably represent the greatest alien cultural challenge to the British nation because they are (a) numerous in Britain and (b) many of them are strongly committed to the propagation of their own people, religion and culture.
But if you replaced every Muslim in Britain with an African a Chinese, or one of those pretty Polish girls I would still say that mass immigration to Britain will certainly result in the eclipse of the British in their own homeland. And it will undoubtedly result in a transformation of the British identity and culture.
Why else do you think you have Black History Month and why the classics of English literature are being removed from school and public libraries, and why the English language has to be expurgated to comply with the dictates of political correctness?
Stef, you are undoubtedly correct in stating that the Europeans used their technological superiority in past times to exploit much of the rest of the world. But in what way does that justify a policy of destroying your own nation now?
The nations of the world have been in endless conflict. If the Brits were good at it for a while, good on them, I say. Sure it would be good if we stopped spewing white phosphorus on brown skinned people. But do you think they wouldn't do the same to you if they had the chance to profit by the crime? The average Muslim might not, but do you really think that your average psychopathic middle-eastern leader would hesitate if it paid?
The destruction of Fallujah may have been a war crime, but remember only a few years before the Iraqis killed a million Iranians in a war of aggression.
The fact is, wars and most exploitation result from the conflict of ruling elites. Why should the British nation be destroyed through mass immigration because Tony Blair is a cunt or because the British ruling elite in times past may have exploited people in the countries from which immigrants now flow to Britain.
And remember that British migrants flocked to largely unpopulated lands, North America, Australia, and Southern Africa (crowded now but nearly empty 100 years ago). In India, the Middle-East and South-East Asia and central Europe, where the mass of immigrants to the UK come from, there was virtually no British settlement at all. So you want to open Britain's very crowded shores to mass mimgration to avenge the Red Indian?
By all means lets work toward a world in which slavery, officially sanctioned mass murder, commercial exploitation of ordinary folks is prevented, but don't accept the stupid propaganda that leads to the destruction of your own people.
And in particular, do not accept the stupid idea that the Chinese Communist Party or the Iranian Mullahs or the mass of people in India, give a damn about the British. The sooner they're destroyed the better as far as all those people are concerned, and you are pretty well on your way.
And the notion that opposing the self-destruction of the British race is somehow neo-con is idiotic. It is Blair and all the other neo-con imperialists who seek, like all imperialists before them, to destroy the nationalities of the world. They want one homogeneous mass of expendable people who will all respond to a single set of propaganda buttons.
canSpaccy says
"And, yes, 9/11 and 7/7 were false flags."
and he still thinks Islam is some sort of threat?
Im guess you must be sufferring from schizophrenia mate.
"But the criminality of Blair and Brown is no reason for inviting the self-destruction of your own nation."
well I think it is.When the state caries out those sort of crimes and gets away with it then that nation is no long viable and should fall apart.Lets start with the BBC the government propaganda dept
Anon said:
"When the state caries out those sort of crimes [9/11 and 7/7] and gets away with it then that nation is no long viable and should fall apart."
Idiot. Traitor. Immigrant settler?
There's no nation on earth that does not deserve genocide according to your criminally insane logic.
Yes, "the land was empty when I found it, honest". That's the oldest one in the book. Still working for the Israelis though.
Tom said: Yes, "the land was empty when I found it, honest". That's the oldest one in the book. Still working for the Israelis though."
Tom, your trouble is you don't know the facts.
You think Canada was full up when the first european immigrants arrived?
Listen, Canada is still practically empty. Canada is larger than China but has only one fiftieth of the population. One fifth of the population lives in Toronto. Another 50 percent reside in the next five largest cities. The vast spaces between the cities is virtually devoid of humanity.
In British Columbia 92% of the land is held by the crown pending settlement of land claims treaties with hundreds of native bands. The natives, who number about 250,000 claim all of the Province -- which is four times the size of Britain -- and may well get most of it.
Now go away and look up the population of Britain's southern African colonies in the year 1900. Then check on the Australian aboriginal population in the same year.
It is sheer humbug and New Word Order imperialist, genocidal propaganda, to dismiss the democratic right of the people of Britain -- where population density exceeds 250 per square kilometer (and twice that in England) -- to control mass immigration, while howling with indignation about past western migration to countries with population densities of less than four square kilometers per person.
As for the argument that the people should be punished for the sins of the elite who never did, and never will, give a shit about the people, that is sheer moral imbecility.
To argue like that you have to be either a dupe of a stooge of the settler interest in Britian.
To argue with phantoms dreamed up by yourself seems the depth of futility.
Nobody is stopping you inviting the population overspill to Canada to keep you company.
The last person I heard talking about "the British race" and "traitors" was proud to describe himself as a neo-Nazi. Why not ponder on that a while.
"The last person I heard ... was a Nazi."
The invariable last resort, it seems, of the politically correct.
Devoid of relevant knowledge, incapable of further argument, they resort to hollering anti-Semite, holocaust denier and Nazi -- even if confronting someone protesting a holocaust in progress.
But it's indicative perhaps of the source of propaganda that shapes their perception.
He might have been a cunt, like you, but at least he was honest enough to admit being a racist.
Yes, Tom, tell that to:
* the 65% of the British population that oppose mass immigration
* the 75% of the indigenous population that opposes mass immigration
* the 85% of the indigenous population of England -- where most immigrants settle -- who oppose mass immigration, and
the 95% of the indigenous population of those English cities such as Leicester where the indigenous population have been made a a minority in their own home.
a holocaust in progress.
Now you're just being silly.
Rather than putting Tom to all that trouble, why don't you ask the 92% white population of leicester why they only voted 6% (of around 60% turnout)BNP in the 2010 election.
They had the opportunity to vote unequivocally against the coming genocide, but obviously didn't see it as that big a problem.
I'm sure if you asked any population if they were against mass immigration they would agree.
However as there only 2.7% of the UK population describe themselves as muslim and the embattled whites teeter at 90% after a half century of immigration, I don't think this counts as mass immigration, or a strong enough base to take over the United Kingdom.
Besides we've got a constitutional monarchy to take care of these sort of problems.
As for being described as Liberal, Leftie and Politically Correct. I don't have a problem with these categories at all.
I would object to being described as illiberal, right wing or politically incorrect as I do beleive in freedom, equality and social organisation for the common good.
speccy said,
"There's no nation on earth that does not deserve genocide according to your criminally insane logic."
so speccy,
its your opinion that state sponsored terrorism is ok?you dumb fuck.
Listen as far as I´m concerned the whole fuckin country can collapse if it means getting rid of those wankers that are promoting al Quaeda and terrorism and surveillance when infact its these very people that are behind those attacks in the first place.Not only that they are lining their own coffers and laughing at every fucker,, austerity measures etc etc,
Burn the churches and run the criminals out of government and send the bankers and rip of merchants to the gallows.The system stinks and is corrupt from top to bottom.
Never happen thought things will just meander on and hey with the Russian bombings expect even more security EVERYWHERE!
I know the following diagram was created for me and me only but, seeing as we're all in this together, I would very much like to share it with the equally deserving CanSpeccy.
http://yfrog.com/h55gkrp
Thanks for the diagram Melanie, but the correct illustration is actually here.
According to Eurostat, 307,000 non-European immigrants entered the UK last year. Add to that the illegals and the pretty Polish girls and you have, say half a million new UK citizens every year, or five million per decade plus their natural increase for a total of maybe six million per decade, decade after decade.
As for public opinion, here's one poll report from the no doubt delusional Times:
"According to the poll, just 14% of people strongly agree that immigration is “generally good” for Britain — with double that number taking the opposite view. A total of 63% say immigration laws should be “much tougher” — up from 58% 18 months ago — while a further 11% say there should be no more immigration."
No, the correct diagram is here.
Substitute the words 'Melanie Phillips' for 'CanSpeccy' and all will be in (new world) order.
http://yfrog.com/h55gkrp
Paul said: "why don't you ask the 92% white population of leicester why they only voted 6% (of around 60% turnout)BNP in the 2010 election."
Paul, you are sadly misinformed abou ethnic composition of the population of the city of Leicester. Although estimates vary, there is little disagreement that it will soon become Britain's first ethnic majority city. Wikipedia reports that "The Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) had estimated that by 2011 Leicester would have approximately a 50% ethnic minority population, making it the first city in Britain not to have a white British majority." Birmingham, is soon to follow, then Bradford, London, etc.
As for the BNP, that as I have become rather tired of having to point out is a security services operation which effectively denies indigenous Britons living in England the opportunity to support a non-racist nationalist party. And it works very well because the BNP nuckle-draggers and old Nazis ensure that ignoramuses like Tom who enjoy engaging in mindless abuse can howl "racist", "nazi" and "anti-Semite" at anyone foolish enough to fall for the BNP scam.
Anonymous said:
"Listen as far as I´m concerned the whole fuckin country can collapse if it means getting rid of those wankers that are promoting al Quaeda and terrorism and surveillance..."
Yes, and as I pointed out before, you're insane lack of discrimination between "those wankers" and the "the whole fucking country" is what apparently compels you to advocate treason and national destruction.
What can I say, other than such people should be locked up -- along with the wankers by all means.
What would be fascinating to know is what drives people like Melanie Phillips, aka Someone Else, to engage in a silly name-calling games to promote the New World Order. Are they paid, one wonders, or merely dupes of the Sunstein/Assange/MSM cognitive infiltration machine?
According to Melanie's crude insinuation, opposition by the great majority of the British population to mass immigration is driven by homophobia, which is obviously nuts.
Or are we supposed to infer that most immigrants are homosexual?
You'll have to forgive me I was looking at the ONS 2007 figures for leicestershire, they give leicester unitary authority as 61% white, still that'll be less people for you to interrogate about their treasonable actions.
Leicester city itself is unusual for the east midlands as it is 91% white overall, examples like these are usually called outliers and its pretty daft to read too much into them.
Population increase 2001-2009 was 2.7 million, so 6 million a decade is rather far fetched.
See:
The Anti-White Double Standard
Paul said:
"You'll have to forgive me..."
Well, I'm prepared to overlook the occasional error. We all make mistakes. But if you keep on making bizarre or obviously falsifiable statements, I have to wonder about your sincerity.
You suggest that your gross error about the ethnic composition of the City of Leicester can be ignored because Leicester is an "outlier". What does that mean? That one of Britain's greatest cities can simply be written off?
And what about Britain's second city, Birmingham, headed for and ethnic majority within a decade, or Bradford, the nation's fifth largest city, not to mention London where in some boroughs there is already a massive ethnic majority?
Then you say,
"Population increase 2001-2009 was 2.7 million, so 6 million a decade is rather far fetched."
It's not far-fetched, its a matter of arithmetic. Three hundred and seven thousand a year (Eurostats figure for 2010) would be 3.07 million per decade.
But according to the Times, there are already a million illegals in Britain entitled if "regularized" to bring in "at least one spouse, child or other family member into Britain."
So there you've got the potential for something like five million in a decade, before you add the Europeans who, according to the Home Office Minister, totaled 600,000 since 2004.
So, no, six million per decade is a reasonable expectation under existing rules.
so what are you trying to tell us Mr Can Speccy?
lay yo cards on the table.
What would you like to see happen exactly in the UK?.Let no more foreign people in? send those already here back?what exactly is your problem?Its kind of hard to know really where you are coming from.
If you go with 911 and the London bombings being false flag what does that say about the moral state of the nation?and what exactly is your problem with Islam exactly?Come tell us exactly how you would like to see society in the UK ordered.
Give it your best shot.I´d like to know from what murky pool your thought bubble up from.
Leicester untary authority 7.7% of East Midlands
East midlands 92% white
An unusual concentration from which it is unwise to extrapolate.
Population/demographics are flows not arithemetic, people come, people cgo some stay longer/shorter than others.
And you have to remember the 2000's were a time of both rule changes and giddy economic activity.
To draw astraight line projection from these is a little incautious.
Net migration peaked in 2007
Anon said:
"I´d like to know from what murky pool your thought bubble up from..."
Ha, the art of the smear. The Lib left are so good at it, they've dispensed with any reference to reality or reason.
What is the percentage of immigrants who oppose Mass?
What is the percentage of Brits who oppose Voodoo killings of kids?
According to the Times, there are numerous Scotchmen north of Carlisle. If each one of them was to boil a haggis at precisely the same instant, the resultant stench would be enough to overpower the waft of shite coming over on the West wind from the colonies.
Teachers brand 30,000 pupils as bigots
Which explains how education became indoctrination.
Strange though, how in this politically correct age there is a massive outbreak of kindergarten homophobia, whereas in the insensitive world of fifty years ago, the language of sexualized hate speech would have been unintelligible to small children.
I suppose that's progress.
But we still have to work on the 65% of the British nation thart selfishly resists being autogenocided.
Not that the Scotch need worry about being squeezed out of their own homes. The stench of steaming haggis must be enough to deter any sensible immigrant from settling there -- which explains, why you can be a scotch nat without being called a racist.
Hi Canspeccy
Your latter posts seem to turn upon immigration and such. I'm having difficulty following them.
For example, how do you define the following:
indigenous population
nation
Would a second/third etc generation child of an immigrant be regarded as part of the indigenous population? If not, which generation would you regard as indigenous?
Who has the power of demarcation to determine who is an immigrant?
Would a Canadian be regarded as an immigrant?
Who gets to construct the mythos of a nation in your scheme?
Meanwhile,,,
Families will see their disposable income eaten up as they “pay the inevitable price” for the financial crisis, Mervyn King warned.
With wages failing to keep pace with rising inflation, workers’ take- home pay will end the year worth the same as in 2005 — the most prolonged fall in living standards for more than 80 years, he claimed.
Mr King issued the warning in a speech in Newcastle upon Tyne after official figures showed that gross domestic product fell by 0.5 per cent during the final three months last year. The Government blamed the unexpected reduction — the first since the third quarter of 2009 — on the freezing weather that paralysed much of the country last month.
yeah fuck yeah fuck yeah fuck,,
the reason this country is fucked is because we don´t manufacture or export things much anymore(not one British made product in my house)Natural resources are on the wane,,meanwhile we talk fuckin shite evry other day about Islam,Terrorism etc etc this and that and all sorts of unimportant shite whilst the Chinks fthroew up 14 storey tower blocks in 6 fuckin days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNv13fY_3jY
thats one reason we are fucked.
YouTube - Building a 15 storey hotel in 6 days
gyg3s you ask:
How do you define the following:
"indigenous population"
Broadly, the indigenous people of Britain are members of a nation having a common history and a cultural affinity with, and a genetic inheritance from, that society located in the British Iles before the post-war era of mass migration.
"nation"
A population with a distinct historical experience, and cultural and genetic inheritance.
"Would a second/third etc generation child of an immigrant be regarded as part of the indigenous population?"
Someone who is of, say, pure Chinese or Polish descent by however many generations is still by genetic inheritance Chinese or Polish and cannot therefore be indigenously British, although they may be fully assimilated culturally. However, Anyone whose inheritance is primarily British, i.e., of the British population before the post-war era of mass immigration, would normally fall within the category of indigenously British. However, if they belonged to, say, some weird, Russian-speaking religious sect and were totally culturally unassimilated, there might be room for doubt. But that would be an unusual circumstance. Generally, full cultural assimilation occurs by the second generation.
Who has the power of demarcation to determine who is an immigrant?
The question of who is an immigrant is a matter of fact, surely, which depends entirely on how you define the term immigrant. It is not something dictated on the basis of arbitrary authority.
Would a Canadian be regarded as an immigrant?
Depends what you mean by "immigrant." If you are talking about citizenship, right of residence, etc. then the answer is:
If a British citizen, no, if not a British citizen, yes.
Who gets to construct the mythos of a nation in your scheme?
Who said "mythos" had anything to do with nationhood? Or are you engaging in a little bit of insinuation" the British nation a myth like the Aryan race, or the Jewish race for that matter.
No, nationality is a matter, not of myth, but of genes, history and culture. The British, like any population long located in a particular area, have a distinct gene pool, a distinct history and one of the most illuminating cultures the world has ever seen.
Hi Canspeccy
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to post answers to my questions under,
"How do you define the following:"
But, didn't you realise that
nation/indigenous/race/history etc
are all social constructions?
Anyway, leaving that aside, would you regard the Royal Family as immigrants?
gyges3 said: "But, didn't you realise that nation/indigenous/race/history etc are all social constructions?"
My dear fellow/girl, whatever, you are clearly over-indoctrinated.
History may be mostly bunk, as Henry Ford claimed, but insofar as it is a verifiable record of events, it is not a social construct, although the presentation is a matter of interpretation.
The definition of indigenous that I have given you is not a social construct either. Indigenicity, to coin a word, is dependent on objectively determined historical, cultural (e.g., use of particular language(s)) and genetic factors.
And race is not a social construct. It is an valid biological term with an operational definition. It is equivalent to a gene pool.
As for culture, call it a social construct if you wish, but Shakespeare was definitely not an African and Newton, though his discovery of calculus was anticipated by a scholar of that nation, was definitely not Chinese.
So sorry, your smart and politically correct retort misfired.
Hey Stef,
I know you are into photography.There is this guy called Daniel Oi who does amazing 360°photography.
How does he do this??I meean where is the photographer?
Corinthian Club, Glasgow
Canspeccy said,
"is dependent on objectively determined historical, cultural (e.g., use of particular language(s)) and genetic factors. "
Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word objective?
"And race is not a social construct. It is an valid biological term with an operational definition. It is equivalent to a gene pool."
So, what "race" is Barack Obama?
And, if your answer is "black" (whatever that means); why isn't he "white"?
And, why does everyone say he is the first black president, if he's not "black"?
One other point, Simon Cole says, in Suspect Identities,
"As long as people resist the oversimplified notion that genes, ... lend biological rigor to the social and political construction of race,"
do you find this statement unintelligible?
Its all about our security you know.
Two links.You join the dots.
ICTS International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and
I-SEC International Security B.V. - ICTS International
and oh,,
ICTS Europe Newsletter QR1 2009
yes folks we want to keep you all safe and sound.
ICTS International and its two subsidiaries, ISEC and PI, provide security services to the Schipol airport and Delta Airlines. The firm's security system came under scrutiny and as part of the international investigation into how Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was able to board Northwest Airlines Flight 253 with explosive materials, garnering criticism for "its possible responsibility for the security failure at Schiphol."[2][10] While this story was widely reported in the Israeli and European press, mainstream media outlets in the United States gave it no coverage.[11]
ICTS was also responsible for security at the Charles de Gaulle Airport where Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", boarded American Airlines Flight 63 in December 2001.[
gyg3s asked:
"Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word objective?"
If I don't I have managed to conceal my ignorance quite well in a career as a scientist, science professor and science publisher. Why do you ask?"
"So, what "race" is Barack Obama? And, if your answer is "black" (whatever that means); why isn't he "white"?"
If by black you mean of African extraction, yest he is, or so I understand. His paternal grandmother is said to have been a member of the Luo tribe, whose members are no doubt quite easily distinguished by DNA analysis from members of, say, his mother's European/American Dunham family.
That's assuming his hard-to-find birth certificate confirms that he really is the son of Barack Obama, Sr., which not everyone accepts.
"And, why does everyone say he is the first black president, if he's not "black"?"
I don't know that everyone say he is the first black American President, nor can I speak for those who do. However, the claim is correct if "black" in this context means of partial African descent. But with equal logic he might also be called the first Arab president or the forty-fourth white American President, since he is supposed to be of mixed European, African and Arab descent.
"One other point, Simon Cole says, in Suspect Identities,"
"As long as people resist the oversimplified notion that genes, ... lend biological rigor to the social and political construction of race,"
As I've said, race, as a biological term, is not a "construct." It refers to a population that has long resided in a particular geographic location and has through accident and selection acquired a unique genetic composition or gene pool. Thus, for example, agriculturalists refer to the local varieties of wheat in places such as India where farmers raise next year's crop using seed saved from last year's crop as "land races," each land race being more or less uniquely adapted to its particular locale.
And it should be understood that the term race can be applied at various levels of genetic differentiation, reflecting the various barriers to gene flow. Thus Icelanders differ from Danes, but both Icelanders and Danes differ from Russians or Zulus more than they do from one another.
The indigenous people of Britain are largely descended from those immigrating to the British Isles five to nine thousand years ago (there were two waves, one of hunter gathering celts and a later wave of middle-eastern farmers).
Since the invasion of Julius Caesar, the British gene pool has received influxes of genes from Romans (and mainly their middle-eastern slaves), Anglo Saxons (who became the ruling elite of what remained a largely celtic nation, contrary to David Hume's History of England, which asserts that the German tribes exterminated the indigenous celtic population of England), Vikings, who account for about 20% of the gene pool in some east coast regions, and Normans (another species of Viking (Norman = Norse Man) marauders) who added one or two percent to the national gene pool. But notwithstanding all those invasions, the indigenous population of Britain is still, according to Bryan Sykes, Oxford Professor of Human Genetics, about 80% Celtic.
And within Britain, there is spacial variation in the gene pool. The indigenous people of Glasgow would prove on detailed analysis to differ at least slightly from those of Edinburgh. Between Wick in Caithness, where Vikings still predominate, and Lands End Cornwall, the identifiable differences will be greater.
Canspeccy said,
"If I don't I have managed to conceal my ignorance quite well in a career as a scientist, science professor and science publisher. Why do you ask?"
I ask because you give the impression, when discussing race and such, that you haven't grasped the idea of falsifiability with regard to the demarcation between science and non-science.
As I read your many comments I am constantly reminded of the story of Feynman's invisible dragon.
I'm sure you're aware of such.
Don't mean to pry, but what branch of science?
gyg3s said,
"you give the impression, ... that you haven't grasped the idea of falsifiability"
In what way do I give that impression?
I've read Karl Popper (and Feyerabend, have you?), though what direct relevance that has to do with objectivity, the term you previously questioned me about, I do not see. Objectivity concerns the perception of facts, falsifiability has to do with inferences to be drawn from facts.
It seems to me, rather, that it is you who do not know what you are talking about and want to drive the discussion into some meaningless morass of issues such as "mythos" and what is the meaning of "black," all of which seems, without explanation, to be pointless.
Why don't you start giving some answers instead of asking insolently phrased questions? Why don't you, for example, state your definition of objectivity showing on what grounds you think it reasonable to believe that I fail to understand the concept. Then not only may you enlighten us all but provide us with something to critique as well.
Picking up from,
"you give the impression, ... that you haven't grasped the idea of falsifiability"
In what way do I give that impression?"
Your discussions about race seem to be quite slippery.
To give an analogy. Imagine we were discussing sex and gender; that is, the social construction of gender. It's like talking to someone who asserts that women wear lipstick because they have a genetic disposition to do so. When someone brings up the point of gender as a social construction which tends to be enforced by conditioning, you respond by pointing out the genetic difference between the two sexes and presenting this as some sort of fait accompli. I imagine in this discussion, at this point, you'd ask, rhetorically, whether or not your interlocutor knew that there was a genetic difference between the sexes. I don't know whether you realise that this is what you're doing.
For example,
"As I've said, race, as a biological term, is not a "construct.""
You present argument to support your contention that 'race is a biological term' then go and use the word as a social construct. This non sequitur crops up time and time again.
Upon further probing you shift (but not change) the subject. This is what I meant when I likened your comments to the story of Feynman's invisible dragon.
A curious example occurs in this sentence,
"I've read Karl Popper (and Feyerabend, have you?), though what direct relevance that has to do with objectivity, the term you previously questioned me about, I do not see. Objectivity concerns the perception of facts, falsifiability has to do with inferences to be drawn from facts."
Notice how you imply that I'd raised the question of objectivity in this particular post - even though you specifically say that I raised the point in a previous post. You ignore your caveat and give a very poor definition of objectivity. Your comments are riddled with these sorts of rhetorical devices: they obfuscate rather than clarify.
You ask for me to come up with definitions in order to critique them. Why do you take that tack? Why do you regard my questions as insolent? Is this how you behaved when your pupils asked you questions that you found difficult to answer?
After all of these spilled pixels I'm sure that we are still poles apart.
'spam' released
I'll be back in a bit...
Slippery with the numbers too, Gyges
gyg3s you said:
"you give the impression, ... that you haven't grasped the idea of falsifiability"
to which I responded
"In what way do I give that impression?"
But you give no relevant response.
You say "Your discussions about race seem to be quite slippery" which is not an explanation of how I "haven't grasped the idea of falsifiability". It merely insinuates that I am either stupid or intellectually dishonest.
And, so far as I understand it, your statement about sex and lipstick has nothing to do with the question of falsifiability either.
You claim to find it curious that I ask if you have read Popper and Feyerabend. But why is it curious? They are the authorities on the role of the falsifiability in the testing of hypotheses. If you haven't read them it might explain your failure to justify the claim that I "haven't grasped the idea of falsifiability." In particular, it would suggest that you are bandying terms you don't really understand.
I found your questions insolent because they insinuate racism, ignorance or stupidity without giving valid justifications. I am prepared to discuss real issues. I am even prepared to consider that I may be wrong on a matter of fact or logic. But trading insults is a waste of time.
Paul said
"Slippery with numbers too"
Too much trouble to justify the insinuation of dishonesty, I suppose. Or is it that the feebleness of any attempted justification would be too obvious?
Not at all, but I'm a little busy just now
Hi Canspeccy
When you said,
And, so far as I understand it, your statement about sex and lipstick has nothing to do with the question of falsifiability either.
I thought, there you go again.
The paragraph regarding a hypothetical discussion about sex vs the social construct of gender wasn't about falsifiability. As I said immediately prior to the paragraph, it was an illustration of the slippery nature of your comments.
And like a Russian doll, we have yet another example of a slippery exchange.
Why the perpetual misattribution of intent/meaning from my comments?
I'm simply trying to pin down your statements; I'm simply seeking clarity.
"I found your questions insolent because they insinuate racism,"
But aren't you a racist?
You seem to think that the idea of race is more than a mere social construct. You're the one talking about nationalism, about culture, about indigenous populations and such.
If you're not a racist, why do the ideas of indigenous populations and immigration matter so much to you?
I don't know whether or not you are a racist but that is certainly the impression that you give.
Come on gyg3s, put up or shut up.
You said "you give the impression, ... that you haven't grasped the idea of falsifiability" but have consistently refused to provide any justification.
Do it now or admit you were talking rubbish. Then you can try justifying you insolent insinuation that I am a racist.
Hi Canspeccy,
On 26th Jan at 17:55 you wrote,
"And race is not a social construct. It is an valid biological term with an operational definition. It is equivalent to a gene pool."
Explain how this statement makes "race" falsifiable.
gyg3s,
I give up. You make allegations, some of them libelous, and then refuse to provide the slightest justification. You produce nothing but squid ink.
Let me try again.
You wrote,
"And race is not a social construct. It is an valid biological term with an operational definition. It is equivalent to a gene pool."
Would it be fair of me to say, that from the above statement, you're saying saying that
'race is equivalent to a gene pool'?
As Popper said, science is demarcated from non-science (scientism if you will) by falsifiability.
So, let me falsify the above.
All the white people in the UK are supposedly one race.
Except some white people have blue eyes, some have brown eyes. So, we have two races.
Within these two races there are other differences. Some can smell of asparagus in urine, others can't. That gives a greater number of races. These genetic differences go on and on and on.
If 'race is gene pool' then, since we all have different genetic make ups there are as many races as there are people (with the exception of identical twins).
If there are as many races as people, there aren't any races.
Bear in mind that 'gene pool' is a procrustean bed. You decide what you want your 'race' to be, eg white skinned. And say, but that includes white skinned with blue eyes, as well as white skinned with browen eyes, even though these two groups are genetically different and hence come from different gene pools.
Of course, this doesn't stop people believing that there are such things as different races. Indeed we believe that there are such things as different countries. Fictional entities existing in our collective imaginations and supported by violence.
I thought the was the Chinese race and the Negro race and the White race and the Black race and the Arab Race and the Hottentot's?
Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
gyg3s,
I'll give you a C for effort, but there remains much room for improvement.
First, if you want to refute an argument, just go to it. Don't introduce unnecessary philosophical complications. (Popper's demarkation of science versus non-science was, incidentally, long ago debunked by Feyerabend and others.)
Second, yes, it is correct to state that a race corresponds to a specific gene pool, but to understand that you need to know, as you evidently do not, what a gene pool is.
A gene pool is the hereditary constitution of an interbreeding population that is more or less isolated from other interbreeding populations. Within a species, the barriers to gene flow among gene pools are not insurmountable, for otherwise the separate populations would, by definition, constitute separate species. So to give a complete definition to a gene pool you need (a) to define the barriers to gene flow that delimit the population and (b) to establish the complete set of alleles in that population and the frequency with which each allele occurs.
Among humans, as in most species, the chief barrier to gene flow is distance. Thus you can define gene pools, which, remember, we are treating as equivalent to races, at various geographic levels. The African gene pool is different from the Chinese, because there has been little gene flow between the two over the last 100,000 years or so, during which time each gene pool have followed its independent evolutionary course.
And within Africa, there has been little gene flow between the various tribes, and even in many case, between tribes living side by side. For example in Burundi-Ruanda tall Tutsis live side by side with, but in a state of age-old conflict with, Hutus, a people of much shorter stature.
In any European state, similar genetic differentiation related to spatial distribution is evident to anyone in the slightest degree observant. For example, in Caithness and other parts of the Highlands and Islands you will see blond blue-eyed descendants of the people who settled Iceland, whereas in Kent, you will see dark-haired, high-cheek-boned people with an obvious hereditary connection with the people of Demark. Or take a look at a picture of middle-aged Elizabeth Taylor: obviously a Welsh housewife.
Nevertheless, there has always been some gene flow throughout the British Isles, and the freedom of flow increases as the geographic area is reduced. Thus one can speak of the British as a race, or one could identify races defined on any scale you want, Scotch, Welsh, Irish, Birmingham versus Manchester, etc.
The thing about the British race is that it is genetically unique, as is any other race you care to define. To say that is to state what is, as a biological fact, obvious. To call that racism is idiotic. To say that those who seek the preservation of the British race as a unique entity largely as it existed prior to the era or mass immigration are racists or Nazis or whatever is your preferred term of abuse, is simply nuts. In fact, such talk is genocidal.
Anon: Your idea about the divisions of mankind is rather crude. However, the groups you mention are certainly populations between which there has been little gene flow for tens of thousands of years so that they have undergone significant evolutionary divergence. The Bushmen or Hottentots as you call them are, apparently, rather different from most other Africans, although Africans as a whole are a hugely diverse group, perhaps more diverse than all the other groups of mankind taken together.
It's not just the fact that you define a race in your own narrow little way. You also want to have a legal constitution built around preferment of one race above all others. Not in your own country - no, but in the land of your presumed forefathers.
wv: fearsoc
Tom said:
"It's not just the fact that you define a race in your own narrow little way."
It's not my own way. It is the only way in which the term "race" makes sense.
"You also want to have a legal constitution built around preferment of one race above all others."
Not at all. I want to see the democratic will of the great majority of the people of the United Kingdom respected in the matter of mass immigration. And what reason the great majority of the people of the United Kingdom have for opposing mass immigration is not something you can take for granted. If, quite reasonably, it is to reserve that crowded country for their own descendants, what of it? What is racist about that? It's merely self-serving. Serving the interests of the people is what democracy is supposed to be about, isn't it?
Many legal citizens of the UK are not indigenously British, yet it is to their advantage as much as to the advantage of the indigenous population to avoid the economic consequences of mass immigration.
So why do you assume that it is only those who are indigenously British who oppose mass immigration?
As for ethnic communities that advocate for further mass immigration, what is their motivation? To see more of their own race enter the country the better to impose their own racial domination?
You need to think more clearly about the issue before accusing those with whom you disagree of seeking the preferment of one race over another, i.e., libeling them as racists.
Nobody is advocating "mass immigration". Who are these "ethnic communities" campaigning for it?
When the Scottish government asks for foreign doctors or something because there are not enough, what's your solution if you want an absolute ban on immigration? How does democracy even come into it?
Tom said...
"Nobody is advocating "mass immigration".
Oh no?
"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett." (source).
And beside rubbing the Right's nose in diversity, Labor could rely on the immigrant vote, which would be critical in a close election:
"According to research conducted for the Electoral Commission in 2005, the ethnic communities vote heavily in favour of Labour. Labour gets about 80 per cent support from the African and Caribbean vote, compared with 2-3 per cent for the Conservatives. For Asian voters, it is about 50 per cent to 10 per cent." (source).
And Tom asks:
"When the Scottish government asks for foreign doctors or something because there are not enough, what's your solution if you want an absolute ban on immigration?
First, no one here has talked of an absolute ban on immigration. No one's going to worry about a ten, twenty thousand a year.
Second, are you suggesting that Britain is now such a decadent hopeless place that despite inventing modern science, achieving the first agricultural revolution and the first industrial revolution it can no longer train sufficient doctors for its own needs, but must deplete the third world of its intellectual and professional resources?
And when you ask "How does democracy even come into it?"
Isn't the answer rather obvious? Or do you consider democracy an outdated relic and that Britain would be better off with a straight forward dictatorship under some Comrade Blair or Fuhrer Cameron, freed of the necessity of paying the slightest attention to the wishes of the stinking plebs?
Very Stalinist. Stalin understood the problem that nationalism could create for an imperial system and made a point of destroying potentially troublesome ethnic groups by forced migrations or mass murder, as in the Ukraine.
Tom said:
"How does democracy come into it"
LOL
Firstly, the EU migrants you talk about will not be registered to vote in the UK. Neither are you, I hope. Therefore your thoughts on monarchy somehow being democracy can only be at best academic as they touch the UK system.
Secondly, while I agree you are very Stalinist in your will to impose thoughts on people they never had to begin with, I have no need of history lessons from some armchair bigot on the other side of the world.
The new "purity of blood" laws threaten to split families:
http://cheezpictureisunrelated.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/f3c17394-94ac-4074-b270-0ef8b2c179ab.jpg
http://www.economicvoice.com/ancient-britons-were-cannibals/50016743
Some people never change.
An interesting article, Freedom-Mad which may be difficult for those who don't see race as a social construct.
Post a Comment