BNP, does anyone take them seriously?

[Cutlass]

That earlier immigration started off very peacefully as well, with peace treaties, trade and group hugs. There is no certainty that the current mass-immigration to the West will remain peaceful or will continue to go on Western terms.

Besides which, Cutlass has a habit of arguing from extremes - his claim that 100% of immigrations are peaceful and wonderful except where the local population of bigots decides to cause problems is totally non-factual. Immigration brings a host of benefits and a host of problems, it's not unreasonable to take a close look and analyse or criticise the process.

None of the original colonization of the Americas by Europeans was really peace and joy. The Indians did not want us here, and did all in their power to prevent us from coming in. They just lacked the power to enforce it.

 

[Traitorfish]

That earlier immigration started off very peacefully as well, with peace treaties, trade and group hugs. There is no certainty that the current mass-immigration to the West will remain peaceful or will continue to go on Western terms.

But is there any indication to suggest? Previous migration to Britain or the United States never produced any sort of mass-violence, so what do you see in contemporary migration that would imply anything of the sort? What makes Pakistanis, Poles and Nigerians so different from Irish, Lithuanians or Trinidadians?

 

[Ayn Rand]

None of the original colonization of the Americas by Europeans was really peace and joy. The Indians did not want us here, and did all in their power to prevent us from coming in. They just lacked the power to enforce it.

The same is true of a lot of British people and how they feel about recent immigration. Why is it justified for Indians to not want their immigrants but bigoted for English people to make the same judgement?

But is there any indication to suggest? Previous migration to Britain or the United States never produced any sort of mass-violence, so what do you see in contemporary migration that would imply anything of the sort? What makes Pakistanis, Poles and Nigerians so different from Irish, Lithuanians or Trinidadians?

Well, that immigration to America was violent and destructive - you're just forgetting about the original inhabitants of America who were pushed into reservations so that it could continue unimpeded.

There are plenty of indications to suggest that British society has changed and will be forced to change even more to accomodate its immigrants. Isn't the repression of the BNP just one small example of that? British people are not allowed to say anything that might offend immigrants and that will almost certainly be a trend that stays and gets stronger over time.

 

[Lord of Elves]

The same is true of a lot of British people and how they feel about recent immigration. Why is it justified for Indians to not want their immigrants but bigoted for English people to make the same judgement?

Essentially, it isn't. Were the Native American tribes nation-states with governmental constitutions, immigration policies, and political thought relevant to contemporary politics we would probably say they were bigots or at least moderately prejudiced if they reacted with hard xenophobia to immigration.

In regards to the actual Indians of the time, probably because the Europeans/American settlers/etc up and killed most of them.

 

[aelf]

No, but it should be.

So what is race?

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, that immigration to America was violent and destructive - you're just forgetting about the original inhabitants of America who were pushed into reservations so that it could continue unimpeded.

What similarities do you see between the American Indian experience of colonisation and contemporary Britain? The fact that Britain has not as of yet undergone an apocalyptic plague that wiped out 90% of the population and causing widespread political and social upheaval should enter into your calculations at some point.

There are plenty of indications to suggest that British society has changed and will be forced to change even more to accomodate its immigrants. Isn't the repression of the BNP just one small example of that? British people are not allowed to say anything that might offend immigrants and that will almost certainly be a trend that stays and gets stronger over time.

People used to beat down the far-right long before any significant number of Asians arrived, that's nothing new. The rise of the British Union of Fascists were confronted in the 1930s by an alliance of leftists, Jews and Irish, Loyalism was challenged in Northern Ireland by a cross-community alliance of civil rights activists, and the National Front was opposed in the 1960s and '70s by Britons of all races. Just because the latest incarnation of vehement white nationalism isn't finding that its posture of respectability is being uncritically accepted by those whom it would seek to persecute isn't indicative of any change in British society, but, rather, it indicates how resilient we still are to their reeking pish.

 

[Cutlass]

The same is true of a lot of British people and how they feel about recent immigration. Why is it justified for Indians to not want their immigrants but bigoted for English people to make the same judgement?

The Indians did not want thieves to take their lands. Race didn't enter into it. They were fine without us. The property of the British is not at risk. You need them to sustain your country. In the long run you're dead without them.

 

[Ayn Rand]

What similarities do you see between the American Indian experience of colonisation and contemporary Britain? The fact that Britain has not as of yet undergone an apocalyptic plague that wiped out 90% of the population and causing widespread political and social upheaval should enter into your calculations at some point.

Really? All this just to defeat my claim that immigration was a negative experience for Indians and Aborigines etc etc. Is your belief-system so rigid that it can't hold itself up unless you fervently believe that immigration is and always has been nothing but a Holy Blessing from the hand of the Almighty?

People used to beat down the far-right long before any significant number of Asians arrived, that's nothing new. The rise of the British Union of Fascists were confronted in the 1930s by an alliance of leftists, Jews and Irish, Loyalism was challenged in Northern Ireland by a cross-community alliance of civil rights activists, and the National Front was opposed in the 1960s and '70s by Britons of all races. Just because the latest incarnation of vehement white nationalism isn't finding that its posture of respectability is being uncritically accepted by those whom it would seek to persecute isn't indicative of any change in British society, but, rather, it indicates how resilient we still are to their reeking pish.

Haha! Well said - however, we have moved well beyond that. Multicultralism/immigration has spawned a particular form of race-obsessed leftism that thinks in absolutes, argues with insults and dogmatically refuses to allow entire classes of thought and argument in a wide range of places from the classroom to the newspapers. That is something unprecedented and it escalates also to such things as not criticising Islam or mentioning documented correlations between crime and race [unless one is blaming white oppression!]. This is new and it is so deeply entrenched now, it is likely only to continue and reinforce itself to the detriment of our freedom and intellectual culture.

The Indians did not want thieves to take their lands. Race didn't enter into it. They were fine without us. The property of the British is not at risk. You need them to sustain your country. In the long run you're dead without them.

Not really.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Actually, native tribes were often very welcoming to individual Europeans who left their settlements are were willing to assimilate into the tribe. Intermarriage was common and accepted. Many early missionaries and governors complained that there were significantly more Europeans ran away and adopted the native culture than natives to converted to Christianity and adopted European customs.

What the natives did not like was being cheated, killed, and forced off their lands.


It may also be worth noting that the Americans most likely had a much larger and more technologically advanced societies before European colonization. It is estimated that the average Native American diet had almost a thousand calories per day than the average European diet, and was more nutritionally balanced. Most of the nomadic hunter-gatherer American Indians like the Souix were relatively new groups formed by the remnants of older sedentary agricultural societies like the Mississippians. These were destroyed not by immigration in and of itself, but by the introduction of diseases to which they had no immunity and animals like pigs that ruined the local ecosystem. The Native American Experience certainly points out the importance of health screenings for immigrants and regulation on the import of invasive species, but it is not an excuse to close borders to individuals seeking a better like for themselves.

 

[Traitorfish]

Really? All this just to defeat my claim that immigration was a negative experience for Indians and Aborigines etc etc. Is your belief-system so rigid that it can't hold itself up unless you fervently believe that immigration is and always has been nothing but a Holy Blessing from the hand of the Almighty?

I'm sorry, but you just offered the example of North America and Australia as an analogy to contemporary immigration to the United Kingdom, so this is either cowardice or stupidity, and pretty tremendously so either way.

Haha! Well said - however, we have moved well beyond that. Multicultralism/immigration has spawned a particular form of race-obsessed leftism that thinks in absolutes, argues with insults and dogmatically refuses to allow entire classes of thought and argument in a wide range of places from the classroom to the newspapers. That is something unprecedented and it escalates also to such things as not criticising Islam or mentioning documented correlations between crime and race [unless one is blaming white oppression!]. This is new and it is so deeply entrenched now, it is likely only to continue and reinforce itself to the detriment of our freedom and intellectual culture.

Well, firstly, I'm not sure exactly how the left manages to subscribe to a wishy-washy post-modern multiculturalism while at the same time being dogmatically absolutist. A feat of cognitive dissonance, no doubt, but I have to wonder exactly how's feat it is.

Secondly, why is that whenever you produce a critique like that it's because we're not giving enough attention to some white power dickhead and his repeatedly falsified drivel about a Muslim majority by 2100? I don't hear you lamenting the lack of attention given to a meaningful critique of capitalism, of how little airtime is lent to militant trade unionism, of how it's so rare that you'll find the authorities seriously addressing the statistics on rape and sexual violence. Now, granted, those issues have their own partisans, so you could quite easily say that you don't feel the need to argue on their behalf, but that would seem to imply that you are simply partisan on behalf of white power dickheadry, which is something that as far as I know you tend to deny. So what gives?

 

[Ayn Rand]

I'm sorry, but you just offered the example of North America and Australia as an analogy to contemporary immigration to the United Kingdom, so this is either cowardice or stupidity, and pretty tremendously so either way.

It's similar in the sense that many people don't want it. I didn't say that the experience is exactly identical.

Well, firstly, I'm not sure exactly how the left manages to subscribe to a wishy-washy post-modern multiculturalism while at the same time being dogmatically absolutist. A feat of cognitive dissonance, no doubt, but I have to wonder exactly how's feat it is.

No dissonance - multiculturalism is and always has been dogmatic towards any idea systems that don't agree with it.

Secondly, why is that whenever you produce a critique like that it's because we're not giving enough attention to some white power dickhead and his repeatedly falsified drivel about a Muslim majority by 2100? I don't hear you lamenting the lack of attention given to a meaningful critique of capitalism, of how little airtime is lent to militant trade unionism, of how it's so rare that you'll find the authorities seriously addressing the statistics on rape and sexual violence. Now, granted, those issues have their own partisans, so you could quite easily say that you don't feel the need to argue on their behalf, but that would seem to imply that you are simply partisan on behalf of white power dickheadry, which is something that as far as I know you tend to deny. So what gives?

Masses and masses of airtime and newspaper coverage has been given against the BNP. None of it has been objective in the slightest - it's intention [along with some other unpleasant habits of the media and education system etc] has been to browbeat the British people and create an atmosphere in which free exchange of ideas is impossible.

I'm not saying that anyone from the BNP should be given space on any form of media - just that if media are going to run literally thousands of articles condemning them, they might want to try at least pretending to some standard of balance and objectivity when doing so. No free-thinking person enjoys living in a semi-totalitarian echo-chamber, where literally every newspaper and tv station repeats exactly the same lies in exactly the same order according to a scheduled subtext they are too afraid not to conform to.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's similar in the sense that many people don't want it. I didn't say that the experience is exactly identical.

You offered it as an analogy, so you can't get pissed when I question its validity as an analogy. If you can't defend this stuff don't say it in the first place.

No dissonance - multiculturalism is and always has been dogmatic towards any idea systems that don't agree with it.

Including, presumably, Islam?

Masses and masses of airtime and newspaper coverage has been given against the BNP. None of it has been objective in the slightest - it's intention [along with some other unpleasant habits of the media and education system etc] has been to browbeat the British people and create an atmosphere in which free exchange of ideas is impossible.

I'm not saying that anyone from the BNP should be given space on any form of media - just that if media are going to run literally thousands of articles condemning them, they might want to try at least pretending to some standard of balance and objectivity when doing so. No free-thinking person enjoys living in a semi-totalitarian echo-chamber, where literally every newspaper and tv station repeats exactly the same lies in exactly the same order according to a scheduled subtext they are too afraid not to conform to.

Funny, 'cos "the British people" have historically proven themselves to be pretty handy at beating down the far-right without the slightest provocation from the media- indeed, in the face of their outright condemnation. Could it perhaps be that people have reached their own use of reason that the BNP are a bunch of bawheids, and the media is simply pandering to them on the issue? It's not exactly as if anti-immigration views from other, less widely despised sources find it overwhelmingly difficult to receive air time, even if those which do aren't packaged with quite the array of bell-curves and Breivikian conspiracy theories that you seem to prefer.

At any rate, when you see this sort of crap being ladled out to boneheads, rather than the almost loving gentility with which the police habitually treat them, then you might be able to plead for their status as an especially victimised minority. Until then, you're just going to come across as a bit of a cry-baby.

 

[Arwon]

That earlier immigration started off very peacefully as well, with peace treaties, trade and group hugs. There is no certainty that the current mass-immigration to the West will remain peaceful or will continue to go on Western terms.

If you're talking about Australia, no, it really really didn't. The first hundred years of settlement largely oscilated towards ignoring the locals and periodically massacring them, before settling on the legal doctrine that they didn't exist and would die soon anyway. Just to inject some truefacts here.

And of course the comparison of colonialist invasions to contemporary migration is as insulting as it is lunatic. But you already know that.

 

[Lord of Elves]

That earlier immigration started off very peacefully as well, with peace treaties, trade and group hugs. There is no certainty that the current mass-immigration to the West will remain peaceful or will continue to go on Western terms.

I see we've found Mr. Powell again. Since I live in the US, care to edify me as to how and when Britain became a leftist totalitarian state?

 

[Ayn Rand]

You offered it as an analogy, so you can't get pissed when I question its validity as an analogy. If you can't defend this stuff don't say it in the first place.

Ah, so you really don't like to admit that there are examples of immigration that were disastrous for their host cultures?

Including, presumably, Islam?

So you've just conceded something without realising it.

So tell me, what happened to the religion of universal peace, love, tolerance and multicultural forerunner exemplar par excellence? I guess it wasn't the friend you were hoping for.... awww.. so sad, too bad!!

[is this where I say I told you so?]

Funny, 'cos "the British people" have historically proven themselves to be pretty handy at beating down the far-right without the slightest provocation from the media- indeed, in the face of their outright condemnation. Could it perhaps be that people have reached their own use of reason that the BNP are a bunch of bawheids, and the media is simply pandering to them on the issue? It's not exactly as if anti-immigration views from other, less widely despised sources find it overwhelmingly difficult to receive air time, even if those which do aren't packaged with quite the array of bell-curves and Breivikian conspiracy theories that you seem to prefer.

Didn't 20% of people in Britain recently say they were thinking of voting BNP? And when Nick Griffin said "London is no longer a British city" didn't the majority of British people agree with him?

So your claim goes completely opposite to reality - what really happened is that the British people worked out for themselves that the BNP have to some extent got a point and are right about many things. And they worked it out despite massive educational and media controls designed to browbeat them into conformity with a completely contrary position. So it's clear that the media do not reflect either the objective facts regarding the BNP, nor the diverse opinions of the British people.

 

[Benefactor]

Didn't 20% of people in Britain recently say they were thinking of voting BNP? And when Nick Griffin said "London is no longer a British city" didn't the majority of British people agree with him?

I don't think so, do you have a source?

 

[Flying Pig]

Didn't 20% of people in Britain recently say they were thinking of voting BNP? And when Nick Griffin said "London is no longer a British city" didn't the majority of British people agree with him?

You sure those weren't polls in the Daily Heil?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Didn't 20% of people in Britain recently say they were thinking of voting BNP? And when Nick Griffin said "London is no longer a British city" didn't the majority of British people agree with him?

Hahahahahahahahahahaha. No.

 

[brennan]

I don't give a flying wossname what demented Sun readers 'believe'. I like facts:

Greater London - population 59.5% White British.
UK - 85.7% White British in 2001.

Source = wiki
This is after 50-60 years of sustained immigration. Immigration would not even be an issue if unemployment was not high right now (and blaming unemployment on immigration is based on a flawed premise).

The funniest thing about people who moan about immigration? They all want to migrate to Spain.

 

[Dachs]

I don't give a flying wossname what demented Sun readers 'believe'. I like facts:

Greater London - population 59.5% White British.
UK - 85.7% White British in 2001.

Source = wiki
This is after 50-60 years of sustained immigration.

Why is it even important that there be white British people in the first place?