NationStates

Vassenor wrote:So how much popular support actually exists for this racial purity malarky?

How many foreigners were harassed or assaulted after Brexit passed?

Mad to think there’s 54 UK billionaires and if each of those donated just 1% of their worth to the NHS they’d be funded with around a minimum of £540,000,000 but yet it’s down to the working class to donate their hard earned money? Shows who’s really keeping the country going

Since we're talking about how it's fine to fund the NHS using donations.

Celritannia wrote:

Cambrian Albany wrote:Exactly, so people were already annoyed. And no, this is not a rich poor thing. Most of the British Establishment came out against Powell.


And if you want the links to the source numbers quoted I'll throw them in too if you insist. Bear in mind that Heseltine hated Powell for this and disagreed but he still knew Powell was popular and supported. Regardless of where we are now.. why were people at the time passed over?

You are talking about something that happened 40 years ago. You were probably not around then, so it does not matter.

You are just mentioning this for no reason, since you never lived through that time period, making your points racist.

All that matters is the present, while remembering passed mistakes.

What the bloody fuck? You’re completely dodging the point. It’s completely fair to look at the current state of things and ask why things weren’t handled well. I wasn’t alive then so it does not matter?

So, Africans Americans today who weren’t yet born during slavery.. shouldn’t discuss slavery? What kind of logic is this? I can raise whatever historical grievance I bloody well like, I don’t see how that makes me racist.

Cambrian Albany wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
You are talking about something that happened 40 years ago. You were probably not around then, so it does not matter.

You are just mentioning this for no reason, since you never lived through that time period, making your points racist.

All that matters is the present, while remembering passed mistakes.

What the bloody fuck? You’re completely dodging the point. It’s completely fair to look at the current state of things and ask why things weren’t handled well. I wasn’t alive then so it does not matter?

So, Africans Americans today who weren’t yet born during slavery.. shouldn’t discuss slavery? What kind of logic is this? I can raise whatever historical grievance I bloody well like, I don’t see how that makes me racist.

You are comparing slavery to people being welcomed to the country; 2 very different topics.

You are wanting to prolong the racism question. You're grievance is "brown people bad".

Celritannia wrote:

Cambrian Albany wrote:What the bloody fuck? You’re completely dodging the point. It’s completely fair to look at the current state of things and ask why things weren’t handled well. I wasn’t alive then so it does not matter?

So, Africans Americans today who weren’t yet born during slavery.. shouldn’t discuss slavery? What kind of logic is this? I can raise whatever historical grievance I bloody well like, I don’t see how that makes me racist.

You are comparing slavery to people being welcomed to the country 2 very different topics.

You are wanting to prolong the racism question. You're grievance is "brown people bad".

Doesn't matter how different the topics are, either the past matters or it doesn't. If it does, there's no reason not to talk about it. If it doesn't... well, that's just such a silly idea it's not worth taking even remotely seriously, considering everything that is real in the present has been shaped by the past.

Kragholm Free States wrote:

Celritannia wrote:

You are comparing slavery to people being welcomed to the country 2 very different topics.

You are wanting to prolong the racism question. You're grievance is "brown people bad".

Doesn't matter how different the topics are, either the past matters or it doesn't. If it does, there's no reason not to talk about it. If it doesn't... well, that's just such a silly idea it's not worth taking even remotely seriously, considering everything that is real in the present has been shaped by the past.

He wants to promote the negative, not learn from it.

Celritannia wrote:

Cambrian Albany wrote:What the bloody fuck? You’re completely dodging the point. It’s completely fair to look at the current state of things and ask why things weren’t handled well. I wasn’t alive then so it does not matter?

So, Africans Americans today who weren’t yet born during slavery.. shouldn’t discuss slavery? What kind of logic is this? I can raise whatever historical grievance I bloody well like, I don’t see how that makes me racist.

You are comparing slavery to people being welcomed to the country; 2 very different topics.

You are wanting to prolong the racism question. You're grievance is "brown people bad".

But they weren’t welcomed.... I literally just gave you ample evidence that they weren’t. As for ‘brown people bad’ if that’s all your going to boil that I’ve said down to then I’m fucking done. It’s quite clear all you want to do is scream ‘RACIST’ at me without engaging in the wider context of the debate.

Cambrian Albany wrote:

Celritannia wrote:

You are comparing slavery to people being welcomed to the country; 2 very different topics.

You are wanting to prolong the racism question. You're grievance is "brown people bad".

But they weren’t welcomed.... I literally just gave you ample evidence that they weren’t. As for ‘brown people bad’ if that’s all your going to boil that I’ve said down to then I’m fucking done. It’s quite clear all you want to do is scream ‘RACIST’ at me without engaging in the wider context of the debate.

The British government did so to re-fill the work populace after a lack of males in the factories due to WW2. It was logical and necessary.

You gave no evidence, no articles, no quotations, no books, or papers. It's just a long rant about why you think something happened in the 70s was bad.
But we see the benefits of it.

Celritannia wrote:

Kragholm Free States wrote:
Doesn't matter how different the topics are, either the past matters or it doesn't. If it does, there's no reason not to talk about it. If it doesn't... well, that's just such a silly idea it's not worth taking even remotely seriously, considering everything that is real in the present has been shaped by the past.

He wants to promote the negative, not learn from it.

Nah, he's learning from it. A different lesson to what you and I might learn, but interpretation of history is not exactly a strictly one-sided thing.

Kragholm Free States wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
He wants to promote the negative, not learn from it.

Nah, he's learning from it. A different lesson to what you and I might learn, but interpretation of history is not exactly a strictly one-sided thing.

What's he learning exactly? That the White-British populations are not being overtaken?

Celritannia wrote:

Kragholm Free States wrote:
Nah, he's learning from it. A different lesson to what you and I might learn, but interpretation of history is not exactly a strictly one-sided thing.

What's he learning exactly? That the White-British populations are not being overtaken?

You'd have to ask him that. Probably that there wasn't - and possibly still isn't - widespread support for large-scale immigration, but I'm no mind reader so I can't tell you for certain.

Cambrian Albany would have a very strong case to make if English people have actually experienced real, Nazi-style persecution at the hands of brown and black people like the Jews were persecuted by the Germans and Uighurs are being persecuted by the Chinese. I'm talking concentration camps, unethical lab experiments, comfort women, sterilization, and total genocide. Unlike the Jews, Uighurs, Tibetans and other politically persecuted minorities fighting for their freedom and independence, the history of white English and British people is not defined as one of centuries of near-continuous persecution, collective humiliation, numerous pogroms, and extermination by a genocidal majority. If it were, I would be a little more sympathetic.

I don't care if I'm the last person of East Asian descent alive on this planet today and my race dies out completely. I'm more concerned about whether I will face persecution, violence and discrimination simply for the way I look. Freedom from sustained and intense persecution alone should determine whether England or Malaysia or Japan ought to maintain their indigenous ethnic majorities at all costs, or whether whites should maintain their majority in the United States, or the creation of an independent polity for racially persecuted African-Americans. Biology alone should NEVER be the deciding factor.

I could care less if Europeans suddenly all became black overnight but continued to behave like perfect English butlers and live perfectly decent lives of luxury and opulence. Freedom from persecution ties in very closely with the right to self-determination. It is for this reason that I ended up supporting the right of the British people to leave the European Union at all costs. And if the Scots wish to declare independence, let them.

That said, I agree with CA that relatively harmless cultural customs and traditions, such as fish and chips in England, or anime in Japan, ought to be preserved rather than needlessly swept away, although I would extend this rule to include immigrant customs as well as indigenous ones, and no, I'm not talking about FGM, or hanging gays, apostates and blasphemers. Immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, must be compelled to integrate and learn the local language, although I would grant some leeway to elderly relatives of immigrants who are prone to bouts of dementia and senility, rendering them unable to learn another language, like my very much alive and kicking grandmother.

Most importantly of all, immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, MUST be compelled to respect basic, liberal, Western principles, such as freedom of speech, freedom from religion, human rights, democracy, due process, equality, the rule of law, etc. I share CA's fear of sharia completely overrunning Europe, because it means that indigenous non-Muslims WILL be persecuted and treated as second-class citizens. Always, without exception. I live in a Muslim-majority country myself, and being a non-Muslim, I know what racial and religious discrimination feels like when perpetrated by Malay and Muslim supremacists. I know how it feels to be humiliated and told to be quiet or else, and this fact alone really upsets me to no end.

But this is a matter of upholding liberal values, Western cultural norms, and basic human decency, rather than having anything to do with racial replacement. Non-Muslims of immigrant background have already successfully integrated into their host country. This is apparently less true of Muslim immigrants to the UK and their descendants, at least when compared to Hindus, Sikhs, and especially Jews. Concerns about self-inflicted cultural suicide spearheaded by radical, woke, PC leftists are not entirely unwarranted. Creeping Islamization is a very real threat to both Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike, and far-leftists would rather look the other way and see their countries devolve into clones of Malaysia and Indonesia, thereby playing right into CA's overly simplistic narrative of white replacement.

As for immigration per se, I believe that countries have a right to determine who can and can't immigrate and in what numbers, especially if, like Hong Kong or Singapore, they are small, densely populated and possess limited resources, social infrastructure, and manpower, but they have absolutely no moral right to discriminate against those who are already there legally. Racial abuse uttered by ignorant fuckwits on the subway and across the street against people of East Asian descent must never be tolerated under any circumstances, pandemic or no pandemic, and evicting blacks from their rented apartments, barring them from patronizing a McDonald's branch and aimlessly moving them along simply for being black is equally beyond the pale, especially if the state itself is the one giving the orders from above.

I only just read the last two pages or so, but I haven't seen anything specific from CA about what exactly should be done to non-whites in England. I'm curious to know. What machinations does he have in store for them? Does he even care to distinguish between native-born, fully-integrated non-whites and recent, FOB arrivals? Does he distinguish between those who respect the culture and customs of England and those who do not? Does he distinguish between economic migrants and refugees? If not, why not?

CA refuses to acknowledge a clear distinction between race and culture. He is absolutely right to worry about self-inflicted cultural suicide and a possible, stealth implementation of sharia through the backdoor via enforcement of draconian "hate speech" laws aided and abetted by naive and sympathetic leftists, but his overblown fear of racial replacement sounds like yet another iteration of the white "genocide" conspiracy theory that many confirmed white supremacists are obsessed with to the point of shooting up two mosques in New Zealand. Racist is not a word I'm prepared to dish out on a whim, because that word, like its close cousin fascist, has been abused to the point of meaninglessness. That said, the vibe I'm getting from CA seems to be one of deep-seated racial insecurity, to put it mildly.

Sharia law will never be implemented in the UK. It's impossible.

Celritannia wrote:

Cambrian Albany wrote:But they weren’t welcomed.... I literally just gave you ample evidence that they weren’t. As for ‘brown people bad’ if that’s all your going to boil that I’ve said down to then I’m fucking done. It’s quite clear all you want to do is scream ‘RACIST’ at me without engaging in the wider context of the debate.

The British government did so to re-fill the work populace after a lack of males in the factories due to WW2. It was logical and necessary.

You gave no evidence, no articles, no quotations, no books, or papers. It's just a long rant about why you think something happened in the 70s was bad.
But we see the benefits of it.

I literally sent you some sourced quotes? You’re actually such a bad fairy debater it’s fucking breathtaking. Jesus Fucking Christ.

Cambrian Albany wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
The British government did so to re-fill the work populace after a lack of males in the factories due to WW2. It was logical and necessary.

You gave no evidence, no articles, no quotations, no books, or papers. It's just a long rant about why you think something happened in the 70s was bad.
But we see the benefits of it.

I literally sent you some sourced quotes? You’re actually such a bad fairy debater it’s fucking breathtaking. Jesus Fucking Christ.

Really? When?

All it seems to me is you just don't like people from different cultures in the UK, despite them being a tiny minority. It really is a pathetic reason.

What articles did you link or use?

Celritannia wrote:Sharia law will never be implemented in the UK. It's impossible.

But if people realize that it becomes less acceptable to alienate or even assault Muslims.

Cambrian Albany wrote:You’re actually such a bad fairy debater

...a what?

Oh good, a crypto. Sometimes we really need a nice change from everyone yelling at GVH.

New Bremerton wrote:Cambrian Albany would have a very strong case to make if English people have actually experienced real, Nazi-style persecution at the hands of brown and black people like the Jews were persecuted by the Germans and Uighurs are being persecuted by the Chinese. I'm talking concentration camps, unethical lab experiments, comfort women, sterilization, and total genocide. Unlike the Jews, Uighurs, Tibetans and other politically persecuted minorities fighting for their freedom and independence, the history of white English and British people is not defined as one of centuries of near-continuous persecution, collective humiliation, numerous pogroms, and extermination by a genocidal majority. If it were, I would be a little more sympathetic.

I don't care if I'm the last person of East Asian descent alive on this planet today and my race dies out completely. I'm more concerned about whether I will face persecution, violence and discrimination simply for the way I look. Freedom from sustained and intense persecution alone should determine whether England or Malaysia or Japan ought to maintain their indigenous ethnic majorities at all costs, or whether whites should maintain their majority in the United States, or the creation of an independent polity for racially persecuted African-Americans. Biology alone should NEVER be the deciding factor.

I could care less if Europeans suddenly all became black overnight but continued to behave like perfect English butlers and live perfectly decent lives of luxury and opulence. Freedom from persecution ties in very closely with the right to self-determination. It is for this reason that I ended up supporting the right of the British people to leave the European Union at all costs. And if the Scots wish to declare independence, let them.

That said, I agree with CA that relatively harmless cultural customs and traditions, such as fish and chips in England, or anime in Japan, ought to be preserved rather than needlessly swept away, although I would extend this rule to include immigrant customs as well as indigenous ones, and no, I'm not talking about FGM, or hanging gays, apostates and blasphemers. Immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, must be compelled to integrate and learn the local language, although I would grant some leeway to elderly relatives of immigrants who are prone to bouts of dementia and senility, rendering them unable to learn another language, like my very much alive and kicking grandmother.

Most importantly of all, immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, MUST be compelled to respect basic, liberal, Western principles, such as freedom of speech, freedom from religion, human rights, democracy, due process, equality, the rule of law, etc. I share CA's fear of sharia completely overrunning Europe, because it means that indigenous non-Muslims WILL be persecuted and treated as second-class citizens. Always, without exception. I live in a Muslim-majority country myself, and being a non-Muslim, I know what racial and religious discrimination feels like when perpetrated by Malay and Muslim supremacists. I know how it feels to be humiliated and told to be quiet or else, and this fact alone really upsets me to no end.

But this is a matter of upholding liberal values, Western cultural norms, and basic human decency, rather than having anything to do with racial replacement. Non-Muslims of immigrant background have already successfully integrated into their host country. This is apparently less true of Muslim immigrants to the UK and their descendants, at least when compared to Hindus, Sikhs, and especially Jews. Concerns about self-inflicted cultural suicide spearheaded by radical, woke, PC leftists are not entirely unwarranted. Creeping Islamization is a very real threat to both Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike, and far-leftists would rather look the other way and see their countries devolve into clones of Malaysia and Indonesia, thereby playing right into CA's overly simplistic narrative of white replacement.

As for immigration per se, I believe that countries have a right to determine who can and can't immigrate and in what numbers, especially if, like Hong Kong or Singapore, they are small, densely populated and possess limited resources, social infrastructure, and manpower, but they have absolutely no moral right to discriminate against those who are already there legally. Racial abuse uttered by ignorant fuckwits on the subway and across the street against people of East Asian descent must never be tolerated under any circumstances, pandemic or no pandemic, and evicting blacks from their rented apartments, barring them from patronizing a McDonald's branch and aimlessly moving them along simply for being black is equally beyond the pale, especially if the state itself is the one giving the orders from above.

I only just read the last two pages or so, but I haven't seen anything specific from CA about what exactly should be done to non-whites in England. I'm curious to know. What machinations does he have in store for them? Does he even care to distinguish between native-born, fully-integrated non-whites and recent, FOB arrivals? Does he distinguish between those who respect the culture and customs of England and those who do not? Does he distinguish between economic migrants and refugees? If not, why not?

CA refuses to acknowledge a clear distinction between race and culture. He is absolutely right to worry about self-inflicted cultural suicide and a possible, stealth implementation of sharia through the backdoor via enforcement of draconian "hate speech" laws aided and abetted by naive and sympathetic leftists, but his overblown fear of racial replacement sounds like yet another iteration of the white "genocide" conspiracy theory that many confirmed white supremacists are obsessed with to the point of shooting up two mosques in New Zealand. Racist is not a word I'm prepared to dish out on a whim, because that word, like its close cousin fascist, has been abused to the point of meaninglessness. That said, the vibe I'm getting from CA seems to be one of deep-seated racial insecurity, to put it mildly.

You get it perfectly. Unfortunately such reasonable middle ground will not go far here.

Celritannia wrote:Sharia law will never be implemented in the UK. It's impossible.

It is actually not impossible. It is VERY unlikely yes, to be implemented wholesale Saudi Arabia/Iranian/Pakistan style absolutely.

But one cannot say that is literally impossible, no matter how improbable.

New Bremerton wrote:Cambrian Albany would have a very strong case to make if English people have actually experienced real, Nazi-style persecution at the hands of brown and black people like the Jews were persecuted by the Germans and Uighurs are being persecuted by the Chinese. I'm talking concentration camps, unethical lab experiments, comfort women, sterilization, and total genocide. Unlike the Jews, Uighurs, Tibetans and other politically persecuted minorities fighting for their freedom and independence, the history of white English and British people is not defined as one of centuries of near-continuous persecution, collective humiliation, numerous pogroms, and extermination by a genocidal majority. If it were, I would be a little more sympathetic.

I don't care if I'm the last person of East Asian descent alive on this planet today and my race dies out completely. I'm more concerned about whether I will face persecution, violence and discrimination simply for the way I look. Freedom from sustained and intense persecution alone should determine whether England or Malaysia or Japan ought to maintain their indigenous ethnic majorities at all costs, or whether whites should maintain their majority in the United States, or the creation of an independent polity for racially persecuted African-Americans. Biology alone should NEVER be the deciding factor.

I could care less if Europeans suddenly all became black overnight but continued to behave like perfect English butlers and live perfectly decent lives of luxury and opulence. Freedom from persecution ties in very closely with the right to self-determination. It is for this reason that I ended up supporting the right of the British people to leave the European Union at all costs. And if the Scots wish to declare independence, let them.

That said, I agree with CA that relatively harmless cultural customs and traditions, such as fish and chips in England, or anime in Japan, ought to be preserved rather than needlessly swept away, although I would extend this rule to include immigrant customs as well as indigenous ones, and no, I'm not talking about FGM, or hanging gays, apostates and blasphemers. Immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, must be compelled to integrate and learn the local language, although I would grant some leeway to elderly relatives of immigrants who are prone to bouts of dementia and senility, rendering them unable to learn another language, like my very much alive and kicking grandmother.

Most importantly of all, immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, MUST be compelled to respect basic, liberal, Western principles, such as freedom of speech, freedom from religion, human rights, democracy, due process, equality, the rule of law, etc. I share CA's fear of sharia completely overrunning Europe, because it means that indigenous non-Muslims WILL be persecuted and treated as second-class citizens. Always, without exception. I live in a Muslim-majority country myself, and being a non-Muslim, I know what racial and religious discrimination feels like when perpetrated by Malay and Muslim supremacists. I know how it feels to be humiliated and told to be quiet or else, and this fact alone really upsets me to no end.

But this is a matter of upholding liberal values, Western cultural norms, and basic human decency, rather than having anything to do with racial replacement. Non-Muslims of immigrant background have already successfully integrated into their host country. This is apparently less true of Muslim immigrants to the UK and their descendants, at least when compared to Hindus, Sikhs, and especially Jews. Concerns about self-inflicted cultural suicide spearheaded by radical, woke, PC leftists are not entirely unwarranted. Creeping Islamization is a very real threat to both Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike, and far-leftists would rather look the other way and see their countries devolve into clones of Malaysia and Indonesia, thereby playing right into CA's overly simplistic narrative of white replacement.

As for immigration per se, I believe that countries have a right to determine who can and can't immigrate and in what numbers, especially if, like Hong Kong or Singapore, they are small, densely populated and possess limited resources, social infrastructure, and manpower, but they have absolutely no moral right to discriminate against those who are already there legally. Racial abuse uttered by ignorant fuckwits on the subway and across the street against people of East Asian descent must never be tolerated under any circumstances, pandemic or no pandemic, and evicting blacks from their rented apartments, barring them from patronizing a McDonald's branch and aimlessly moving them along simply for being black is equally beyond the pale, especially if the state itself is the one giving the orders from above.

I only just read the last two pages or so, but I haven't seen anything specific from CA about what exactly should be done to non-whites in England. I'm curious to know. What machinations does he have in store for them? Does he even care to distinguish between native-born, fully-integrated non-whites and recent, FOB arrivals? Does he distinguish between those who respect the culture and customs of England and those who do not? Does he distinguish between economic migrants and refugees? If not, why not?

CA refuses to acknowledge a clear distinction between race and culture. He is absolutely right to worry about self-inflicted cultural suicide and a possible, stealth implementation of sharia through the backdoor via enforcement of draconian "hate speech" laws aided and abetted by naive and sympathetic leftists, but his overblown fear of racial replacement sounds like yet another iteration of the white "genocide" conspiracy theory that many confirmed white supremacists are obsessed with to the point of shooting up two mosques in New Zealand. Racist is not a word I'm prepared to dish out on a whim, because that word, like its close cousin fascist, has been abused to the point of meaninglessness. That said, the vibe I'm getting from CA seems to be one of deep-seated racial insecurity, to put it mildly.

Thank you I’m glad someone has taken the time to actually discuss things in depth, I’ll get back to this later.

Celritannia wrote:

Cambrian Albany wrote:I literally sent you some sourced quotes? You’re actually such a bad fairy debater it’s fucking breathtaking. Jesus Fucking Christ.

Really? When?

All it seems to me is you just don't like people from different cultures in the UK, despite them being a tiny minority. It really is a pathetic reason.

What articles did you link or use?

What? The stuff about Enoch Powell for fucks sake.

And no I don’t, but I have fairly detailed reasoning, which you’re not willing to engage with.

Novus America wrote:

Celritannia wrote:Sharia law will never be implemented in the UK. It's impossible.

It is actually not impossible. It is VERY unlikely yes, to be implemented wholesale Saudi Arabia/Iranian/Pakistan style absolutely.

But one cannot say that is literally impossible, no matter how improbable.

If only everyone voted for Muslim MPs to win a majority.

Cambrian Albany wrote:What? The stuff about Enoch Powell for fucks sake.

And no I don’t, but I have fairly detailed reasoning, which you’re not willing to engage with.

This is still an opinion post with one quote that hasn't been

quoted

.

There were also no articles.

Cambrian Albany wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:But what about Uncle Ali's curry house? I like that place, they sell some really nice food. You can't ban that.

Hmmmm. Difficult one on the weighing scales that isn't it? Preservation of a nation and its heritage... or... curry? Hm.

This is not a Hobson’s choice. The existence of a Curry house in the UK is not an existential threat to the British nation and its heritage.

Novus America wrote:

Cambrian Albany wrote:Hmmmm. Difficult one on the weighing scales that isn't it? Preservation of a nation and its heritage... or... curry? Hm.

This is not a Hobson’s choice. The existence of a Curry house in the UK is not an existential threat to the British nation and its heritage.

Every time a Brit eats a curry, ISIS cut the throat of another royal.