POLITICS: British Nationalists Show True Colours

European, like all nations, were founded on things that we later found out were wrong. We aren't ruled by kings or sacrifice chickens on a full moon anymore. Nations grow up. Sometimes it takes some people a little longer.

Ideas may be wrong, but the body of the nation isn't. The idea that everything of the past must be destroyed and built up in a "progressive" vision is typical ignorant leftwing garbage. People who do not see themselves as one cannot be a people. It is the most fundamental aspects of humanity. Multiculturalism does not work. Never has.

"British" moslems

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
People who do not see themselves as one cannot be a people. It is the most fundamental aspects of humanity. Multiculturalism does not work. Never has.

Explain the above sentence to me.

Why do people become one people?
What would their common goals be?
If it's a fundamental aspect of humanity, why does it not include all humanity?
What would be the reasons behind multiculuralism not working?
What past examples are there of multiculturalism not working?

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
Ethnic identity and nationality were virtually synonymous.

Evolution for the human being must be mental.
Let us evolve our ideas beyond the primal soup of borders and territories, this is after all, the information age.
Your words are full of fact, when I personally see little truth in what you say.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by shanti23]

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
[

The European nations have overwhelmingly been founded on the idea of ethnos, the people-the nation. Angle Land, Land of the Franks, Deutsch(people)land, Pole land, etc. Ethnic identity and nationality were virtually synonymous.

Please spare the people who can actually think the WWP's talking points memo.

I agree every nation needs a sense of itself, an identity to keep it stable but surely there are better ways to approach the issue than the polarity the extreme right and left employ. One wishing to create an exclusive anglo-saxon state when probably less than 5% of white people in Britain could claim anything near to a pure anglo-saxon heritage, the other seeming to wish to completely undermine any sense of national pride or patriotism no matter how benignly or inclusively expressed.

Lets face it Angle land went on to incorporate, Norman, Flemish, Jews, Italians, French Heugenots etc and thats before the late 19th century when there were major influxes of eastern Europeans, Irish, welsh, Scottish etc, then in the late 20th people from the commonwealth, Caribean, Pakistan, India, nearly all these peoples descendants think of themselves as British or English. I can fly the flag and cheer England on during Euro 2004, then I can go out and enjoy our national dish...Curry. A constantly evolving, healthy society with a strong sense of itself, not the sterile, vacuum packed realm of the BNP nor the bland, featureless landscape of the patriotic hating left but something that's alive and growing.

Originally posted by shanti23
Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
People who do not see themselves as one cannot be a people. It is the most fundamental aspects of humanity. Multiculturalism does not work. Never has.

Explain the above sentence to me.

Why do people become one people?

Because the human being is a social animal and overwhelmingly prefers socialization with similar human beings. Why this is is an inconsequential detail. A physicist not understanding why gravity exists is not evidence that gravity does not exist, correct?

What would their common goals be?

That's for each people to determine for themselves.

If it's a fundamental aspect of humanity, why does it not include all humanity?

Not include all of humanity? It's pretty self-evident and self-prophesizing.
It's empirical. It includes all of humanity.

What would be the reasons behind multiculuralism not working?
What past examples are there of multiculturalism not working?

A multicultural nation usually imposes certain aspects and ideals on it constituent tribes. For instance, English and French rules in Canada. Since language is such an important facet of human existence, the multilingual country automatically is at a disadvantage when its citizens don't understand one another. Even when both or all languages are given equal status under the law, one gains social supremacy. This is a fact in language history. When an outside language is accepted as the lingua franca of the country, it places an additional burden on citizens to have to learn an outside language simply to participate in society.

And I can give you a list of examples of the failures of multicultarlism. The USSR. The former Yugoslavia. Quebec secession issue in Canada. South Africa--before the 1990's Apartheid and after 1994 the widespread violent crimes against whites. Belgium--Flemish and Walloon tensions. India--probably the most multicultural country on earth, and look how disjointed it is. Nigeria and Sudan, violence between Christians and Moslems. Congo, Rwanda, Liberia, Mexico, and the USA. Look at the Basques in Spain. The Kurds and Shiites in Iraq. The Turkic peoples and the Pashtuns in Afghanistan. And these are just modern exampes. I'll even dig into the past and pull up the Hapsburg and Austro-Hungarian Empire. If I felt like wasting time I could probably look up a couple dozen more.

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
Ethnic identity and nationality were virtually synonymous.

Evolution for the human being must be mental, for we control our environment successfully enough, for the time being, to halt physical differences.

Stop being so anti-natural. Let evolution take its own course.

Let us evolve our ideas beyond the primal soup of borders and territories, this is after all, the information age.
Your words are full of fact, when I personally see little truth in what you say.

It's hard to see any truths when your eyes are wide shut. You prefer to impose a reality on the natural world. You ideas are doomed to failure. Some realities don't change regardless of the existence of the internet, telephones, and intercontinental air travel. Human being are human being. I prefer to remain one.



[edit on 15-7-2004 by Eastern_Diamondback]

Originally posted by ubermunche

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
[

The European nations have overwhelmingly been founded on the idea of ethnos, the people-the nation. Angle Land, Land of the Franks, Deutsch(people)land, Pole land, etc. Ethnic identity and nationality were virtually synonymous.

Please spare the people who can actually think the WWP's talking points memo.

I agree every nation needs a sense of itself, an identity to keep it stable but surely there are better ways to approach the issue than the polarity the extreme right and left employ. One wishing to create an exclusive anglo-saxon state when probably less than 5% of white people in Britain could claim anything near to a pure anglo-saxon heritage, the other seeming to wish to completely undermine any sense of national pride or patriotism no matter how benignly or inclusively expressed.

Lets face it Angle land went on to incorporate, Norman, Flemish, Jews, Italians, French Heugenots etc and thats before the late 19th century when there were major influxes of eastern Europeans, Irish, welsh, Scottish etc, then in the late 20th people from the commonwealth, Caribean, Pakistan, India, nearly all these peoples descendants think of themselves as British or English. I can fly the flag and cheer England on during Euro 2004, then I can go out and enjoy our national dish...Curry. A constantly evolving, healthy society with a strong sense of itself, not the sterile, vacuum packed realm of the BNP nor the bland, featureless landscape of the patriotic hating left but something that's alive and growing.

You make the mistake of arguing a race only rationale. Racially the English are as Celtic as they are Germanic. However, the culture is undeniable Germanic. Even in language it is said that some two-thirds of the words are of foreign origin. But the most commonly used words in the language are Anglo-Saxon in root. And the other important fact is that, other than the Jews, the aforementioned groups of pre-1900 Britain were assimilated and small relative to the toal population. This is evidenced by recent genetic studies which show some of the lowest amounts of foreign influence in the gene pool of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales compared to virtually all the rest of the world. Race does play a part, that can't be denied. A French Huguenot could say he was English and not draw the same attention that a Jamaican would should he do the same.

You're right about the extreme right and the left. These elements prove to be the ones that scare others away and tarnish moderates with guilt by association labels. I am an American nationalist, and I advocate such ideology for other nations worldwide, but I don't feel any urge to join anan organization or party because of fringe elements that may lurk nearby.

E_D,

You should try visiting the UK sometime. It's nothing like you imagine. Multiculturalism DOES work in practice. Islam might be the fastest growing religion on the world, but it it still, and always will be, small minority in Britain.

The USSR example is relevant to artificially created "nations", like India/Pakistan or the EU, but not to immigration. People come to the UK because they are attracted by our systems, culture and way of life, not because they want to take over and turn it into a copy of the country or society they just went to so much trouble to leave!

Agreed, muppet.

If we can take anything from this story - and this thread - it is that multiculturalism isn't just a desirable state for any nation, but a current political reality and an inevitability in our post-industrial world. With this out of the way, we can get down to dealing with the hatemongers on all sides.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it's the fanatics who ruin it for everyone. :shk:

I'm only glad that the BNP's veneer of credibility has been well and truly blown away. No more can they claim to be a moderate political party advocating the interests of a single nation - and, more importantly, no-one can vote for them ignorant of their true agenda.

A triumph for democracy? I think so...

Some more news on this issue

British National Party leader Nick Griffin was unrepentant after being filmed by the BBC attacking Islam as a "vicious wicked faith". In an interview, he refused to say sorry and said the "Islamification" of the West had partly happened by rape. But he did apologise for comments made by other BNP activists shown on BBC documentary The Secret Agent, broadcast on Thursday, confessing to race crimes. Three of them have been expelled from the party, Mr Griffin said.

Well, he apolgised for some of the others, I guess!

news.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by muppet
E_D,

You should try visiting the UK sometime. It's nothing like you imagine. Multiculturalism DOES work in practice. Islam might be the fastest growing religion on the world, but it it still, and always will be, small minority in Britain.

Always be a small minority? At the rates of immigration and natural reproduction currently seen, the moslem population will be much more than just a small minority. Gee, I wonder what percentage them really do want Blair killed and a Black flag of Islam over 10 Downing St.

And I've been to the UK several times, and part of my family (My mother's mother's brother's family) still lives there, so I do get periodic updates. Now if you wish to be an ostrich, go right ahead. But by no stretch of the imagination is the immigration situation, especially that of moslems, peachy in Britain. Dramatic rises in TB, HIV, crime, and moslem fanaticism are not enlightening.

The USSR example is relevant to artificially created "nations", like India/Pakistan or the EU, but not to immigration. People come to the UK because they are attracted by our systems, culture and way of life, not because they want to take over and turn it into a copy of the country or society they just went to so much trouble to leave!

The manner of achieving multiculturalism is not as relevant as you would like to believe. The native man is less interested in how the foreigner came to live in his land than with the fact that he's actually there. The recent trend in immigration in both North America and Europe is creating miniature versions of the old country in the new one. This is blatanly obvious to anyone with eyes. There is no urgency to assimilate. And why should immigrants assimilate? They are catered to. Social and Gov't institutions encourage diversity and lambast nativism. Immigrants come to western nations for the goodies they offer, not for deep admiration of tradition and culture. If they actually admired our cultures they'd assimilate.

Don't forget the Roman Empire. Too many immigrant tribesmen who, despite many being Romanized, cared little for Roman citizenship and destroyed the civilization.





Here's a proposal for all the multicultists out there. Gather yourselves together and settle the western deserts of China, or the forests of the Amur river valley. Migrate to the Siberia or the Northwest Territories in Canada...somewhere without a large population, and build up your diversity utopia. Hell, you can call it Diversutopia. You can take all the murderous moslems, rabid communists, hippies, and any other losers who want to belong and create your enlightened, progressive, and perfect society. Build it according to your visions. Then get back to the rest of us in a decade if you haven't been killed.

Originally posted by Bastet
Well, he apolgised for some of the others, I guess!

Way too little, waaaaaay too late - particularly when he's only interested in "apologising" for the stuff which carries a prison sentence.

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
Dramatic rises in TB, HIV, crime, and moslem fanaticism are not enlightening.

Let's just get this straight: are you really suggesting that Muslim immigrants are responsible for these things?

Here's a proposal for all the multicultists out there...

Or, on the other hand, we can just stay here and kick out all the prejuidiced, small-minded "nativists" who are so threatened by the terrifying vision of a humane society, in which people are judged by their accomplishments rather than their genes, that they want to build a huge wall around their tiny bit of paradise and keep it for "people like us". We can send them off into the desert - or to the far side of the moon - and let them form their little Whites Only enclaves and segregated tribes.

Eastern_Diamondback, do you ever wonder why you're part of such a small, pitiful minority of exclusionists and rascists?

Britain has been, is and will be strengthened by it's multiculturalism. Scotland in particular has benefitted from enormous migrations of Pakistanis, Italians, Jews, you name it - as a result we've got a country which is enriched by the traditions and riches of all these people, plus a distinctive social and cultural dynamic which is uniquely ours. Why should this be threatened by nuts and idots - whichever side they support?

In a civilised country, you punish those who break the law. You don't tar a whole culture or race with the same brush because you're too damn lazy to investigate further.

But then, I guess it's easy to blame the immigrants for the problems in society - and ignorant people will always reach for the easy answer...

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
Always be a small minority? At the rates of immigration and natural reproduction currently seen, the moslem population will be much more than just a small minority. Gee, I wonder what percentage them really do want Blair killed and a Black flag of Islam over 10 Downing St.

The facts I'm afraid don't agree with you... take this chart from the UK 2001 census for example.
www.statistics.gov.uk...



Notice how the entire asian population combined makes up just 4 % of the population, as opposed to the 92.1% white?

or this page www.statistics.gov.uk...


Only 2.7% of of the population are muslim. 2.7%!!!! There's 1.6 million muslims, in a country of 58 million. How does that possibly constitute a religious or cultural threat? It's hardly bleedin' Zulu!

And I've been to the UK several times, and part of my family (My mother's mother's brother's family) still lives there, so I do get periodic updates. Now if you wish to be an ostrich, go right ahead.

Head in the sand? Funny that. According to this page my very own home town has the highest % Muslim population in the UK outside London!! OMG I'm surrounded!! What was that noise? Quick! lock the windows and grab me gun, Doris!!.. Oh hang on, it's only Mr Shar from downstairs returning the spade I lent him... false alarm!

I have lived most of my life in number. 3 on the list (out of 364), and spent 5 years living in number 4. I live in an asian muslim area. I am white, english, and look to the untrained eye like a skinhead. If anyone is going to notice a cultural takeover it's going to be me.. and trust me, there isn't one.

Dramatic rises in TB, HIV, crime, and moslem fanaticism are not enlightening.

And neither are they related.

Drugs, I'm afraid to say, particularly hard drugs, are biggest scourge on society right now, and are the root cause of many of the social ills you mention. Ironically, the communities LEAST affected by drugs.. are.. you guessed it.. the muslims!!

Terrible thing, ignorance. Best denied really.



[edit on 16-7-2004 by muppet]

You should try visiting the UK sometime. It's nothing like you imagine. Multiculturalism DOES work in practice. Islam might be the fastest growing religion on the world, but it it still, and always will be, small minority in Britain.

You do indeed speak the truth. Im sorry, but the BNP speak complete crap about the so called threat of whites on the decline. Muslims are not on the increase and their is no threat by them, i have read the Qur'an and it is nothing that Mr.Griffen says it is.

This is what the BNP likes to do, take figures and mix them with lies to pump fear into are bodies so that we vote for them. Multiculturalism does work and it is working on the UK.

Eastern_Diamondback, thank you for your replies.

We remain polarized in ideology, but I respect the time you've taken to respond to my post.

I think a multicultural people enriches society and I love trying to talk to other people in a different tongue.
We would all be better off with a little more tolerance and forgiveness.
We are all people of the same world and the sooner we all realise that fact the better for all our children's futures.

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
Dramatic rises in TB, HIV, crime, and moslem fanaticism are not enlightening.
Let's just get this straight: are you really suggesting that Muslim immigrants are responsible for these things?

African immigrants are mostly responsible for the increase in HIV. African and Jamaican immigrants have been responsible for a lot of the increase in crime. Various groups for the increase in TB. And if this is even debatable, moslem immigrants for the growth of moslem fanaticism. Of all the social problem, moslem fanaticism is the most dangerous.

Here's a proposal for all the multicultists out there...
Or, on the other hand, we can just stay here and kick out all the prejuidiced, small-minded "nativists" who are so threatened by the terrifying vision of a humane society, in which people are judged by their accomplishments rather than their genes, that they want to build a huge wall around their tiny bit of paradise and keep it for "people like us". We can send them off into the desert - or to the far side of the moon - and let them form their little Whites Only enclaves and segregated tribes.

It is you multicultists who wish to impose an ideology on a native population which cannot be undone once begun. And it goes beyond just you in the UK. This is a worldwide thing. Take your multicultist ideas and create your own country in some unoccupied region of the earth.

Eastern_Diamondback, do you ever wonder why you're part of such a small, pitiful minority of exclusionists and rascists?

Being called racist by leftwing radicals is somewhat of compliment. People of other races should be welcome to immigrate, so long as they are assimilible and have an overall true social benefit. People like you treat [internal] diversity itself as some kind of noble end in and of itself. What a poisonous ideology.

Britain has been, is and will be strengthened by it'
s multiculturalism. Scotland in particular has benefitted from enormous migrations of Pakistanis, Italians, Jews, you name it - as a result we've got a country which is enriched by the traditions and riches of all these people, plus a distinctive social and cultural dynamic which is uniquely ours. Why should this be threatened by nuts and idots - whichever side they support?

What makes you stronger now? You now have hundreds of thousands of people who have no loyalty to your country. You have 40% of your moslem population in the London area stating they support Osam Bin Laden, a majority of that population saying they would refuse to fight for Britain should it come under attack. Not all immigrant groups are equally problematic. Why is it the Indians don't cause the same problems the Pakistanis do? You had a culture distinct from any other on the planet. It was called British culture.

In a civilised country, you punish those who break the law. You don't tar a whole culture or race with the same brush because you're too damn lazy to investigate further.

You don't ignore the social problems that come with elements of mass immigration just because reality doesn't fit your ideology.

But then, I guess it's easy to blame the immigrants for the problems in society - and ignorant people will always reach for the easy answer...

Well you've been throughly indoctrinated into the one world, one people camp. Recognizing the danger that some immigrant group pose is not ignorance, it's awareness and vigilance.

I enjoy diversity too. In it's proper forum. I liken it to restaurants. Every nation should be its own restaurant that serves one general type of culture. I wouldn't want to dine at a restaurant that tried to serve every type of food in th world. Imagine if every restaurant was required to serve every type of food. Would that be diversity? All the restaurants would be the same.

I have another suggestion for you. Why don't some of you ideologues emigrate to a country in need of some diversity. Try Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or China. I hope you don't only subscribe to your views when it's a white country that's affected.

Immigration survey spring 2004

Originally posted by shanti23
Eastern_Diamondback, thank you for your replies.

We remain polarized in ideology, but I respect the time you've taken to respond to my post.

I think a multicultural people enriches society and I love trying to talk to other people in a different tongue.
We would all be better off with a little more tolerance and forgiveness.
We are all people of the same world and the sooner we all realise that fact the better for all our children's futures.

I respect your civility. I believe in a multicultural world. Heterogeneity for the world, homogeneity for the nations. That is the best way to ensure a diverse world. I enjoy the fact that I can go to Greece and see Greek culture, or Japan and see Japanese culture, or Brazil and see Brazilian culture. If every nation was to open its borders and every nation was to become multicultural, then what motivation would I have to visit a faraway culture if I can see the an adulterated version of the same thing at home? Very country will then be the same.

The facts I'm afraid don't agree with you... take this chart from the UK 2001 census for example.

Notice how the entire asian population combined makes up just 4 % of the population, as opposed to the 92.1% white?

America was 90% White in 1965. Forty years later it is about 70%. It doesn't take long for a radical demographic change. It can happen in a generation.

Only 2.7% of of the population are muslim. 2.7%!!!! There's 1.6 million muslims, in a country of 58 million. How does that possibly constitute a religious or cultural threat? It's hardly bleedin' Zulu!

1.6 million moslems. If only 1% are terrorists or terrorist supporters, then you have 16,000 trouble makers, which can cause a huge problem for a country of 60 million. It only took 19 to hurt the US. Noting the radical nature of mosques in your country I have little doubt the percentage is higher than 1%.

Head in the sand? Funny that. According to this page my very own home town has the highest % Muslim population in the UK outside London!! OMG I'm surrounded!!

What was that noise? Quick! lock the windows and grab me gun, Doris!!.. Oh hang on, it's only Mr Shar from downstairs returning the spade I lent him... false alarm!

I have lived most of my life in number. 3 on the list (out of 364), and spent 5 years living in number 4. I live in an asian muslim area. I am white, english, and look to the untrained eye like a skinhead. If anyone is going to notice a cultural takeover it's going to be me.. and trust me, there isn't one.

I have relatives who live in #7 on the list and they disagree with the conclusion you've come to. I'm more inclined to believe them than you when they note the problems of having a large, unassimilated, potentially hostile population of moslems in their area. And this is coming from some fairly liberal people. I suppose you'll only see what you want to see.

Dramatic rises in TB, HIV, crime, and moslem fanaticism are not enlightening.

And neither are they related.

Related to what? They've all found homes in immigrant populations. TB cases are related to various immigrant groups, HIV to African immigrants, crime (including drug trafficking) to Jamaicans (Yardies and drugs), and, of course, moslem fanatacism to moslems.

Drugs, I'm afraid to say, particularly hard drugs, are biggest scourge on society right now, and are the root cause of many of the social ills you mention. Ironically, the communities LEAST affected by drugs.. are.. you guessed it.. the muslims!!

drugs

I never claimed the moslems were responsible for drugs.

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
African immigrants are mostly responsible for the increase in HIV. African and Jamaican immigrants have been responsible for a lot of the increase in crime. Various groups for the increase in TB.

Would it interrupt your flow of poisonous bile to present evidence of these "facts"?

And if this is even debatable, moslem immigrants for the growth of moslem fanaticism. Of all the social problem, moslem fanaticism is the most dangerous.

Is that so? How many people, I wonder, died of "muslim fundamentalism" last year? How many in "terrorist attacks"? How many people's lives were ruined by Islam, last year? Don't you think, perhaps, that drugs, alcohol, guns, crime and staggering ignorance and selfishness are more pressing social problems than Islam?

Muslim "fundamentalism" is a problem, I admit, but no more so than Christian fundamentalism or Nationalist fundamentalism or - well, frankly, Republicanism. Sickening, ignorance-fuelled hate crimes are not the sole reserve of muslims, and should be treated with the same firm hand whatever their origin.

It is you multicultists who wish to impose an ideology on a native population which cannot be undone once begun. And it goes beyond just you in the UK. This is a worldwide thing. Take your multicultist ideas and create your own country in some unoccupied region of the earth.

And yet, we're the ones in the majority. Isn't that funny? It's the multiculturalists who are taking political control of the world, it's the multiculturalists who are setting the ideological and cultural agenda for the next century. The "nativists", however, are a dying breed in every civilised country, and retreating to their seclusionist retreats in Montana.

Being called racist by leftwing radicals is somewhat of compliment.

That's great, because you must get it a lot.

People of other races should be welcome to immigrate, so long as they are assimilible and have an overall true social benefit.

"Overall social benefit"? As defined by who? You? Social benefit is defined by the majority, and as I've already pointed out, your type of politics is being drowned out by it's own death rattle.

People like you treat [internal] diversity itself as some kind of noble end in and of itself. What a poisonous ideology.

Poisonous? Which ideaology, I wonder, is more destructive and antisocial - the integration of all immigrants into an evolving patchwork culture which offers richness and diversity, or a small-minded wall-building exercise where we draw an arbitrary line across the history of immigration and say "anyone after this is out"?

What makes you stronger now? You now have hundreds of thousands of people who have no loyalty to your country.

Again, I know that linking to proof tends to disrupt the flow of the rant, but you really should try.

You had a culture distinct from any other on the planet. It was called British culture.

Guess what? It still is. Are we less British because of the asian immigrants, or the african, or our cousins from Europe? Of course not. Your national identity wasn't forged at the dawn of time, nor must it be defended against those who seek to - *gasp* - help it to evolve. A nation changes every single day, reflecting the changing demographic, psychosocial, artistic, cultural, political, diplomatic and historic realities. The only way you are going to preserve the way your nation is now is to seal the borders, deactivate your TVs and radios, call a halt to tourism...

...oh, and don't forget to turn off your net connection, will you?

You don't ignore the social problems that come with elements of mass immigration just because reality doesn't fit your ideology.

And you don't, to borrow from a quaint local proverb, use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If there are problems in society, you deal with the problems; you don't take some insanely drastic action which solves the current issue, but conveniently feeds your own rapacious appetite for segregation and isolation into the bargain.

Or, to put it another way, if you're going to be a rascist prick, be a rascist prick, but don't try and wrap it up in fraudulent statistics and pseudosociology.

Perhaps, Eastern_Diomandback, you would enjoy this article. And remember: we're in favour of multiculturalism because we are not afraid.

Originally posted by Eastern_Diamondback
America was 90% White in 1965. Forty years later it is about 70%. It doesn't take long for a radical demographic change. It can happen in a generation.

If you're a big empty country short of labour on a major immigration drive, maybe, but even then, within a generation or two, the immigrants will be just as indigenous as the "natives". 1000 years of successful immigration and counting in the UK.

1.6 million moslems. If only 1% are terrorists or terrorist supporters, then you have 16,000 trouble makers, which can cause a huge problem for a country of 60 million. It only took 19 to hurt the US. Noting the radical nature of mosques in your country I have little doubt the percentage is higher than 1%.

Following your arguement, maybe we should chuck out the Irish or the Catholics while we're at it?

Actions and rhetoric are two different things. Many more people will always claim to support radical actions in "theory"; look at the number on this board who advocate nuking Saudi Arabia or torturing terrorist suspects. For the most part it's blowing off steam, rather than anything else.

Of course there are the real terrorists, but they come from every extreme group. The UK hasn't been attacked by ANY Islamic groups on home soil. The last major terrorist attacks in the UK were by the Real IRA (White City and Ealing), and David Copeland (Brixton, Brick Lane and Soho). Both distinctly white AND indigenous.

plus, you'll never guess which political party David Copeland was a member of? That's right... the BNP!! news.bbc.co.uk...

Related to what? They've all found homes in immigrant populations.

You appeared to be relating TB, HIV etc to muslims. Sorry, I'm a bit confused as to which group you have a problem with. There are a lot of different issues you talk about which shouldn't be rolled together because they are not related.

[edit on 16-7-2004 by muppet]

Would it interrupt your flow of poisonous bile to present evidence of these "facts"?

www.newzimbabwe.com...
www.spiked-online.com...:
When I joined my current practice in Hackney some 15 years ago, there was a general expectation that we would soon be looking after large numbers of AIDS cases. It is a large inner London practice in which the main risk groups for HIV - gay men, drug users, immigrants from Africa - are well represented.
www.gangland.net... www.obv.org.uk...

Is that so? How many people, I wonder, died of "muslim fundamentalism" last year? How many in "terrorist attacks"? How many people's lives were ruined by Islam, last year? Don't you think, perhaps, that drugs, alcohol, guns, crime and staggering ignorance and selfishness are more pressing social problems than Islam?

Well you tell me what would have been had that ricin not been discovered. You let me know what your economy will be like after a terrorist attack is launched in London. The moslem fanatacists best weapon is the psycholoy of fear being implemented.

Muslim "fundamentalism" is a problem, I admit, but no more so than Christian fundamentalism or Nationalist fundamentalism or - well, frankly, Republicanism. Sickening, ignorance-fuelled hate crimes are not the sole reserve of muslims, and should be treated with the same firm hand whatever their origin.

You deserve an award for idiocy. Islam is no more problematic than than the others? Show me some examples. The only other groups that behave so barbaric are your ideological comrades, the communists killers in South America.

As for crimes, I think no one here disagrees with punishing the guilty and that violence against the innocent is unnacceptable.

And yet, we're the ones in the majority. Isn't that funny? It's the multiculturalists who are taking political control of the world, it's the multiculturalists who are setting the ideological and cultural agenda for the next century.

You're the majority of what? Of where? Sure, the global elitist politicians are under such a dominion. Politicans use such issue as tools for another election: pet minorities of various races and religions as a guaranteed voting bloc.

The "nativists", however, are a dying breed in every civilised country, and retreating to their seclusionist retreats in Montana.

People who support your ideas fear losing control that they resort to killing politicians who oppose their elitist, global communist agenda. I guess it's ok to kill a Dutch homosexual politician so long as he's a "racist faggot," right? France, Austria, Italy, Germany, Denmark, the nativists have a stronger presence than you can accept. Their existence doesn't fit in with your plans for thought control, it doesn't fit in with the vision of utopia that your kind wants to impose.

Being called racist by leftwing radicals is somewhat of compliment.

That's great, because you must get it a lot.

I only receive it from mental-midget ideologues who use the term as a natural retort to anything they can't debate.

People of other races should be welcome to immigrate, so long as they are assimilible and have an overall true social benefit.

"Overall social benefit"? As defined by who? You? Social benefit is defined by the majority, and as I've already pointed out, your type of politics is being drowned out by it's own death rattle.

Social benefit is an objective concept, however much cultural relativists despise such an idea. Are your people more or less affluent, content, safe, or free because of the immigrants, or despite them?

Poisonous? Which ideaology, I wonder, is more destructive and antisocial - the integration of all immigrants into an evolving patchwork culture which offers richness and diversity, or a small-minded wall-building exercise where we draw an arbitrary line across the history of immigration and say "anyone after this is out"?

WHAT INTEGRATION??? Muslims in Britain are rapidly accepting self-segregation. www.dawn.com...http: //jimball.com.au/Britain-ignores-Muslims.htm

You also just overlooked the major point. Why is diversity an end in and of itself?

What makes you stronger now? You now have hundreds of thousands of people who have no loyalty to your country.

Again, I know that linking to proof tends to disrupt the flow of the rant, but you really should try.

Guess what? It still is. Are we less British because of the asian immigrants, or the african, or our cousins from Europe? Of course not. Your national identity wasn't forged at the dawn of time, nor must it be defended against those who seek to - *gasp* - help it to evolve. A nation changes every single day, reflecting the changing demographic, psychosocial, artistic, cultural, political, diplomatic and historic realities. The only way you are going to preserve the way your nation is now is to seal the borders, deactivate your TVs and radios, call a halt to tourism...

...oh, and don't forget to turn off your net connection, will you?

You are less British if these people don't accept your way of life yet you make no bones about it. It's one thing to look at issues objectively and decide whether they have merit. It's quite another to viciously enforce thought control and cram multiculturalism down the throats of the citizenry with religious zeal, since it is after all a religion-an ideology based on faith and false premises. National growth must occur naurally, whithout coercion and social engineering by those of limited foresight.

And you don't, to borrow from a quaint local proverb, use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If there are problems in society, you deal with the problems; you don't take some insanely drastic action which solves the current issue, but conveniently feeds your own rapacious appetite for segregation and isolation into the bargain.

The "nut" (Uncontrolled immigration and non-assimilation) is the root of the problem.

Or, to put it another way, if you're going to be a rascist prick, be a rascist prick, but don't try and wrap it up in fraudulent statistics and pseudosociology.

It's only fraudulent stats and pseudosociology when it isn't in line with your Marxist/Maoist religion. It's too bad academia is a slave of this faith. It's as oppressive as Islam.

Perhaps, Eastern_Diomandback, you would enjoy this article. And remember: we're in favour of multiculturalism because we are not afraid.

That is a mark of the stupid and ignorant: you're not afraid of the perils in front of you.

[edit on 16-7-2004 by Eastern_Diamondback]

If you're a big empty country short of labour on a major immigration drive, maybe, but even then, within a generation or two, the immigrants will be just as indigenous as the "natives". 1000 years of successful immigration and counting in the UK.

We here were never short on labor, and there is nothing empty about our nation. We enjoy having open land and wilderness. Corporate America decided that they'd rather have masses of aliens with a bone to pic with America in the country working for next to nothing just to pad their pockets with more money. And racial panderers have decided to stake political power in this mass of immigrants.

Following your arguement, maybe we should chuck out the Irish or the Catholics while we're at it?

I'm not fond of the Irish Catholics, so don't get me started on them. I will not support them.

Actions and rhetoric are two different things. Many more people will always claim to support radical actions in "theory"; look at the number on this board who advocate nuking Saudi Arabia or torturing terrorist suspects. For the most part it's blowing off steam, rather than anything else.

Based on the actions of a number of these moslem fanatics, its extended beyond simple theory. So-called theoretical support is the breeding ground for ones who do commit the actual terrorist attacks.

Of course there are the real terrorists, but they come from every extreme group. The UK hasn't been attacked by ANY Islamic groups on home soil. The last major terrorist attacks in the UK were by the Real IRA (White City and Ealing), and David Copeland (Brixton, Brick Lane and Soho). Both distinctly white AND indigenous.

plus, you'll never guess which political party David Copeland was a member of? That's right... the BNP!!

news.bbc.co.uk...

Hey, I never said I support anyone committing acts of violence. I denounce them. The Brits have stopped a few attacks by the moslems in the past. I hope for your sake it's not simply a matter of time before they succeed. Before 1993, terrorist attacks in the US were by leftwing nutjobs like the Weather Underground, Puerto Rican separatists, the racists, both white and black, and anti-government groups. The moslems have taken over since, with the lone exception of Oklahoma City. That act almost completely delegitimized their movement. The point is some groups have mobilized in such a way that they pose a greater risk than the rest.

Related to what? They've all found homes in immigrant populations.

You appeared to be relating TB, HIV etc to muslims. Sorry, I'm a bit confused as to which group you have a problem with. There are a lot of different issues you talk about which shouldn't be rolled together because they are not related.

That's true, and I see why you'd be confused. The problems are related to immigration as a whole. But even here all group are not equally villainous. Indians are quite benign. The Pakistanis and Bangladeshis pose the greatest risk for future danger.