Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on April 08, 2006, 01:53:50 pm
-
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,1749555,00.html
-
Now I've seen everything.
-
The BNP has never been a wholey racist organization.
It's just it's got strong anti-immigration policies and it tends to serve as a focal point for the extremists.
-
It has enough racist ****heads in it that I doubt many people would ever have thought they'd get into this situation though.
And policies like forced repatriation etc do tend to argue against it not being wholly racist.
-
The BNP has never been a wholey racist organization.
It's just it's got strong anti-immigration policies and it tends to serve as a focal point for the extremists.
Yes, because a party which wants to repatriate nth generation immigrants to their country of (parent/grandparent/etc) 'origin' (to be fair, currently changed to 'voluntary' repatriation, although critics contend their actual manifesto simply obfuscates the forced part) ,which was founded by the chairman of the National Front (a neo Nazi; John Tyndall, who claimed that liberal democracy was a Jewish tool of world domination that needed replaced with authoritairianism) and is currently led by a Nick Griffin (anti semite/holocaust denier who referred to it as the 'Holohoax' and criticised David Irving for conceding 'some' Jews could have died, called gay people 'repulsive' in response to the 1999 Soho pub bombing of said group, was convicted in 1998 of inciting racial hatred, and who helped host white power concerts in the 1980s - amongst other things), could never, ever, possibly be racist.
-
Personally, I'd rather have a leader who discriminated against ethnic groups I was not a part of than one who tried to march me off to war.
Besides which, none of the BNP's racist policies are feasible. They'd get 'intervened'.
-
Personally, I'd rather have a leader who discriminated against ethnic groups I was not a part of than one who tried to march me off to war.
Besides which, none of the BNP's racist policies are feasible. They'd get 'intervened'.
Yes, we all know you're a spineless coward who would rather exploit the weak than endure the slightest discomfort. But that doesn't make the BNP any less of a repulsive organisation, especially as in order to be able to enact said policies they'd need to be....in power. Y'know, mass support, police and army control, etc.
-
Besides which, none of the BNP's racist policies are feasible. They'd get 'intervened'.
So now we've gone from they're not racist and never were to they're racist but really bad at planning?
-
Slightly off topic but anyway:
The BNP or a similar party will get into power within a generation. Other 15 year olds I have spoken to have said we should ban "pakis" from breeding, and "not let any more of them in." It's like reading a history book on the build-up World War II. Those I have spoken to resent "pakis" doing well in society, and think they should be always below white people in society.
The BNP tap into that and use it to get into positions of power, much like the Nazis did.
There is so much xenophobia that something like World War II is bound to happen, but against Muslims instead of Jews. A lot think this is a good thing.
-
Slightly off topic but anyway:
The BNP or a similar party will get into power within a generation. Other 15 year olds I have spoken to have said we should ban "pakis" from breeding, and "not let any more of them in." It's like reading a history book on the build-up World War II. Those I have spoken to resent "pakis" doing well in society, and think they should be always below white people in society.
The BNP tap into that and use it to get into positions of power, much like the Nazis did.
There is so much xenophobia that something like World War II is bound to happen, but against Muslims instead of Jews. A lot think this is a good thing.
Y'know, I don't think so myself. Because the idiots are always the loudest; but I remember the big community effort to draw together (to make asylum seekers feel safer and included in the community) in the wake of a racist killing of an asylum seeker in Sighthill, the BNP being hounded out of Pollockshields when they tried to capitalize upon the racist killing of a white kid by Asians, or the protests in Aberdeen when the BNP tried to organize a march there. I think there is a worrying (i.e. >0) level of racism, but I'm not sure it's the kind that leads to actual murder or true hate, but rather the stupid excuses for their own inadequacy that get shown up and regretted as soon as the person sees actual true racism and true hatred, and where it leads.
-
Yep. Support for the BNP has actually been falling recently. Not many people are buying their claims that they're not racist. Expressing support for Hitler every chance they get really doesn't help with that.
-
and there goes any chance they ever had of getting any power in the next twent years, it's unfortunate that they are the only real nationalistic party.
-
[q]the BNP being hounded out of Pollockshields when they tried to capitalize upon the racist killing of a white kid by Asians,[/q]
While I don't support the BNP I have to say this is somewhat ironic. The associates of the people who killed that lad, or rather the community that protected them in the immediate aftermath is seen as the victim when someone points out their duplicity. Not only that but our own police admitted to being afraid to investigate racist crimes where asian gangs were at fault for fear of being called racist.
The BNP may be dangerous. Reviling them for not agreeing with us, and ignoring the root problem in all this, is even more dangerous.
As for this particular event, I think it shows the problem when relatively intelligent people try to mass support from relatively dumb people. The upper echelons of any party has a far more focused understanding of its ideology than the petty followers. A good example comes from Freespace and Bosch's NTF "cattle" line. The individuals who chose this candidate obviously actually believe the more moderate public line the BNP uses about how they want to demand better integration. The grass roots has no interest in this, since they're ignorant, often uneducated and driven by hate and fear - they don't want a complicated situation because a complicated situation would require someone else to be in charge. Those who are intelligent enough to comprehend the situation yet oppose ethnic candidates will be the ones who are seeking to hold on to power.
-
and there goes any chance they ever had of getting any power in the next twent years, it's unfortunate that they are the only real nationalistic party.
a) they never had any chance
b) 'only real nationalistic party'?! What do you define as 'real nationalistic'?
-
and there goes any chance they ever had of getting any power in the next twent years, it's unfortunate that they are the only real nationalistic party.
UKIP - nationalism without racism. (I'm thinking of selling that tag line to them.)
-
and there goes any chance they ever had of getting any power in the next twent years, it's unfortunate that they are the only real nationalistic party.
UKIP - nationalism without racism. (I'm thinking of selling that tag line to them.)
Deputy Leader Mike Nattrass once stood as a candidate in the Dudley West by-election as a NBP (New Britain Party), a party known to be anti-immigration and somewhat racist. Source: The Observer 2001
Aidan Rankin - former co-author of the UKIP manifesto - member of the Third Way, a breakaway party from the National Front. Source: The Independent 3 June 2004
Alastair McConnachie - former UKIP candidate - Holocaust denier Source : The Guardian
Martyn Heale – Former UKIP South Thanet Branch Chairman, now Agent and Campaigns Manager - former National Front branch organiser and candidate. Source: The Guardian
Mark Deavin – Post Graduate Student of Dr Alan Sked, a London School of Economics lecturer and UKIP founder – Links to the British National Party Source : The Guardian
It's quite funny when Robert Kilroy Silk (!) calls the party "bloody Right-wing fascist nutters".
-
Yes and almost all of the old guard of the Labour party have links to communism from back in ther college/uni days. That doesn't mean Labour are about to raise the red star over Westminster.
Edit: And at one time I argued vehemently in support of George W. and the invasion of Iraq. I expanded my knowledge of the situation and changed my opinion. Does my earlier affiliation however mean I am automatically at risk of rekindling my unpopular viewpoint? You're applying the same logic.
-
Yes and almost all of the old guard of the Labour party have links to communism from back in ther college/uni days. That doesn't mean Labour are about to raise the red star over Westminster.
(more likely to be a different kind of authoritarian flag nowadays)
Sorry, how many Labour MPs actually stood for seats as Communist party members?
EDIT;
[q]Edit: And at one time I argued vehemently in support of George W. and the invasion of Iraq. I expanded my knowledge of the situation and changed my opinion. Does my earlier affiliation however mean I am automatically at risk of rekindling my unpopular viewpoint? You're applying the same logic.[/q]
It's an entirely different context. There's a difference between, for example, being an idealistic student joining the Communist Party at uni, and being (for example) the National Front branch organizer in Hammersmith.
Interesting to consider this quote of the founder of UKIP, Dr Alan Sked who left in 1997 complaining of extremism, about the party; "aged xenophobes ... meaningless fuddy duddies with very little intelligence". Sked also said that Nigel Farage, a UKIP MP, said "We will never win the nigger vote. The nig nogs will never vote for us." during an arguement over a statement in the membership form opposing discrimination against minorities.
-
It's quite funny when Robert Kilroy Silk (!) calls the party "bloody Right-wing fascist nutters".
And that's before you mention that whole incident with UKIP's Godfrey Bloom saying that you shouldn't employ women of childbearing age on practically his first day as a Euro MP. :lol:
-
Well, Wikipedia says that 90% of England is white and 72% is Christian (with atheist accounting for another 15%), so I think that any sort of "our heritage is under threat" platform is unfounded. Once you start seeing WASPs sliding below 60 or 70%, then it's time to bring out the nationalism card.
-
England or the United Kingdom?
-
Yes, we all know you're a spineless coward who would rather exploit the weak than endure the slightest discomfort.
Remind me again how exploitation of the weak makes me a coward?
So now we've gone from they're not racist and never were to they're racist but really bad at planning?
No, we went from "they're not all bad" to "most of them are idiots".
-
I have to say that I am very happy in life to hate almost nothing considering the nature of hatred. One thing I will fight against is racism, the whole 'we're better than they are' routine is pretty sickening.
-
That's a rather stupid generlization given that, generally speaking, black people have done ****-all.
Not one goddamn thing has ever been done by black people that in any way was even on the same scale as advances and conquests made by whites, 'continentals', Indians and Chinks.
Rome conquered half the globe. The Mongols conquered half the globe. India and China pretty much founded science. Britain conquered half the globe and shaped the world we live in today.
All black people have ever done is promote tribalism and get enslaved. Hell, the only good thing they ever did was the US Civil Rights movement, and even that failed miserably.
-
So now we've gone from they're not racist and never were to they're racist but really bad at planning?
No, we went from "they're not all bad" to "most of them are idiots".
All of them are idiots. There's not a single one amongst them whose policies aren't so warped with hatred that it is in the least part workable.
That's a rather stupid generlization given that, generally speaking, black people have done ****-all.
Not one goddamn thing has ever been done by black people that in any way was even on the same scale as advances and conquests made by whites, 'continentals', Indians and Chinks.
Rome conquered half the globe. The Mongols conquered half the globe. India and China pretty much founded science. Britain conquered half the globe and shaped the world we live in today.
All black people have ever done is promote tribalism and get enslaved. Hell, the only good thing they ever did was the US Civil Rights movement, and even that failed miserably.
Go to wikipedia. Look up ancient egypt and more specifically the fact that it was a multi-ethnic culture. Look up Kush while you're at it.
And stop getting your information from Stormforce.org :rolleyes:
-
Egyptians aren't and never were black.
They fall under my 'continental' grouping, as I can't remember how to spell 'mediteranian'.
And counting blacks as a contributing factor of Egypt's greatness is like saying the British Empire was forged in blood and fire by the British and badgers because there's badgers in Britain.
And I think you should read up on Kush - given that I'm reasonably sure it'll all say "Nubians (Blacks) who got attacked by Egypt and copied them to build strength".
-
And come to think of it, they still got ****ing conquered by Egypt, even after they'd started copying them.
-
And then they invaded Egypt back. Seriously read up on the subject. Several ku****e kings ruled Egypt at one point and there was never any racial distinctions between black and semitic egyptions dispite your assertion that there was.
-
I didn't actually see him assert any such distinction; merely say that Egypt was a majority semitic community and hence the majority of its achievements were by semitics.
-
No, I said Egyptians built Egypt and went trotting around North Africa conquering blacks and enslaving Jews.
And again, you can't use the example of assimilated Blacks rising to power as an indication of their non-sucking, given that there are Blacks everywhere and they only ever got anywhere by leeching off civilizations built by non-Blacks.
-
Modern historians have pointed out several times that the Nubian people were pretty much integrated into Egyptian culture. Kashta is regarded as Egyptians even though he ruled anindependant kingdoms in Kush until he took control of Upper Egypt.
Furthermore you've also ignored several other african civilisations such as Mali, Ghana and Zimbabwe
-
They were only integrated into Egypt because Egypt ****ing conquered them.
And you can whine about black empires all you want - the simple fact is, they never achieved anything close to the levels of civilization, technological advancement and social enlightenment a ****LOAD more non-Black empires have achieved.
Plus, there hasn't been any black empire worthy of a goddamn foot-note in the annals of history since spears were discarded as the primary method of ranged warfare....
-
They were only integrated into Egypt because Egypt ****ing conquered them.
And you can whine about black empires all you want - the simple fact is, they never achieved anything close to the levels of civilization, technological advancement and social enlightenment a ****LOAD more non-Black empires have achieved.
?
Is that why white colonists in southern Africa were so eager to wipe out any remaining vestige of the local black empires? Were they so desperate to remove traces of civilizational advancement that never existed in the first place? Anyway, racists (of any colour) are the kind of people pictured in that Monty Python episode with the Idiot of the Year contest. Tell them to walk under a bar and they'll jump up to make it fall off. Not to mention that, because of their disgust towards mixed-race relationships, ultimately they promote incest... Hm, maybe there's a method here after all, more people born out of incest = more people likely to believe that racist bull****...
Oh, and a lot of the music you listen to (unless your CD collection consists of classical, country and non-black folk music exclusively) is very likely to exist only because of the black people. No blues = no jazz = no rock, no metal, no rap, no funk, whatever. Not to mention that certain types of jazz music are a vital part of the very limited amount of music out there that is not about regurgitating the same damn thing all over again (as nearly all of popular music nowadays), but about pushing the envelope... true jazz (as in not the kind of crap you hear in cafes or on smooth-jazz radio stations) has always been about progress, not always in the hands of black musicians, but usually so.
-
If a monkey gives me a lump of iron ore and I turn it into a sword, that doesn't make the monkey an arms dealer.
By pointing out that rock music - which is white-people music and makes hundreds of millions of dollars for white people every year - was, infact, based in part on black music, you've pretty much just proven my point for me.
Black people had it, and it did nothing. Then white people took it and used it to ensure they could get that new gold toilet fitted in their mansion.
-
Slightly off topic but anyway:
The BNP or a similar party will get into power within a generation. Other 15 year olds I have spoken to have said we should ban "pakis" from breeding, and "not let any more of them in." It's like reading a history book on the build-up World War II. Those I have spoken to resent "pakis" doing well in society, and think they should be always below white people in society.
The BNP tap into that and use it to get into positions of power, much like the Nazis did.
There is so much xenophobia that something like World War II is bound to happen, but against Muslims instead of Jews. A lot think this is a good thing.
There is a reason why there's disagreement to this view, and it centres around the words "other 15 year olds". Seriously, for all you can say about society having regressed in recent years, the effect of globalisation is just too much a goldmine to throw away for mere ideology. And in an age where money = political influence, let's not deny it, you're not going to see the people with the power start implementing Nazi policies which would seriously damage or destroy your links with other places in the world.
-
The BNP are losing ground is because every white kid in London thinks they're black.
LEARN. TO. ****ING. TALK. ENGLISH.
I swear to God, the next time I hear a kid using the words 'bling' or 'bro' I'm going to happy-goddamn-slapthe****outofthem.
-
That's a rather stupid generlization given that, generally speaking, black people have done ****-all.
Not one goddamn thing has ever been done by black people that in any way was even on the same scale as advances and conquests made by whites, 'continentals', Indians and Chinks.
Rome conquered half the globe. The Mongols conquered half the globe. India and China pretty much founded science. Britain conquered half the globe and shaped the world we live in today.
All black people have ever done is promote tribalism and get enslaved. Hell, the only good thing they ever did was the US Civil Rights movement, and even that failed miserably.
The BNP are losing ground is because every white kid in London thinks they're black.
LEARN. TO. ****ING. TALK. ENGLISH.
I swear to God, the next time I hear a kid using the words 'bling' or 'bro' I'm going to happy-goddamn-slapthe****outofthem.
hmmm... if someone had told me a year ago that HLP's daily highlight now would be an0n back and succeeding at racial trolling, I'd have told them they were insane.
-
If a monkey gives me a lump of iron ore and I turn it into a sword, that doesn't make the monkey an arms dealer.
By pointing out that rock music - which is white-people music and makes hundreds of millions of dollars for white people every year - was, infact, based in part on black music, you've pretty much just proven my point for me.
Black people had it, and it did nothing. Then white people took it and used it to ensure they could get that new gold toilet fitted in their mansion.
A gold toilet is what white people (and a host of blacks such as Puff Daddy and co) have turned this music into, that's true. I'd much rather listen to music that was created to be listened to, and not music that is basically a ****-compartment.
And since it's mostly the whites who commercialised rock and rap, they're also, by extension, responsible for the kids speaking gangsta-talk you complain about. No product = no fashion = no mindless imitating.
-
And in an age where money = political influence...
I'm sorry? You're defining the mechanics of politics for the last few millenia as an 'age'?!
-
A gold toilet is what white people (and a host of blacks such as Puff Daddy and co) have turned this music into, that's true. I'd much rather listen to music that was created to be listened to, and not music that is basically a ****-compartment.
Which has no bearing on anything
And since it's mostly the whites who commercialised rock and rap, they're also, by extension, responsible for the kids speaking gangsta-talk you complain about. No product = no fashion = no mindless imitating.
No. White people who preach multi-culturalism are responsible for the kids listening to rap and being idiots.
If they all hated 'niggers' then none of them would try to pretend they're black.
-
And in an age where money = political influence...
I'm sorry? You're defining the mechanics of politics for the last few millenia as an 'age'?!
Yes. Before it was money = political influence - 0.00001. ;)
-
hmmm... if someone had told me a year ago that HLP's daily highlight now would be an0n back and succeeding at racial trolling, I'd have told them they were insane.
He'd be trolling if he was simply saying 'all niggers suck'. Instead he's making a reasoned argument; references would be nice to back it though as it seems a bit flimsy at the moment.
-
I can't exactly go "Well look at this huge, sprawling, Nubian metropolis that never occured because black's suck" can I?
And I shouldn't need references. Every interaction between blacks and whites shows that white people come out on top. In scientific terms, we call that a 'correlative relationship' whereby the level of crime, technological advancement, peace, stability and general health of a civilization all show that more black people means less fun.
If I were to say that the number of blacks in prison proves they're criminally inclined, the classic response of the politically correct brigade would be to say that it's because courts are biased against black people. Fair enough, they probably are. But even that proves my point. Courts are biased because white people were smart enough to make them, take them and regulate them in such a way as to ensure they could **** with people they didn't like - which proves white superiority.
You don't end up on the ass end of society simply by virtue of being oppressed - because there's always reasons why you were oppressed in the first place and why you can't overcome that oppression.
-
By which logic Londoners are better than you since we've set up the system in the country to end up with all the money spent in the south and all your comments against the south are just the disaffected comments of the losing side?
-
I can't exactly go "Well look at this huge, sprawling, Nubian metropolis that never occured because black's suck" can I?
And I shouldn't need references. Every interaction between blacks and whites shows that white people come out on top. In scientific terms, we call that a 'correlative relationship' whereby the level of crime, technological advancement, peace, stability and general health of a civilization all show that more black people means less fun.
If I were to say that the number of blacks in prison proves they're criminally inclined, the classic response of the politically correct brigade would be to say that it's because courts are biased against black people. Fair enough, they probably are. But even that proves my point. Courts are biased because white people were smart enough to make them, take them and regulate them in such a way as to ensure they could **** with people they didn't like - which proves white superiority.
You don't end up on the ass end of society simply by virtue of being oppressed - because there's always reasons why you were oppressed in the first place and why you can't overcome that oppression.
If you're arguing simply on the merits that white people are superior to blacks by reason of our having subjugated them repeatedly due to being smarter or better then it's flawed reasoning; we simply got a better deal from nature.
Genetics obviously designed us for survivability, people with darker skin survive better in equatorial regions and actually require more sunlight than us to prevent rickets. White people on the other hand with our higher body fat percentages and whiter skin are prone to burning, overheating and skin related diseases. We're less prone to rickets and better built for colder climates.
Simply put, white people got a better deal as nature allows us to survive better in a wider range of environments, it's only a marginal advantage for the most part but survival of the fittest quite clearly shows that even a small advantage can lead to a substantial gain. We can live and work in colder environments which allows us to mine further, hunt further and generally take advantage of more resources. More resources = more trading = more power.
Technology pretty much closes the gap but there's a rather significant chunk of history where technology didn't allow fair competition. Consider that if there were more riches (tradeable goods) around the equatorial belt than the colder areas, history might have told a different story.
Anyhow, species in nature have a tendency to oust anything that doesn't conform to their phenotype. Racism is simply a modern day side effect of an in-built instinct. To be considered enlightened we should strive to eradicate racism.
-
Moreso, we got our arses kicked out of all those colonies anyways in, ooh, about a century or so, so we didn't exactly subjugate them for long in any historical sense.
-
I can't exactly go "Well look at this huge, sprawling, Nubian metropolis that never occured because black's suck" can I?
And I shouldn't need references. Every interaction between blacks and whites shows that white people come out on top. In scientific terms, we call that a 'correlative relationship' whereby the level of crime, technological advancement, peace, stability and general health of a civilization all show that more black people means less fun.
If I were to say that the number of blacks in prison proves they're criminally inclined, the classic response of the politically correct brigade would be to say that it's because courts are biased against black people. Fair enough, they probably are. But even that proves my point. Courts are biased because white people were smart enough to make them, take them and regulate them in such a way as to ensure they could **** with people they didn't like - which proves white superiority.
You don't end up on the ass end of society simply by virtue of being oppressed - because there's always reasons why you were oppressed in the first place and why you can't overcome that oppression.
By the same token the six chavs that beat the crap out of you on the street come out on top in the confrontation with you, since:
a) there's six of them and only one of you - superior strategic planning;
b) if they scared you with a knife first - competent use of tools and advanced knowledge of psychology;
c) the stuff they steal from you is easy money, no need to work your ass off the whole week - efficient use of time and energy;
d) the police etc. can do **** against them and the chavs know it - high level of social awareness.
Let's face it, each and every one of them pwns you in every way :p.
-
By which logic Londoners are better than you since we've set up the system in the country to end up with all the money spent in the south and all your comments against the south are just the disaffected comments of the losing side?
Which would be valid if not for the fact that I can simply move.
If you're arguing simply on the merits that white people are superior to blacks by reason of our having subjugated them repeatedly due to being smarter or better then it's flawed reasoning; we simply got a better deal from nature.
And?
Anyhow, species in nature have a tendency to oust anything that doesn't conform to their phenotype. Racism is simply a modern day side effect of an in-built instinct. To be considered enlightened we should strive to eradicate racism.
To be truly enlightened we should accept what made us strong in the first place and continue to promote those values and beliefs which kept other people from caving our heads in with rocks.
Moreso, we got our arses kicked out of all those colonies anyways in, ooh, about a century or so, so we didn't exactly subjugate them for long in any historical sense.
No. We kicked the **** out of them, took all their stuff and looted their culture and resources for anything of value. Then we just kept the land for the hell of it till they could copy us to a sufficient degree to fight us off - and since we'd already took all their stuff, there wasn't really much point in staying and trying to fend them off.
And I remind you that the Queen is still the head of state for most of those nations and they all still pretty much take their cue from Britain anyway.
By the same token the six chavs that beat the crap out of you on the street come out on top in the confrontation with you, since:
a) there's six of them and only one of you - superior strategic planning;
b) if they scared you with a knife first - competent use of tools and advanced knowledge of psychology;
c) the stuff they steal from you is easy money, no need to work your ass off the whole week - efficient use of time and energy;
d) the police etc. can do **** against them and the chavs know it - high level of social awareness.
Let's face it, each and every one of them pwns you in every way :p.
If you consider only the context of that specific encounter and take them as a group. Individually they're inferior. And they only remain superior as a group for as long as it takes me to get my friends to nail them to a wall.
-
Ultimately superiority is born in situations just like the chav incident - a gun, a higher corporate/administrative etc. position, convenient circumstance may take the place of superior numbers - and just as you say, individually the chavs are inferior; but so is the person carrying a gun (the gun not being physical part of him/her), take away the gun and what do you get most, if not all of the time? Same with wealth/standing/power - ultimately they translate into being able to get more guns and/or more people. Convenient circumstance is self-explanatory. Take it all away, and what do you get? Some quivering, mass of flesh, usually begging for the mercy they didn't want to give just seconds before. Regardless of race.
-
Which would be valid if not for the fact that I can simply move.
You can move yet you haven't. The fact that we've tricked you into thinking that the north is superior despite the facts is futher proof of your weakness.
-
And an0n: if you can move, then why haven't you bothered and is WS full of you ranting about the heroin addict brother?
-
You can move yet you haven't. The fact that we've tricked you into thinking that the north is superior despite the facts is futher proof of your weakness.
Yeah, try saying that the next time a train explodes.
-
That was done by northerners! See you're jealous!
Furthermore your answer that you can move shows that the only way you can be part of the south's greatness is by being assimilated. Something you claimed was proof that Kush sucked.
If northeners didn't suck they would have built their own empire rather than loosing every single war they've fought against the south.
-
Let's put it this way:
/me runs
-
North... south.... what the **** lads?
-
He's right! We should be united against the Welsh!
-
North... south.... what the **** lads?
I was making the point in a rather roundabout way that the differences between current conditions between the north and south of England have more to do with history than they do with who is a stronger or weaker people.
-
See, here's what I think: I believe that every nation has a right to have its people be the be dominant group within society, whether demographically, culturally, politically or whatever. This is equally true for Egypt, France, Jamaica and Thailand, and in fact every nation and every culture. So basically, nationalism for everyone. So if it gets to the point where, say, Muslims make up 20% of the population of France and refuse to assimilate, I think France would be perfectly justified in closing down the borders and forcing assimilation. But the opposite is just as true. If Frencmen start moving en masse of the Middle East, I expect the local governments to to everything in their power to preserve the heritage of that nation. Given that a nation as coherent unit is defined primarily by its culture, history, religion, race and so on, once those factors stop being more or less uniform the nations ceases to exist.
It's about money, nothing else. People from poor countries move to rich countries. Which is why I maintain that the best way to preserve a country's dominant culture/race/religion is to have it be poor enough that no one is going to move there. Which means most of the world is in the clear, for now, and the West, on account of being rich, has a potential problem on its hands. But like I said earlier, the point at which you should seriously start worrying is a ways off.
-
Right well no one seems to have even picked up on the largest of my first few posts...
-
We're too busy planning our assault on the Welsh..... I want to say 'fortifications', but they're more like cottages really.