Veteran assaulted on way to Remebrance Ceremony
Discussion
Disastrous said:
TKF said:
DeanR32 said:
XJ Flyer said:
Reverse our immigration policy retrospectively since 1946 through a process of repatriation.The obvious result of which would be all the usual socialist and cheap labour agenda suspects trying to paint that idea as the same thing as genocide.
I keep reading this. Does it read as bad as I think it reads? Reverse our immigration policy? Process of repatriation? I don't get it. I thought I saw a loaf of bread named after me, but it actually said 'thick cut'
Can someone break it down for a dumb ass please
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/racists...
DM said:
Racists no longer bothering to say ‘I’m not a racist, but…’
RACISTS feel it is now socially acceptable to just come straight out with it.
Long-time closet bigot Norman Steele said: “All this ‘I’m not a racist, but… ” stuff? Of course we were racists. It was a charade we had to play out. But no more.
“It used to be that you couldn’t say anything, you know what I mean, otherwise the PC Brigade would be on your back.
“But actually, it turns out times have changed. We’re more mainstream now. You can be racist on buses. In the streets. In newspapers. It’s fine.
“Most people don’t seem bothered. In fact they avoid eye contact and pretend to be playing a game on their phone.
“It gives me hope that people in Britain are becoming more tolerant and accepting of racists.”
RACISTS feel it is now socially acceptable to just come straight out with it.
Long-time closet bigot Norman Steele said: “All this ‘I’m not a racist, but… ” stuff? Of course we were racists. It was a charade we had to play out. But no more.
“It used to be that you couldn’t say anything, you know what I mean, otherwise the PC Brigade would be on your back.
“But actually, it turns out times have changed. We’re more mainstream now. You can be racist on buses. In the streets. In newspapers. It’s fine.
“Most people don’t seem bothered. In fact they avoid eye contact and pretend to be playing a game on their phone.
“It gives me hope that people in Britain are becoming more tolerant and accepting of racists.”
That sounds like XJ Flyer to a T.
This is some for of comedy, yes? Nobody really thinks that still, do they?
You missed my question asking how this would actually work in practice...
Quick one - what about Scottish or Welsh people who've moved to England since your arbitrary 1946? Pack em off back 'home'?
Oh, and by criticising 'reverse racism' you're stating you're a racist, not a nationalist...
Quick one - what about Scottish or Welsh people who've moved to England since your arbitrary 1946? Pack em off back 'home'?
Oh, and by criticising 'reverse racism' you're stating you're a racist, not a nationalist...
XJ Flyer said:
Disastrous said:
TKF said:
DeanR32 said:
XJ Flyer said:
Reverse our immigration policy retrospectively since 1946 through a process of repatriation.The obvious result of which would be all the usual socialist and cheap labour agenda suspects trying to paint that idea as the same thing as genocide.
I keep reading this. Does it read as bad as I think it reads? Reverse our immigration policy? Process of repatriation? I don't get it. I thought I saw a loaf of bread named after me, but it actually said 'thick cut'
Can someone break it down for a dumb ass please
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/racists...
DM said:
Racists no longer bothering to say ‘I’m not a racist, but…’
RACISTS feel it is now socially acceptable to just come straight out with it.
Long-time closet bigot Norman Steele said: “All this ‘I’m not a racist, but… ” stuff? Of course we were racists. It was a charade we had to play out. But no more.
“It used to be that you couldn’t say anything, you know what I mean, otherwise the PC Brigade would be on your back.
“But actually, it turns out times have changed. We’re more mainstream now. You can be racist on buses. In the streets. In newspapers. It’s fine.
“Most people don’t seem bothered. In fact they avoid eye contact and pretend to be playing a game on their phone.
“It gives me hope that people in Britain are becoming more tolerant and accepting of racists.”
RACISTS feel it is now socially acceptable to just come straight out with it.
Long-time closet bigot Norman Steele said: “All this ‘I’m not a racist, but… ” stuff? Of course we were racists. It was a charade we had to play out. But no more.
“It used to be that you couldn’t say anything, you know what I mean, otherwise the PC Brigade would be on your back.
“But actually, it turns out times have changed. We’re more mainstream now. You can be racist on buses. In the streets. In newspapers. It’s fine.
“Most people don’t seem bothered. In fact they avoid eye contact and pretend to be playing a game on their phone.
“It gives me hope that people in Britain are becoming more tolerant and accepting of racists.”
That sounds like XJ Flyer to a T.
This is some for of comedy, yes? Nobody really thinks that still, do they?
And presumably by extension, anyone not a racist would be branded a socialist? Is that worse than being a racist? It's hard to tell in your world, as I get a sneaking suspicion you're quite proud of your views.
Sway said:
You missed my question asking how this would actually work in practice...
Quick one - what about Scottish or Welsh people who've moved to England since your arbitrary 1946? Pack em off back 'home'?
Oh, and by criticising 'reverse racism' you're stating you're a racist, not a nationalist...
Firstly considering that we haven't,as yet,broken up the UK by putting the British Isles back into their seperate nation states the issue of Scotland etc is irrelevant anyway.Repatriation of such being far less of an issue than the need to repatriate alien potentially hostile ethnic groups like the Asian Islamic one.Quick one - what about Scottish or Welsh people who've moved to England since your arbitrary 1946? Pack em off back 'home'?
Oh, and by criticising 'reverse racism' you're stating you're a racist, not a nationalist...
Why is it supposedly racist to make the observation, whereby it is considered by the Socialists as bad to have a ethnic minority president in the case of South Africa.But it is considered as good to have an ethnic minority president in the case of America.All obviously based on the reverse racist colour issue.
Or for that matter the issue whereby the socialists obviously apply selectively racist ideology in the case of supporting ethnic Arab resistance to the existence of Jewish people setting up a Jewish state in the Middle East.
Disastrous said:
XJ Flyer said:
Disastrous said:
TKF said:
DeanR32 said:
XJ Flyer said:
Reverse our immigration policy retrospectively since 1946 through a process of repatriation.The obvious result of which would be all the usual socialist and cheap labour agenda suspects trying to paint that idea as the same thing as genocide.
I keep reading this. Does it read as bad as I think it reads? Reverse our immigration policy? Process of repatriation? I don't get it. I thought I saw a loaf of bread named after me, but it actually said 'thick cut'
Can someone break it down for a dumb ass please
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/racists...
DM said:
Racists no longer bothering to say ‘I’m not a racist, but…’
RACISTS feel it is now socially acceptable to just come straight out with it.
Long-time closet bigot Norman Steele said: “All this ‘I’m not a racist, but… ” stuff? Of course we were racists. It was a charade we had to play out. But no more.
“It used to be that you couldn’t say anything, you know what I mean, otherwise the PC Brigade would be on your back.
“But actually, it turns out times have changed. We’re more mainstream now. You can be racist on buses. In the streets. In newspapers. It’s fine.
“Most people don’t seem bothered. In fact they avoid eye contact and pretend to be playing a game on their phone.
“It gives me hope that people in Britain are becoming more tolerant and accepting of racists.”
RACISTS feel it is now socially acceptable to just come straight out with it.
Long-time closet bigot Norman Steele said: “All this ‘I’m not a racist, but… ” stuff? Of course we were racists. It was a charade we had to play out. But no more.
“It used to be that you couldn’t say anything, you know what I mean, otherwise the PC Brigade would be on your back.
“But actually, it turns out times have changed. We’re more mainstream now. You can be racist on buses. In the streets. In newspapers. It’s fine.
“Most people don’t seem bothered. In fact they avoid eye contact and pretend to be playing a game on their phone.
“It gives me hope that people in Britain are becoming more tolerant and accepting of racists.”
That sounds like XJ Flyer to a T.
This is some for of comedy, yes? Nobody really thinks that still, do they?
And presumably by extension, anyone not a racist would be branded a socialist? Is that worse than being a racist? It's hard to tell in your world, as I get a sneaking suspicion you're quite proud of your views.
IE th former is all about social engineering while the latter is all about getting along in peace within clearly defined nation state boundaries based on ethnic lines.Which is always historically the solution eventually and inevitably chosen when the idea of socialism and/or ethnic integration inevitably goes bad.Wether it be the partition of India,the break up of the former Yugoslavia,or the setting up of the Jewish nation state of Israel.
XJ Flyer said:
Firstly considering that we haven't,as yet,broken up the UK by putting the British Isles back into their seperate nation states the issue of Scotland etc is irrelevant anyway.Repatriation of such being far less of an issue than the need to repatriate alien potentially hostile ethnic groups like the Asian Islamic one.
Why is it supposedly racist to make the observation, whereby it is considered by the Socialists as bad to have a ethnic minority president in the case of South Africa.But it is considered as good to have an ethnic minority president in the case of America.All obviously based on the reverse racist colour issue.
Or for that matter the issue whereby the socialists obviously apply selectively racist ideology in the case of supporting ethnic Arab resistance to the existence of Jewish people setting up a Jewish state in the Middle East.
You're shifting the goalposts all over the place. Why is it supposedly racist to make the observation, whereby it is considered by the Socialists as bad to have a ethnic minority president in the case of South Africa.But it is considered as good to have an ethnic minority president in the case of America.All obviously based on the reverse racist colour issue.
Or for that matter the issue whereby the socialists obviously apply selectively racist ideology in the case of supporting ethnic Arab resistance to the existence of Jewish people setting up a Jewish state in the Middle East.
Firstly - you've mentioned several times the 'true English nation' thereby excluding the other nations and principalities of the UK. Now you're just prioritising 'those from off these here shores' as being more important than your 'true English nation'.
Second - the opposition in the West to South Africa's leaders during Apartheid wasn't because of his colour, but because a significant part of the population weren't allowed to vote. There would be no resistance today if a white leader was elected, because the whole population would have chosen them. Hence why Obama isn't seen as a bad thing (and in my mind, not a specifically good thing either - it's irrelevant).
My grandfather was in what he knew as Palestine after the Second World War. The fight was against those seeking to oppress others, at the time that was the newly relocated Jewish population. Then the Arabic nations got their acts together (rightly or wrongly) and Israel was threatened. Hence we supported Israel. Now, there's broadly condemnation of both sides, for purely seeking their own solution, and not one that suits all parties.
You're looking for ethnic reasons, as opposed to human ones. Once you've found what you believe to be actions that support your worldview you're creating a confirmation bias that merely reinforces what you already wanted to believe.
Same as you're continually stating that if you're not pro 'repatriation' of anyone not 'ethnically English' (using a weirdly arbitrary date) then you're automatically in support of completely open doors to all and sundry. That's not the case. The vast majority of people on here (and in the wider UK) don't give a f
k where you're from, but how you integrate. Pro integration if you will. Of course, when integration occurs, that completely undermines your principle belief - that people from different ethnicities cannot live harmoniously...
Sway said:
XJ Flyer said:
Firstly considering that we haven't,as yet,broken up the UK by putting the British Isles back into their seperate nation states the issue of Scotland etc is irrelevant anyway.Repatriation of such being far less of an issue than the need to repatriate alien potentially hostile ethnic groups like the Asian Islamic one.
Why is it supposedly racist to make the observation, whereby it is considered by the Socialists as bad to have a ethnic minority president in the case of South Africa.But it is considered as good to have an ethnic minority president in the case of America.All obviously based on the reverse racist colour issue.
Or for that matter the issue whereby the socialists obviously apply selectively racist ideology in the case of supporting ethnic Arab resistance to the existence of Jewish people setting up a Jewish state in the Middle East.
You're shifting the goalposts all over the place. Why is it supposedly racist to make the observation, whereby it is considered by the Socialists as bad to have a ethnic minority president in the case of South Africa.But it is considered as good to have an ethnic minority president in the case of America.All obviously based on the reverse racist colour issue.
Or for that matter the issue whereby the socialists obviously apply selectively racist ideology in the case of supporting ethnic Arab resistance to the existence of Jewish people setting up a Jewish state in the Middle East.
Firstly - you've mentioned several times the 'true English nation' thereby excluding the other nations and principalities of the UK. Now you're just prioritising 'those from off these here shores' as being more important than your 'true English nation'.
Second - the opposition in the West to South Africa's leaders during Apartheid wasn't because of his colour, but because a significant part of the population weren't allowed to vote. There would be no resistance today if a white leader was elected, because the whole population would have chosen them. Hence why Obama isn't seen as a bad thing (and in my mind, not a specifically good thing either - it's irrelevant).
My grandfather was in what he knew as Palestine after the Second World War. The fight was against those seeking to oppress others, at the time that was the newly relocated Jewish population. Then the Arabic nations got their acts together (rightly or wrongly) and Israel was threatened. Hence we supported Israel. Now, there's broadly condemnation of both sides, for purely seeking their own solution, and not one that suits all parties.
You're looking for ethnic reasons, as opposed to human ones. Once you've found what you believe to be actions that support your worldview you're creating a confirmation bias that merely reinforces what you already wanted to believe.
Same as you're continually stating that if you're not pro 'repatriation' of anyone not 'ethnically English' (using a weirdly arbitrary date) then you're automatically in support of completely open doors to all and sundry. That's not the case. The vast majority of people on here (and in the wider UK) don't give a f
k where you're from, but how you integrate. Pro integration if you will. Of course, when integration occurs, that completely undermines your principle belief - that people from different ethnicities cannot live harmoniously...
IE it is those like you who are forcing your views on others in a way in which history proves eventually costs lives until someone comes along to put it right by applying nationalist ideology in the form of the nation state.In which case assuming that we aren't prepared to divide this small Island up in a way which provides all of its alien ethnic groups with their own nation states that leaves only one option.
As for 'integration' good luck with that being that all the signs are so far in favour of my argument not yours.At least in the case of the Asian Islamic immigrant community.While if the government and immigrant communities were really serious about 'integration' then there obviously wouldn't be any localised immigrant majorities or immigrant enclaves allowed,or wanted by those immigrant communities themselves.As in all cases human nature and socialist ideology are two opposing things.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 15th November 16:16
It's not idealist at all - in the vast majority of cases in the UK, immigrants integrate. Whether it be the Irish dock workers of East London, or those Muslims who choose to do so (the Irish started out exactly the same - all living together. Gradually that changed. The reason? Mutual respect). The vast majority of Muslims here in the UK do integrate. Not enough though.
I do actually agree with you that in the last 20 years there has been a reduction in the Government's actions to require integration, to the detriment of the country.
That doesn't mean integration cannot occur, or is doomed to failure.
There are issues with uncontrolled immigration. There are problems with insufficient integration of immigrants. There are also problems with those 'natives' that block integration, and indeed closing the borders. For a start, with a naturally aging population, there wouldn't be enough workers to support the elderly.
To say the answer is to pack all immigrants since 46 off 'home' is no solution. At all. For a start, you haven't answered my questions about how you would identify these people (bearing in mind the multiple layers of 'integration' that have occurred since then), how you would expect the recipient countries to integrate a population that has no affinity (or knowledge) of the country. Or its language. Essentially, you've provided no answers at all for your defined problem.
A soundbite of 'repatriate all immigrants post '46' is no solution. It's an aim. How would you actually go about doing it? How would you be able to do it, given that you'd require the support of other 'ethnic nation states' to do so?
I do actually agree with you that in the last 20 years there has been a reduction in the Government's actions to require integration, to the detriment of the country.
That doesn't mean integration cannot occur, or is doomed to failure.
There are issues with uncontrolled immigration. There are problems with insufficient integration of immigrants. There are also problems with those 'natives' that block integration, and indeed closing the borders. For a start, with a naturally aging population, there wouldn't be enough workers to support the elderly.
To say the answer is to pack all immigrants since 46 off 'home' is no solution. At all. For a start, you haven't answered my questions about how you would identify these people (bearing in mind the multiple layers of 'integration' that have occurred since then), how you would expect the recipient countries to integrate a population that has no affinity (or knowledge) of the country. Or its language. Essentially, you've provided no answers at all for your defined problem.
A soundbite of 'repatriate all immigrants post '46' is no solution. It's an aim. How would you actually go about doing it? How would you be able to do it, given that you'd require the support of other 'ethnic nation states' to do so?
Sway said:
XJ Flyer said:
Firstly considering that we haven't,as yet,broken up the UK by putting the British Isles back into their seperate nation states the issue of Scotland etc is irrelevant anyway.Repatriation of such being far less of an issue than the need to repatriate alien potentially hostile ethnic groups like the Asian Islamic one.
Why is it supposedly racist to make the observation, whereby it is considered by the Socialists as bad to have a ethnic minority president in the case of South Africa.But it is considered as good to have an ethnic minority president in the case of America.All obviously based on the reverse racist colour issue.
Or for that matter the issue whereby the socialists obviously apply selectively racist ideology in the case of supporting ethnic Arab resistance to the existence of Jewish people setting up a Jewish state in the Middle East.
You're shifting the goalposts all over the place. Why is it supposedly racist to make the observation, whereby it is considered by the Socialists as bad to have a ethnic minority president in the case of South Africa.But it is considered as good to have an ethnic minority president in the case of America.All obviously based on the reverse racist colour issue.
Or for that matter the issue whereby the socialists obviously apply selectively racist ideology in the case of supporting ethnic Arab resistance to the existence of Jewish people setting up a Jewish state in the Middle East.
Firstly - you've mentioned several times the 'true English nation' thereby excluding the other nations and principalities of the UK. Now you're just prioritising 'those from off these here shores' as being more important than your 'true English nation'.
Second - the opposition in the West to South Africa's leaders during Apartheid wasn't because of his colour, but because a significant part of the population weren't allowed to vote. There would be no resistance today if a white leader was elected, because the whole population would have chosen them. Hence why Obama isn't seen as a bad thing (and in my mind, not a specifically good thing either - it's irrelevant).
My grandfather was in what he knew as Palestine after the Second World War. The fight was against those seeking to oppress others, at the time that was the newly relocated Jewish population. Then the Arabic nations got their acts together (rightly or wrongly) and Israel was threatened. Hence we supported Israel. Now, there's broadly condemnation of both sides, for purely seeking their own solution, and not one that suits all parties.
You're looking for ethnic reasons, as opposed to human ones. Once you've found what you believe to be actions that support your worldview you're creating a confirmation bias that merely reinforces what you already wanted to believe.
Same as you're continually stating that if you're not pro 'repatriation' of anyone not 'ethnically English' (using a weirdly arbitrary date) then you're automatically in support of completely open doors to all and sundry. That's not the case. The vast majority of people on here (and in the wider UK) don't give a f
k where you're from, but how you integrate. Pro integration if you will. Of course, when integration occurs, that completely undermines your principle belief - that people from different ethnicities cannot live harmoniously...
XJ Flyer said:
You've missed the point in which I'm saying that Socialism is actually inherently racist in one form or another.Unlike Nationalism which is a totally different ideology.
IE th former is all about social engineering while the latter is all about getting along in peace within clearly defined nation state boundaries based on ethnic lines.Which is always historically the solution eventually and inevitably chosen when the idea of socialism and/or ethnic integration inevitably goes bad.Wether it be the partition of India,the break up of the former Yugoslavia,or the setting up of the Jewish nation state of Israel.
The problem with your ramblings is that in your insane world all ethnic groups want exactly the same thing and think exactly the same way. It's probably a fair assumption that you are British White with ancestors dating back to before your arbitrary date of 1946? Well that would also describe me and I find your Nationalist views on carpet bombing Bradford and repatriating the darkies utterly putrid. I suspect many others think the same and we don't want to live in a country with racist scum like you.IE th former is all about social engineering while the latter is all about getting along in peace within clearly defined nation state boundaries based on ethnic lines.Which is always historically the solution eventually and inevitably chosen when the idea of socialism and/or ethnic integration inevitably goes bad.Wether it be the partition of India,the break up of the former Yugoslavia,or the setting up of the Jewish nation state of Israel.
TKF said:
XJ Flyer said:
You've missed the point in which I'm saying that Socialism is actually inherently racist in one form or another.Unlike Nationalism which is a totally different ideology.
IE th former is all about social engineering while the latter is all about getting along in peace within clearly defined nation state boundaries based on ethnic lines.Which is always historically the solution eventually and inevitably chosen when the idea of socialism and/or ethnic integration inevitably goes bad.Wether it be the partition of India,the break up of the former Yugoslavia,or the setting up of the Jewish nation state of Israel.
The problem with your ramblings is that in your insane world all ethnic groups want exactly the same thing and think exactly the same way. It's probably a fair assumption that you are British White with ancestors dating back to before your arbitrary date of 1946? Well that would also describe me and I find your Nationalist views on carpet bombing Bradford and repatriating the darkies utterly putrid. I suspect many others think the same and we don't want to live in a country with racist scum like you.IE th former is all about social engineering while the latter is all about getting along in peace within clearly defined nation state boundaries based on ethnic lines.Which is always historically the solution eventually and inevitably chosen when the idea of socialism and/or ethnic integration inevitably goes bad.Wether it be the partition of India,the break up of the former Yugoslavia,or the setting up of the Jewish nation state of Israel.
TKF said:
XJ Flyer said:
You've missed the point in which I'm saying that Socialism is actually inherently racist in one form or another.Unlike Nationalism which is a totally different ideology.
IE th former is all about social engineering while the latter is all about getting along in peace within clearly defined nation state boundaries based on ethnic lines.Which is always historically the solution eventually and inevitably chosen when the idea of socialism and/or ethnic integration inevitably goes bad.Wether it be the partition of India,the break up of the former Yugoslavia,or the setting up of the Jewish nation state of Israel.
The problem with your ramblings is that in your insane world all ethnic groups want exactly the same thing and think exactly the same way. It's probably a fair assumption that you are British White with ancestors dating back to before your arbitrary date of 1946? Well that would also describe me and I find your Nationalist views on carpet bombing Bradford and repatriating the darkies utterly putrid. I suspect many others think the same and we don't want to live in a country with racist scum like you.IE th former is all about social engineering while the latter is all about getting along in peace within clearly defined nation state boundaries based on ethnic lines.Which is always historically the solution eventually and inevitably chosen when the idea of socialism and/or ethnic integration inevitably goes bad.Wether it be the partition of India,the break up of the former Yugoslavia,or the setting up of the Jewish nation state of Israel.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 15th November 18:14
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 15th November 18:16
Sway said:
XJ Flyer said:
TKF said:
An actual lunatic
While just as Germany thought that spreading its population outside its own borders supposedly equals nationalism then.The idea of filling Scotland with immigrant ethnic communities,thereby creating a non ethnic Scottish majority,supposedly being a nationalist policy is just as insane now.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 15th November 20:09
Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 15th November 20:24
You think either of those nations will disagree that:
You're a lunatic (who still hasn't answered my questions about how you'd actually go about implementing your 'solution')
And
The SNP are lunatics.
I very much doubt they would...
You do realise that Israel has quite a few Arabs living there as citizens, with no apparent desire to 'repatriate' them?
20% of their population, full enfranchisement (indeed pretty much the only country in the region where Arabic women have the vote), held governmental posts...
Sound pretty integrated to me. Only differentiation is they're not required to do military service (although many do).
You're a lunatic (who still hasn't answered my questions about how you'd actually go about implementing your 'solution')
And
The SNP are lunatics.
I very much doubt they would...
You do realise that Israel has quite a few Arabs living there as citizens, with no apparent desire to 'repatriate' them?
20% of their population, full enfranchisement (indeed pretty much the only country in the region where Arabic women have the vote), held governmental posts...
Sound pretty integrated to me. Only differentiation is they're not required to do military service (although many do).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff