Race realism grows - Post war immigration was a big mistake, says Helmet Schmidt
Robert Henderson
next month criticising post war immigration. Two quotes to give a
flavour:
"We brought in far too many foreigners as a result of idealistic
thinking that resulted from the experience of the Third Reich," he
writes, Germans, who do not naturally warm to foreigners, then found
themselves in the uncomfortable position of playing host to more than
seven million of them, out of a total population of 82 million.
"We have seven million foreigners today who are not integrated, many of
whom do not want to be integrated and who are also not helped to
integrate," says the former Social Democrat chancellor. "We Germans
are unable to assimilate all seven million. The Germans also do not
want to do this, They remain to a large extent xenophobic." Details
taken from Daily Telegraph London 29 3 02
Note by RH
If you want an example of the sheer reckless insanity of liberal
bigots, the introduction of 7 million foreigners into a Germany which
had just perpetrated the Holocaust is probably the best example you can
have. You have just rooted out a minority of millions? Fine, we'll give
you a different minority.
Of course, what Schmidt says is true of all peoples and countries. I
predict further acts of genocide in Europe and the US in the next 50
years. Robert Henderson
--
Robert Henderson
andrew wainwright
posting xenophobic rant at every possible opportunity, trying to stir up the
many thick as pigshit people who post on here.
I get on fine with guys from all races, cultures and religions, as long as
they're nice people. If they've got the same interests as me, and the same
moral values, nothing else matters. Why the fuck can't you?
I agree with your posts on the need for English culture and heritage to be
properly promoted and protected. I believe the English should have their own
parliament, should be represented on the CRE and St Georges day should be
celebrated throughout the land.
.But the England I love is the MODERN, swinging, exciting, multicultural
England. I would not like to go back to the oh so boring , hypocritical
pre-1960s.
If you really loved England, you'd love it for what it is. And you obviously
don't.
welsh witch
"andrew wainwright" <an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in
message news:a84v69$ei2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
******************
Modern England's swinging alright..like monkeys in the trees.
"Swinging, swaping, drugging, shooting, multicultural....yes very
exciting !!
I would certainly wish to go back to times when it was safe to walk in
the street in London after dark...or even in the country after dark.
Where you would hope not to be raped by someone who could be carrying
a death sentence in the form of AIDS etc etc. Where you wouldn't get
mugged for a mobile and if you did get mugged you could expect
horrorified attention from hospital staff not freaked out their minds
by the violence they themselves have to put up with in "Casualty" on
Saturday nights etc etc.
There are many more people out there ie not on these ngs who wish for
that too, I have discovered.
I am pleased to see that Tony B is losing his grip on the country at
last
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/wakeupcall.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/overload.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/wakeupcall.htm
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/overload.htm
Robert Henderson
<an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
>Robert, you WANT genocide to happen, don't you.
Absolutely not, but I am convinced it will. RH
> Otherwise you would not be
>posting xenophobic rant at every possible opportunity, trying to stir up the
>many thick as pigshit people who post on here.
>
I place the facts and the dangers resulting from the facts before
whoever cares to read them. RH
>I get on fine with guys from all races, cultures and religions, as long as
>they're nice people. If they've got the same interests as me, and the same
>moral values, nothing else matters.
Oh yes it does, tribal feeling. RH
> Why the fuck can't you?
>
I get along with people on an individual level, but this is not about
individuals but Man in the mass. RH
>I agree with your posts on the need for English culture and heritage to be
>properly promoted and protected. I believe the English should have their own
>parliament, should be represented on the CRE
The CRE should be abolished and the RRA repealed. RH
> and St Georges day should be
>celebrated throughout the land.
>
>.But the England I love is the MODERN, swinging, exciting, multicultural
>England.
YUK. RH
>I would not like to go back to the oh so boring , hypocritical
>pre-1960s.
How old are you? RH
>
>If you really loved England, you'd love it for what it is.
I love England, not the cankers which have been grafted to it over the
past 50 years. RH
> And you obviously
>don't.
>
>
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
ratnophobia
"andrew wainwright" <an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a84v69$ei2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> .But the England I love is the MODERN, swinging, exciting, multicultural
> England. I would not like to go back to the oh so boring , hypocritical
> pre-1960s.
>
> If you really loved England, you'd love it for what it is. And you
obviously
> don't.
I visited relatives who live on a forces base this week, it was like
stepping back to the late fifties, front doors left unlocked, kids as young
as three walking to friends houses on their own , their bikes left on the
front lawn at night. I for one would love it if things were as 'boring' as
that here in the outside world.
andrewpreece
"ratnophobia" <ra...@thenest.com> wrote in message
news:uapp8.947$0z3.6...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> "andrew wainwright" <an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a84v69$ei2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > .But the England I love is the MODERN, swinging, exciting, multicultural
> > England. I would not like to go back to the oh so boring , hypocritical
> > pre-1960s.
> >
> > If you really loved England, you'd love it for what it is. And you
> obviously
> > don't.
>
individual is not important either. I think that's the point
that RH is making here, the dynamics of the mass population are
unpredictable, it's a non-linear system, and in the end, uncontrollable.
Think
about it, the Germans kill 6 million non-Germans, then 50 years later, there
are 7 million non-Germans in the country again. All the German people are
the same
Mark I model as engaged in WWII, as engaged against the Romans etc. You
really do have to be insanely optimistic to believe that THIS TIME,
every thing will be different. As an experiment in social engineering it is
of immense proportions, and if it goes wrong, of unbelievable fall out.
But of course, this time it's different, isn't it?
Andy
Robert Henderson
<andrew...@onetel.net.uk> writes
>
>"ratnophobia" <ra...@thenest.com> wrote in message
>news:uapp8.947$0z3.6...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>>
>> "andrew wainwright" <an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:a84v69$ei2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> > .But the England I love is the MODERN, swinging, exciting, multicultural
>> > England. I would not like to go back to the oh so boring , hypocritical
>> > pre-1960s.
>> >
>> > If you really loved England, you'd love it for what it is. And you
>> obviously
>> > don't.
>>
>What RH thinks as an individual is not important. What AW thinks as an
>individual is not important either. I think that's the point
>that RH is making here, the dynamics of the mass population are
>unpredictable, it's a non-linear system, and in the end, uncontrollable.
>
Yes. It is how men act in the mass which matters. We imagine the
individual is important because of our self-consciousness and our
culture exalting the individual, but it is merely an illusion. RH
>Think
>about it, the Germans kill 6 million non-Germans, then 50 years later, there
>are 7 million non-Germans in the country again. All the German people are
>the same
>Mark I model as engaged in WWII, as engaged against the Romans etc. You
>really do have to be insanely optimistic to believe that THIS TIME,
>every thing will be different. As an experiment in social engineering it is
>of immense proportions, and if it goes wrong, of unbelievable fall out.
>But of course, this time it's different, isn't it?
>
Quite so. RH
>Andy
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
Doug
Look at the population of ante-bellum W.W.1 England.
You saw an occasional Lascar seaman coming into Town from the
cargo-ships for a few small items from the shops.
So strange to the public eye was he, that children used to follow him
about
chanting, 'salaam sa'b', waiting for his smile and answer of, 'aleicum
salaam, chokra'.
(BTW, those gentle men at all times conducted themselves with a complete
absence of opprobrium, - at all times displaying a chivalrous mien.)
I now walk in the towns and cities and I do not recognise my own
Country.
Everywhere you go it's like walking down Surendrah Nath Banerjee Road.
Though it must be admitted I am not assailed with banners and shouts of
"Jai Hind" any more.
Doug.
Doug
User <Ak...@NOSPAMboxfrog.com> writes
>On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:12:08 -0800, andrew wainwright wrote:
>
>> Robert, you WANT genocide to happen
>
>the thrid world tribes of man, the less of them the more for me, and
>that's all that matters.
>
>They can keep their pathetic food, culture, lit, language and music while
>the developed nations starve them out of existance, it 500 years, no one
>will even remember they ever existed, the alternative is that *WE* will
>not exist in 500 years, swallowed up by the pathetic unwashed masses of
>humanity.
>
>Everything that is England, eveything that is Europian, gone, turned to
>shit by the likes of the Indians, the Asians, and the Latin Americans,
>are you just stupid, or do you love failed peoples that much, kill them
>while they are week, yeah they have numbers, but we have capital and
>techknology, not a fair contest, let them infiltrate, let them get a
>voice, and we are fucked.
>
>Kill them now or seal your own doom. I live in America, it may be too
>late for us here,every worthless fucken tounge on the planet is spoken
>here, the stench of the unwashed thrid world invading forces are so bad
>I may need to fall back somewhere.
>
>, don't you. Otherwise you would not
>> be posting xenophobic rant at every possible opportunity, trying to stir
>> up the many thick as pigshit people who post on here.
>>
>> I get on fine with guys from all races, cultures and religions, as long
>> as they're nice people. If they've got the same interests as me, and the
>> same moral values, nothing else matters. Why the fuck can't you?
>
>europe needed the black plauge of the middle ages, I think the plauge was
>kinder, at least europe rebuilt, let in the forigners, and THERE WILL BE
>NOTHING TO REBUILD, I WOULD RATHER NUKE IT AND SEE THE
>PLANET BURN IN
>RADIOACTIVE HELL FOR THE NEXT 20,000 YEARS THAN LET THE
>UNWASHED HAVE IT.
>
>
>> I agree with your posts on the need for English culture and heritage to
>> be properly promoted and protected. I believe the English should have
>> their own parliament, should be represented on the CRE and St Georges
>> day should be celebrated throughout the land.
>
>
>their culture as well. Their culutre, they are FAILURES hundreds if not
>thousands of years of not being able to create anything of value. They
>outnumber you, by about 20:1 at least, if you don't take them out now,
>you get NOTHING, your children get NOTHING, they will swarm in and devour
>you like locust.
>
> .But the England I love is the MODERN, swinging, exciting, multicultural
>> England. I would not like to go back to the oh so boring , hypocritical
>> pre-1960s.
>
>had troubles even with that, now it's really really bad.
>
>In 1960-1970 we were so prosperous, we could toss away entire CITIES!
>tossed them away like old shoes, that is sucess, that is prosperity, to
>have so much you can afford to do that.
>
>
>Now everywhere you go for thousands of kilometers, traffic jam on a scale
>europe can't understand.
>
>Multiculturalism pffft, garbage, everyother culture on the planet, pure
>garbage, trash, sewage. When I grew up, I only knew english, didn't know
>any other language, didn't care, went though collage, never picked up
>another one, why bother, they are all failrues, they LOST, and the victor
>has every right to claim everything as a prize.
>
>Instead now, EVERYTHING is subtitled in Spanish, in major cities where I
>have always lived, some are in three or four languges.
>
>America, the most powerful nation on the planet, the new roman empire,
>destoryed by the failed tribes of man.
>
>There is no reason on this earth why I should even comprehand another
>langugue, let alone need it to get by, the unwashed masses should be
>beaten down, told you *WILL* do it our way or we will *KILL* you, and
>your entire race out of spite.
>
>> If you really loved England, you'd love it for what it is. And you
>> obviously don't.
>
>America was a colony, if Europe falls to the thrid world forces that have ripped
>America apart, there is no where to fall back to and all of Europe is
>doomed.
Two things occur to me.
One. - "Send us your persecuted, your weary.........!" etc.etc. Have
you ever heard that?.
Two. - You demean yourself by displaying a lack of English Language,
especially in your spelling.
This destroys your argument and makes you the target of derision.
I say this kindly, without malice, and later when you recovered from
your temper you will bless the day I took the trouble to speak to you
thus.
Fear not. - all is not lost for you. You don't need to go to Night
School these days. - or nights.
All you have to do is install Spellcheck into your gizmo and be careful
to make use of it before you press the Connect button.
Do not thank me, or send money.
For once, - you met one of the nice guys.
Doug.
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>In article <a84v69$ei2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, andrew wainwright
><an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
>>Robert, you WANT genocide to happen, don't you.
>
>Absolutely not, but I am convinced it will. RH
Then increasing the likelihood is not a good idea, surely?
>
>The CRE should be abolished and the RRA repealed. RH
So you've said before. However, human nature being what it is, that will
hardly improve race relations.
>>
>>If you really loved England, you'd love it for what it is.
>
>I love England, not the cankers which have been grafted to it over the
>past 50 years. RH
I'll refrain from the obvious comment... :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>
>obviously
>> don't.
>
> I visited relatives who live on a forces base this week, it was like
>stepping back to the late fifties, front doors left unlocked, kids as young
>as three walking to friends houses on their own , their bikes left on the
>front lawn at night. I for one would love it if things were as 'boring' as
>that here in the outside world.
As always, the issue is where to draw the line between order & freedom.
Robert Henderson
<d...@yarlside.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Look at the population of ante-bellum W.W.1 England.
>You saw an occasional Lascar seaman coming into Town from the cargo-ships for a
>few small items from the shops.
>So strange to the public eye was he
One may scour photographs and film of crowd scenes from the beginning of
photography onwards (1840s in effect) and all you will see in Britain is
a sea of white faces until the mass immigration of the post-war years
and even then it took some 25 years before the effects really began to
be felt - when I came to London in 1965 the numbers of black and brown
faces were very few compared to what they are now. RH
>, that children used to follow him about
>chanting, 'salaam sa'b', waiting for his smile and answer of, 'aleicum salaam,
>chokra'.
>(BTW, those gentle men at all times conducted themselves with a complete absence
>of opprobrium, - at all times displaying a chivalrous mien.)
>
>I now walk in the towns and cities and I do not recognise my own Country.
>Everywhere you go it's like walking down Surendrah Nath Banerjee Road.
>Though it must be admitted I am not assailed with banners and shouts of "Jai
>Hind" any more.
>Doug.
--
Robert Henderson
ratnophobia
"Paul Hyett" <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:n3wT79GI...@activist.demon.co.uk...
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, ratnophobia <ra...@thenest.com> stated this
> considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
> >>
> >stepping back to the late fifties, front doors left unlocked, kids as
young
> >as three walking to friends houses on their own , their bikes left on the
> >front lawn at night. I for one would love it if things were as 'boring'
as
> >that here in the outside world.
>
> As always, the issue is where to draw the line between order & freedom.
> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
I don't think that they are mutually exclusive, The people on the base
seemed happy enough and not especially repressed. It was strange to see what
appeared at first glance to be a council estate, but there was no litter and
no graffiti.
It seems to me to be a matter of that word that has been outlawed in
society since the seventies, discipline.
Doug
<ra...@thenest.com> writes
Got it in one.
Doug.
Doug
<DKL...@mindspring.com> writes
>x-no-archive: yes
>"Doug" <d...@yarlside.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
>> Two things occur to me.
>> One. - "Send us your persecuted, your weary.........!" etc.etc. Have
>> you ever heard that?.
>
>tired, your poor, your huddled masses ..." Those appear on
>a poem engraved on the base of the Statue of Liberty -- which
>isn't the Statue of *Immigration*, and they were composed by
>a socialist activist and placed their a couple of decades after
>the Statue was erected. Even then, most Americans opposed
>the sentiments expressed by the poem. But, as usual, the
>enthusiasm of Big Business for cheap labor was more
>influential than the will of the people.
Got it in one. The boasting of the Americans of their affluence and way
of life had to be seen and heard at the time to appreciate its
immensity.
The News films pumped out the incessant mantra,
"It's the Am-a-ir-ican Way!", The while their on leaf soldiers on R&R
on Calcutta's Chowringhee strutted up and down in their suede
calf-length boots and twin, loaded holsters on their hips.
Just like the swagger of John Wayne.
I don't belitlle their little peccadilos.
Half the poor sods were dead within a few months, up the Arakan and over
the other side of the Irrawaddy.
Doug.
-
rAD
well it is spelled.
And you did totally fuck up Emma Lazarus' jew-poem.
rAD
Robert Henderson
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>In article <a84v69$ei2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, andrew wainwright
>><an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
>
>>>Robert, you WANT genocide to happen, don't you.
>>
>>Absolutely not, but I am convinced it will. RH
>
>Then increasing the likelihood is not a good idea, surely?
>>
single man's words. RH
>>The CRE should be abolished and the RRA repealed. RH
>
>So you've said before. However, human nature being what it is, that will
>hardly improve race relations.
>>>
It would, because the English would not be continually insulted and
discriminated against by the state and immigrants. RH
>>>If you really loved England, you'd love it for what it is.
>>
>>I love England, not the cankers which have been grafted to it over the
>>past 50 years. RH
>
>I'll refrain from the obvious comment... :)
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<DKL...@mindspring.com> writes
>x-no-archive: yes
>"andrew wainwright" <an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:a84v69$ei2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> posting xenophobic rant at every possible opportunity, trying to stir up the
>> many thick as pigshit people who post on here.
>
>thousand years, along with plenty of evidence from current
>events, to support his observations -- which, by the way,
>seem not to be wishful. Is reporting the well known facts
>a matter of advocacy to you?
>
Liberal bigots cannot bear facts which conflict with their faith. RH
>> I get on fine with guys from all races, cultures and religions, as long as
>> they're nice people. If they've got the same interests as me, and the same
>> moral values, nothing else matters.
>
> People of differing cultures -- that is, of differing values,
>attitudes, and behavior -- tend not to share the same interests
>and the same moral values. You might have amiable relations
>with certain individuals, but collectively -- by the millions, for
>example -- the individuals tend to impose their values, attitudes,
>and behavior, though certainly a few of those individuals will
>probably speak of you as being "nice" and having the "same
>interests" and "moral values."
>
Succinctly put. RH
>> I agree with your posts on the need for English culture and heritage to be
>> properly promoted and protected. I believe the English should have their own
>> parliament, should be represented on the CRE and St Georges day should be
>> celebrated throughout the land.
>>
>> .But the England I love is the MODERN, swinging, exciting, multicultural
>> England.
>
> Such depth ...
>
>> I would not like to go back to the oh so boring , hypocritical
>> pre-1960s.
>
> So having lots of people in England of varying attitudes, values,
>and behavior has some diminishing effect on hypocrisy?
>
>> If you really loved England, you'd love it for what it is. And you obviously
>> don't.
>
> So being glad that England is less and less
>English is to love England. I see.
Quite. RH
>
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
billy
"ratnophobia" <ra...@thenest.com> wrote in message
news:uapp8.947$0z3.6...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
"ratnophobia"
It was like that, once, throughout the whole of Britain.
In George Orwell's "The Lion and the Unicorn" - related to pre 1939
Britain - he wrote:
"The gentleness of English civilisation is perhaps its most marked
characteristic."
This he wrote when the numbers of what was then called robberies with
violence (what we would now call "muggings") averaged 279 per annum in the
whole of England and Wales, throughout the 1930 decade.
There is probably more than that, now, in one street, per day, in London.
Oh, to be boringly safe in a gentle society!
I could do without Mad Wainwright's swinging, exciting, multicultural -
vicious and unsafe - England.
regards, billy
***************
Jonathan Bratt
ETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
>Oh, to be boringly safe in a gentle society!
Well put - I agree with you as to the dichotomy. I think the two go hand
in hand. Society between - say - the turn of the century and the sixties
was relatively safe, but also IMO boring. That was the 'ossified
culture' I referred to in a previous post. Things were predictable,
there was a strong sense of order, deference and respect for authority.
Doubtless there are advantages in such a society, as there are
drawbacks.
I agree that there has been a considerable change in society over the
last few decades - not all of it for the better. What divides us is
whether one believes that on balance the cost is worth it in the long
run. I believe it is, you do not, and I don't think the difference in
opinion can be reconciled.
--
Jonathan Bratt
Joseph Hutcheon
news:z9iS1VAn...@moseley1.demon.co.uk...
> In article <a8ah3r$4l1$3...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy <jo...@billy100.DEL
> ETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
> >Oh, to be boringly safe in a gentle society!
>
> Well put - I agree with you as to the dichotomy. I think the two go hand
> in hand. Society between - say - the turn of the century and the sixties
> was relatively safe, but also IMO boring.
The old Tony Hancock programme about how boring Sunday was is an excellent
illustration of this. A girl of about my age who grew up in a strongly
Methodist part of Wales told me that the curtains would be kept closed all
day on Sunday in case the children were distracted by something going on
outside. The only book they were allowed to read was the Bible.
> That was the 'ossified
> culture' I referred to in a previous post. Things were predictable,
> there was a strong sense of order, deference and respect for authority.
> Doubtless there are advantages in such a society, as there are
> drawbacks.
It's a curious mixture of pros and cons. In some ways, my children have
more freedom than I did at their age (and my parents weren't particularly
strict). But at the age of seven or eight I could be out all day, every
day, in the summer and as long as I turned up for meals, no-one (AFAIK)
feared that I'd been abducted/assaulted/knocked down by a car.
> I agree that there has been a considerable change in society over the
> last few decades - not all of it for the better. What divides us is
> whether one believes that on balance the cost is worth it in the long
> run. I believe it is, you do not, and I don't think the difference in
> opinion can be reconciled.
But in the long run, as Keynes remarked, we are all dead.
--
Joe
Robert Henderson
<Jona...@aol.com> writes
>In article <a8ah3r$4l1$3...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy <jo...@billy100.DEL
>ETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
>>Oh, to be boringly safe in a gentle society!
>
>Well put - I agree with you as to the dichotomy. I think the two go hand
>in hand. Society between - say - the turn of the century and the sixties
>was relatively safe, but also IMO boring.
Only boring people are ever bored when left to their own devices. RH
>That was the 'ossified
>culture' I referred to in a previous post. Things were predictable,
>there was a strong sense of order, deference and respect for authority.
>Doubtless there are advantages in such a society, as there are
>drawbacks.
>
>I agree that there has been a considerable change in society over the
>last few decades - not all of it for the better. What divides us is
>whether one believes that on balance the cost is worth it in the long
>run. I believe it is, you do not, and I don't think the difference in
>opinion can be reconciled.
--
Robert Henderson
Dr. Sunil
On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
> In article <lnQT$xGJIu...@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
> <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
> >On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
> >stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
> >>In article <a84v69$ei2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, andrew wainwright
> >><an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
> >
> >>>Robert, you WANT genocide to happen, don't you.
> >>
> >>Absolutely not, but I am convinced it will. RH
> >
> >Then increasing the likelihood is not a good idea, surely?
> >>
> These things happen because they are sociologically driven not by a
> single man's words. RH
>
> >>The CRE should be abolished and the RRA repealed. RH
> >
> >So you've said before. However, human nature being what it is, that will
> >hardly improve race relations.
> >>>
>
> It would, because the English would not be continually insulted and
> discriminated against by the state and immigrants. RH
Translation: "Is it because I iz white?"
jackkincaid
> The ex-Chancellor of Germany, Helmet Schmidt is due to publish a book
> next month criticising post war immigration. Two quotes to give a
> flavour:
>
> "We brought in far too many foreigners as a result of idealistic
> thinking that resulted from the experience of the Third Reich," he
> writes, Germans, who do not naturally warm to foreigners, then found
> themselves in the uncomfortable position of playing host to more than
> seven million of them, out of a total population of 82 million.
Is that your quote or his?
>
> "We have seven million foreigners today who are not integrated, many of
> whom do not want to be integrated and who are also not helped to
> integrate," says the former Social Democrat chancellor. "We Germans
> are unable to assimilate all seven million. The Germans also do not
> want to do this, They remain to a large extent xenophobic." Details
> taken from Daily Telegraph London 29 3 02
Who else?
The biggest problem the Germans have is their insistence on blood
return - anyone with any racial claim to be German (not linguistic,
because it includes Russian-speaking Germans from Siberia; not
geographical), despite generations of seperation, may do so.
If applied to Britain this would mean that any white person with a
great, great, great grandparent born in Britain would have a 'right'
to return.
Christian and Social Democrat Germany had allowed this law to continue
from the 1930s while refusing citizenship to people of other
ethnicity.
Funny that the Telegraph, usually the first in line to condemn
Germans, want to report a German former socialist's pearls of wisdom -
does it agree with him that Europeans cannot be trusted? Or does it
agree that ethnic minorities cannot be trusted? Their confusion
reflects the general confusion of conservatives pretty accurately, I
thinik.
>
> Note by RH
>
> If you want an example of the sheer reckless insanity of liberal
> bigots, the introduction of 7 million foreigners into a Germany which
> had just perpetrated the Holocaust is probably the best example you can
> have. You have just rooted out a minority of millions? Fine, we'll give
> you a different minority.
Yeah, that makes sense. Someone commits a terrible moral crime so you
assume he will be forever unable to rehabilitate himself. In
Hendersonworld every generation of Germans should be made to suffer
for the crimes of a previous generation, and should never be trusted
with a loaded immigrant again.
And what was that terrible moral crime? Discriminating against an
ethnic minority (to put it at its very mildest) - which in
Hendersonworld we should assume the Germans will do forever and by
doing so conspire in their criminality.
And, needless to say, in Hendersonworld we should share their
criminality too, by discriminating against ethnic minorities
ourselves.
Oh, and just to add the Orwellian cherry on the cake, it isn't the
people who do the discriminating and oppression and hating of
minorities who are the bigots, it's the people trying to stop it and
find a solution to it!
Amazing.
>
> Of course, what Schmidt says is true of all peoples and countries.
No it isn't. I doubt it's even true of Germany, and when we see
Schmidt's words quoted in full and in context and without the
editorial inteference of the Torygraph, I suspect he will say so
himself.
> I
> predict further acts of genocide in Europe and the US in the next 50
> years.
There will be acts of mass violence in all parts of the world for all
the forseeable future. Such is human nature.
But that's not what you mean, is it? You're referring to the
Holocaust. You are suggesting that white Germans will not only refuse
to give the Turkish gasterbeiter citizenship, they will (being
Germans) massacre them, and if they don't white people elsewhere in
Europe will do so instead. What's the saying? The wish is father to
the deed?
We've been through this before, Robert. I guarantee you, if your
longed-for 'race war' ever comes you and your ilk will be the first
ones swinging from the cities' lamposts. Ordinary people will not take
kindly to middle class fascists stirring up hatred and division in
their society from the comfort of their own; they never have and they
never will.
Meanwhile we have the lessons of history, as well as the EU (and in
its way the USA, which will alwyas be a multiracial society and the
most economically succesful and vigourous one for the forseeable
future), to prevent the desires of easily excitable crackpot bigots
from becoming reality again in Europe. Only a moron would get fooled
by that old line again. Or a Telegraph reader.
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>In article <lnQT$xGJIu...@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>>stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>In article <a84v69$ei2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, andrew wainwright
>>><an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
>>
>>>>Robert, you WANT genocide to happen, don't you.
>>>
>>>Absolutely not, but I am convinced it will. RH
>>
>>Then increasing the likelihood is not a good idea, surely?
>>>
>These things happen because they are sociologically driven not by a
>single man's words. RH
Might I mention a certain German leader?
>
>It would, because the English would not be continually insulted and
>discriminated against by the state and immigrants. RH
That would hardly make white criminals into instant saints though!
Robert Henderson
Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
No, it's because we have a white liberal bigot quisling elite. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
jackkincaid <theov...@another.com> writes
>Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<biXYyZBaee
>p8E...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>...
>> The ex-Chancellor of Germany, Helmet Schmidt is due to publish a book
>> next month criticising post war immigration. Two quotes to give a
>> flavour:
>>
>> "We brought in far too many foreigners as a result of idealistic
>> thinking that resulted from the experience of the Third Reich," he
>> writes, Germans, who do not naturally warm to foreigners, then found
>> themselves in the uncomfortable position of playing host to more than
>> seven million of them, out of a total population of 82 million.
>
>Is that your quote or his?
>>
>> "We have seven million foreigners today who are not integrated, many of
>> whom do not want to be integrated and who are also not helped to
>> integrate," says the former Social Democrat chancellor. "We Germans
>> are unable to assimilate all seven million. The Germans also do not
>> want to do this, They remain to a large extent xenophobic." Details
>> taken from Daily Telegraph London 29 3 02
>
>Who else?
>
>The biggest problem the Germans have is their insistence on blood
>return - anyone with any racial claim to be German (not linguistic,
>because it includes Russian-speaking Germans from Siberia; not
>geographical), despite generations of seperation, may do so.
>
What is wrong with that? RH
>If applied to Britain this would mean that any white person with a
>great, great, great grandparent born in Britain would have a 'right'
>to return.
>
So what? RH
>Christian and Social Democrat Germany had allowed this law to continue
>from the 1930s while refusing citizenship to people of other
>ethnicity.
>
>Funny that the Telegraph, usually the first in line to condemn
>Germans, want to report a German former socialist's pearls of wisdom -
>does it agree with him that Europeans cannot be trusted? Or does it
>agree that ethnic minorities cannot be trusted? Their confusion
>reflects the general confusion of conservatives pretty accurately, I
>thinik.
>>
>> Note by RH
>>
>> If you want an example of the sheer reckless insanity of liberal
>> bigots, the introduction of 7 million foreigners into a Germany which
>> had just perpetrated the Holocaust is probably the best example you can
>> have. You have just rooted out a minority of millions? Fine, we'll give
>> you a different minority.
>
>Yeah, that makes sense. Someone commits a terrible moral crime so you
>assume he will be forever unable to rehabilitate himself. In
>Hendersonworld every generation of Germans should be made to suffer
>for the crimes of a previous generation, and should never be trusted
>with a loaded immigrant again.
>
I don't think Germans would consider it suffering to have no immigrants.
RH
>And what was that terrible moral crime? Discriminating against an
>ethnic minority (to put it at its very mildest) - which in
>Hendersonworld we should assume the Germans will do forever and by
>doing so conspire in their criminality.
>
So, you will sacrifice future immigrants on the pyre of your liberal
bigotry. RH
>And, needless to say, in Hendersonworld we should share their
>criminality too, by discriminating against ethnic minorities
>ourselves.
>
What applies to Germany applies to all peoples. No people wishes to live
in a a mixed society. RH
>Oh, and just to add the Orwellian cherry on the cake, it isn't the
>people who do the discriminating and oppression and hating of
>minorities who are the bigots, it's the people trying to stop it and
>find a solution to it!
>
>Amazing.
>>
>> Of course, what Schmidt says is true of all peoples and countries.
>
>No it isn't.
Learn some history. RH
> I doubt it's even true of Germany, and when we see
>Schmidt's words quoted in full and in context and without the
>editorial inteference of the Torygraph, I suspect he will say so
>himself.
>
>> I
>> predict further acts of genocide in Europe and the US in the next 50
>> years.
>
>There will be acts of mass violence in all parts of the world for all
>the forseeable future. Such is human nature.
>
>But that's not what you mean, is it? You're referring to the
>Holocaust. You are suggesting that white Germans will not only refuse
>to give the Turkish gasterbeiter citizenship, they will (being
>Germans) massacre them,
Either that or expel them. RH
>and if they don't white people elsewhere in
>Europe will do so instead.
It will be a worldwide phenomenon affecting people of all races and
cultures. RH
> What's the saying? The wish is father to
>the deed?
>
No. That the social circumstances will generate the deed. RH
>We've been through this before, Robert. I guarantee you, if your
>longed-for 'race war' ever comes you and your ilk will be the first
>ones swinging from the cities' lamposts. Ordinary people will not take
>kindly to middle class fascists stirring up hatred and division in
>their society from the comfort of their own; they never have and they
>never will.
>
>Meanwhile we have the lessons of history, as well as the EU (and in
>its way the USA, which will alwyas be a multiracial society and the
>most economically succesful and vigourous one for the forseeable
>future), to prevent the desires of easily excitable crackpot bigots
>from becoming reality again in Europe. Only a moron would get fooled
>by that old line again. Or a Telegraph reader.
A liberal bigot whistling to keep his spirits up. RH
+--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>In article <lnQT$xGJIu...@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
>><pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>On Sat, 30 Mar 2002, Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>>>stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>>In article <a84v69$ei2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, andrew wainwright
>>>><an...@wainwright.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>>>Robert, you WANT genocide to happen, don't you.
>>>>
>>>>Absolutely not, but I am convinced it will. RH
>>>
>>>Then increasing the likelihood is not a good idea, surely?
>>>>
>>These things happen because they are sociologically driven not by a
>>single man's words. RH
>
>Might I mention a certain German leader?
>>
Hitler could have done nothing without the sociology being right. RH
>>It would, because the English would not be continually insulted and
>>discriminated against by the state and immigrants. RH
>
>That would hardly make white criminals into instant saints though!
--
Robert Henderson
athomik
news:a8d8qp$des$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Sure, but you also ought to mention that for several hundred
> years anti-Semitism had been wide and deep in the social and
> political consciousness of Germans and Austrians. Hitler
> didn't create anti-Semitism; he merely unleashed it and used it.
>
>
Anti-Semitic pogroms have been part of European history for a very long
time, and were not confined to Germany and Austria.
--
athomik
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then increasing the likelihood is not a good idea, surely?
>>>>>
>>>These things happen because they are sociologically driven not by a
>>>single man's words. RH
>>
>>Might I mention a certain German leader?
>>>
>Hitler could have done nothing without the sociology being right. RH
All the more reason why we need to prevent that particular sociology
from arising here!
>>
>>That would hardly make white criminals into instant saints though!
>
Leaving this part alone I see, Robert!
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>> >>>
>> >single man's words. RH
>>
>> Might I mention a certain German leader?
>
>years anti-Semitism had been wide and deep in the social and
>political consciousness of Germans and Austrians.
I don't deny that, but RH was claiming that a single man couldn't make a
difference. Clearly he is wrong.
athomik
<snip>
>
> I wouldn't label myself as conservative, but I am confused
> about how masses of people whose values, attitudes, and
> behavior differ from or are in conflict with the values,
> attitudes, and behavior of a host society can be expected
> to *enrich*. Or do you believe that fundamental cultural
> conflict is *enriching*?
>
Considering that there are huge differences in the values, attitudes and
behaviour within the 'native', white population of the UK, how do you judge
which difference is acceptable and which isn't? Race is one difference
promoted by some, but then, would a coloured person whose family has lived
here for 100 years (admittedly not common - yet) and has the same interests,
lifestyle and beliefs as myself, more different than a white Brit whom I
have absolutely nothing in common with other than skin colour and language?
Obviously, there has to be a certain amount of compliance to ensure the
smooth running of a country/society, but who decides what is acceptable? For
my part, I'd rather live next door to a 2nd generation Hindu family, who are
friendly, law abiding and well integrated into our society, than a bunch of
white yobs who can trace their family tree back to the Norman invasion, but
are apt to smash your car, pile their garden up with rubbish and threaten
anyone who looks at them in the wrong way with some serious violence.
I believe there are certain standards we, as a society, require to provide
us with the sort of environment we wish to live in. This does not need to
exclude anyone for any reason, other than their unwillingness to accept
those standards and to be a contributing member of our society. Even if the
resources of a country were beginning to be stretched, the remedial efforts
should concentrate on a) maximising the efficiency with which those
resources are exploited, and, b) if exclusion is be applied, it should
target those who are violating the required standards, not groups
arbitrarily chosen because of some characteristic which is not related to
the problem.
Anyway, with the imbalance in birthrates between 3rd world and Western
societies, we face a choice of either becoming extinct in our isolated
little world or trying to create a society which has some chance of long
term survival, irrespective of its exact ethnic/cultural makeup (esp if you
consider that culture is in a constant state of flux, it's not some
unchanging law of nature written in stone for all eternity)
--
athomik
Robert Henderson
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Absolutely not, but I am convinced it will. RH
>>>>>
>>>>>Then increasing the likelihood is not a good idea, surely?
>>>>>>
>>>>These things happen because they are sociologically driven not by a
>>>>single man's words. RH
>>>
>>>Might I mention a certain German leader?
>>>>
>>Hitler could have done nothing without the sociology being right. RH
>
>All the more reason why we need to prevent that particular sociology
>from arising here!
>>>
You cannot prevent sociological events, they simply occur. RH
>>>That would hardly make white criminals into instant saints though!
>>
>Leaving this part alone I see, Robert!
What comment does it require? I have no time for criminals of any
colour. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
Not without the right sociological circumstances. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<ma...@askadrian.co.uk> writes
No. We shall become extinct if we allow the immigration. If we maintain
control of our societies we shall continue as a distinct people. RH
> irrespective of its exact ethnic/cultural makeup (esp if you
>consider that culture is in a constant state of flux, it's not some
>unchanging law of nature written in stone for all eternity)
>--
>athomik
--
Robert Henderson
athomik
> >Anyway, with the imbalance in birthrates between 3rd world and Western
> >societies, we face a choice of either becoming extinct in our isolated
> >little world or trying to create a society which has some chance of long
> >term survival,
>
> No. We shall become extinct if we allow the immigration. If we maintain
> control of our societies we shall continue as a distinct people. RH
>
won't (at least not for very long). We'll be distinct for a while, then
we'll be extinct.
--
athomik
Dr. Sunil
See above.
Robert Henderson
<ma...@askadrian.co.uk> writes
>"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:LreIWWAs...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <a8el0u$r6hqn$1...@ID-109418.news.dfncis.de>, athomik
>> <ma...@askadrian.co.uk> writes
><snip>
>> >Anyway, with the imbalance in birthrates between 3rd world and Western
>> >societies, we face a choice of either becoming extinct in our isolated
>> >little world or trying to create a society which has some chance of long
>> >term survival,
>>
>> No. We shall become extinct if we allow the immigration. If we maintain
>> control of our societies we shall continue as a distinct people. RH
>>
>With the way birth rates in industrialised Western countries are going
Long term demographic projections are worthless. None have ever come
true. RH
>, we
>won't (at least not for very long). We'll be distinct for a while, then
>we'll be extinct.
>
>--
>athomik
>
>http://www.askadrian.co.uk
>
--
Robert Henderson
billy
Jonathan Prat,
The "on balance" factor of which you approve is the "acceptance" of the
perversion of homosexuality.
Well - on balance - I believe that was a great mistake whose cost has yet to
be paid.
There was nothing wrong with previous time's disapproval of a perversion
which went against nature and which has the same mental disorder - in the
displacement of the sexual instinct to the wrong object - as necrophilia,
peadophilia and various other sexual fetishes.
The only arguable "wrong" previous time's committed is in not making
allowances for the fact of compulsion; by accepting the perversion being
enacted in private could be free from prosecution - whilst at the same time
retaining their rightful disapproval.
This balanced view will be the one to eventually prevail as the cost of
"permissive" homosexuality becomes fully realised.
By this and all the other necessary "corrections", we might find our way
back to the "safe society".
regards, billy
***************
billy
> In article <z9iS1VAn...@moseley1.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Bratt
> <Jona...@aol.com> writes
> >In article <a8ah3r$4l1$3...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy <jo...@billy100.DEL
> >ETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
> >>Oh, to be boringly safe in a gentle society!
> >
> >Well put - I agree with you as to the dichotomy. I think the two go hand
> >in hand. Society between - say - the turn of the century and the sixties
> >was relatively safe, but also IMO boring.
>
> Only boring people are ever bored when left to their own devices. RH
>
> Robert Henderson
*******************
Robert,
you have expressed it exactly. I do not believe for one moment that the
people in that "safe time" were bored. They had exciting technical
developments taking place nearly every day. They had the freedom to walk
beautiful and unspoilt countryside and the freedom to walk the streets and
parks of the towns and cities without fear.
They had had a wealth of entertainment available in cinemas, dance-halls and
amusement parks; but, most of all, they had not lost the capacity to make
their own entertainment - as a family affair and at family gatherings.
They also lived in country which they felt was their own - and one which
they were not forced to share with alien cultures.
regards, billy
****************
Robert Henderson
ETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
>>>Oh, to be boringly safe in a gentle society!
>> >
>> >Well put - I agree with you as to the dichotomy. I think the two go hand
>> >in hand. Society between - say - the turn of the century and the sixties
>> >was relatively safe, but also IMO boring.
>>
>> Only boring people are ever bored when left to their own devices. RH
>>
>> --
>> Robert Henderson
>*******************
>Robert,
>you have expressed it exactly. I do not believe for one moment that the
>people in that "safe time" were bored. They had exciting technical
>developments taking place nearly every day. They had the freedom to walk
>beautiful and unspoilt countryside and the freedom to walk the streets and
>parks of the towns and cities without fear.
>They had had a wealth of entertainment available in cinemas, dance-halls and
>amusement parks; but, most of all, they had not lost the capacity to make
>their own entertainment - as a family affair and at family gatherings.
>They also lived in country which they felt was their own - and one which
>they were not forced to share with alien cultures.
>regards, billy
>****************
>
>
technological change in their lives than any generation which had gone
before. Arguably the change was greater than for someone born in 1960,
for in 1880 there were no cars, planes, radio, TV, phones or films,
while electricity was in its infancy. By 1960 all those things and many
more were commonplace, computers and space travel begun and antibiotics
established. What in the sense of being really new has come from the
past 40 years? Mobile phones is about it.
As for entertainment, before TV and radio arrived, there was the full
range of high culture we now enjoy and for the masses, Music Hall, the
most amazing life mass entertainment phenomenon ever was established.
All the popular modern sports were established, country sports were
extremely important and people genuinely created entertainment for
themselves - far more people could sing or play an instrument then.
All this set against the glamour of the Empire.
The generations of 1900-1960 also had to endure a little matter of two
world wars.
For myself, I have never been bored in my life provided I am left to
occupy myself as I choose. RH
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
athomik
> x-no-archive: yes
> "athomik" <ma...@askadrian.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a8el0u$r6hqn$1...@ID-109418.news.dfncis.de...
> > Considering that there are huge differences in the values, attitudes and
> > behaviour within the 'native', white population of the UK,
>
> many Brits practice female circumcision or eat dogs?
Practices which are restricted to certain small areas of the globe (where
there is a growing tide of opposition to such praactices) and which are not
imported (at least legally) into most host countries.
> Do
> you take five wives
Common in certain sections of the white, Christian USA.
> or sell your daughters?
As in slavery or surrogate mothering, 1st World adoption racket?
> Do you favor
> religious totalitarianism?
Jehova's Witnesses (Latter Day Saints), Amish, certain Scottish puritanical
churches, Irish Catholicism? Merely a matter degree.
> Do you stone to death adulterous
> women?
Only happens in a very few places, and is not transferred to Western host
countries. Even the widely publicised case in Nigeria recently, has been
dismissed.
>What you consider to be "huge differences" are
> minor variations on common themes.
>
As I illustrated above, the differences in question on both sides of the
argument are of a similar scale.
> > how do you judge
> > which difference is acceptable and which isn't?
>
> In my town here in Texas, most of us take a dim
> view of opening up a live monkey's skull and
> eating his brains, for example. Acceptable
> differences tend to be those that don't offend
> the locals. It's a judgement call, but most
> people know what is unacceptable when
> they see it.
>
Why would eating the brain be morally suspect, yet treating a monkey exactly
the same for experimental purposes is not?
> > Race is one difference
> > promoted by some, but then, would a coloured person whose family has
lived
> > here for 100 years (admittedly not common - yet) and has the same
interests,
> > lifestyle and beliefs as myself, more different than a white Brit whom I
> > have absolutely nothing in common with other than skin colour and
language?
>
> The problem is really one of culture. When masses of
> people from elsewhere arrive in a neighborhood, they
> tend not to assimilate; rather, they tend to impose
> their culture. That's really the issue.
>
Not in my experience. I believe where ethnic ghettos exist, they are to a
large extent due to developments originating in the days when discrimination
was still rife. I also have yet to experience anyone "different" trying to
impose anything on me.
> > Obviously, there has to be a certain amount of compliance to ensure the
> > smooth running of a country/society, but who decides what is acceptable?
>
> Again, most know it when they see it.
>
> > For
> > my part, I'd rather live next door to a 2nd generation Hindu family, who
are
> > friendly, law abiding and well integrated into our society, than a bunch
of
> > white yobs who can trace their family tree back to the Norman invasion,
but
> > are apt to smash your car, pile their garden up with rubbish and
threaten
> > anyone who looks at them in the wrong way with some serious violence.
>
> I agree. But aren't you using the exceptions as examples
> and thus avoiding the real issue here; that is, that massive
> immigration isn't healthy?
>
I know there are certain trouble spots in the UK, but I live in an area
where most of the 'problems' of immigration are not apparent, despite having
quite a varied ethnic mix.
<snip>
--
athomik
athomik
news:a8fclv$65o$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Jonathan Bratt" <Jona...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:z9iS1VAn...@moseley1.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <a8ah3r$4l1$3...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy <jo...@billy100.DEL
> > I agree that there has been a considerable change in society over the
> > last few decades - not all of it for the better. What divides us is
> > whether one believes that on balance the cost is worth it in the long
> > run. I believe it is, you do not, and I don't think the difference in
> > opinion can be reconciled.
> > --
> > Jonathan Bratt
> *****************
> Jonathan Prat,
> The "on balance" factor of which you approve is the "acceptance" of the
> perversion of homosexuality.
If that is the only devlopment of the last few decades you are aware off,
you obviously missed a hell of a lot. You haven't decided to become a hermit
in 1960, have you? You've got access to the net (ever wondered how *that*
came about?), have a bit of a surf and find out what's been happening in the
last 40-50 years.
--
athomik
athomik
> x-no-archive: yes
> "athomik" <ma...@askadrian.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a8el0u$r6hqn$1...@ID-109418.news.dfncis.de...
> > Anyway, with the imbalance in birthrates between 3rd world and Western
> > societies, we face a choice of either becoming extinct in our isolated
> > little world
>
Do a little research on the population growth rates among the white
population of European countries. (Hint: many are negative or at least
heading that way)
>
> > or trying to create a society which has some chance of long
> > term survival, irrespective of its exact ethnic/cultural makeup (esp if
you
> > consider that culture is in a constant state of flux, it's not some
> > unchanging law of nature written in stone for all eternity)
>
> So any old society will do, no matter what the culture?
> You don't value British culture and don't care to
> preserve it?
>
No. But cultures evolve naturally and do absorb outside influences (US media
culture, Rock& Roll, for example, being US influences which have been
absorbed into virtually every other culture on the planet)
If you look at your own country, a few hundred years ago, the American
culture (ignoring the natives culture for the moment) was distinctly
European. Nobody in their right mind would claim nowadays that US culture as
a whole, is not vastly ifferent from that of most European cultures.
Similarly, a very significant number of Indian influences have found their
way into British culture and even the English language.
There are, obviously, some aspects of certain foreign cultures which prove
to be unacceptable to a host culture, but that does not means that the
process of assimilation is flawed in principle.
--
athomik
athomik
> x-no-archive: yes
> Here in the States in the early 1970s, lots of people
> aspired to zero population growth. It was a popular
> environmental movement. It made sense. Let's hold
> the population at around 200 million and thus preserve
> the natural resources. Unfortunately, massive immigration
> ensued. In any event, without immigrants, our population
> would continue to increase slightly, according
> to some projections. I'm not familiar with any
> society that failed to continue to breed in
> numbers sufficient to preserve itself. Are you
> aware of any?
>
Have a look at
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Pop
ulation_Growth/Population_Growth.htm
or http://www.overpopulation.com/discussion/fullthread$msgnum=429 to see the
way many European countries are heading. (and remember that this is despite
the fact that many countries such as Germany and Italy have had a
significant increase in the rate of immigration)
--
athomik
Dr. Sunil
On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
> For myself, I have never been bored in my life provided I am left to
> occupy myself as I choose. RH
So you ended up on uk.p.m. !
Jonathan Bratt
ETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
>
>"Jonathan Bratt" <Jona...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:z9iS1VAn...@moseley1.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <a8ah3r$4l1$3...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy <jo...@billy100.DEL
>> ETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
>> >Oh, to be boringly safe in a gentle society!
>>
>> Well put - I agree with you as to the dichotomy. I think the two go hand
>> in hand. Society between - say - the turn of the century and the sixties
>> was relatively safe, but also IMO boring. That was the 'ossified
>> culture' I referred to in a previous post. Things were predictable,
>> there was a strong sense of order, deference and respect for authority.
>> Doubtless there are advantages in such a society, as there are
>> drawbacks.
>>
>> I agree that there has been a considerable change in society over the
>> last few decades - not all of it for the better. What divides us is
>> whether one believes that on balance the cost is worth it in the long
>> run. I believe it is, you do not, and I don't think the difference in
>> opinion can be reconciled.
>> --
>> Jonathan Bratt
>*****************
>Jonathan Prat,
>The "on balance" factor of which you approve is the "acceptance" of the
>perversion of homosexuality.
Oh lots more. Emancipation of women, cultural diversity, mobility and on
and on.
>Well - on balance - I believe that was a great mistake whose cost has yet to
>be paid.
>There was nothing wrong with previous time's disapproval of a perversion
>which went against nature and which has the same mental disorder - in the
>displacement of the sexual instinct to the wrong object - as necrophilia,
>peadophilia and various other sexual fetishes.
Yawn yawn.
>The only arguable "wrong" previous time's committed is in not making
>allowances for the fact of compulsion; by accepting the perversion being
>enacted in private could be free from prosecution - whilst at the same time
>retaining their rightful disapproval.
>This balanced view will be the one to eventually prevail as the cost of
>"permissive" homosexuality becomes fully realised.
>By this and all the other necessary "corrections", we might find our way
>back to the "safe society".
Any idea when this might be then?
--
Jonathan Bratt
Robert Henderson
Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>
>
--
Robert Henderson
Dr. Sunil
That bored, huh?!
Robert Henderson
Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020404134105.20017F-100000@biochem>, Dr.
>> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> For myself, I have never been bored in my life provided I am left to
>> >> occupy myself as I choose. RH
>> >
>> >So you ended up on uk.p.m. !
>> >
>> That is one of the things I choose to do. RH
>
>That bored, huh?!
>
--
Robert Henderson
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>>>
>>Leaving this part alone I see, Robert!
>
>What comment does it require? I have no time for criminals of any
>colour. RH
Then you acknowledge that just expelling immigrants would not be a
'magic fix' for crime problems?
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>perversion of homosexuality.
>Well - on balance - I believe that was a great mistake whose cost has yet to
>be paid.
>There was nothing wrong with previous time's disapproval of a perversion
But also no reason to put people in prison for a victimless crime.
>which went against nature
Doesn't contraception do that too? :)
>This balanced view will be the one to eventually prevail as the cost of
>"permissive" homosexuality becomes fully realised.
I don't see a threat - you can't make a person into a homosexual unless
they had that inclination anyway. And you certainly can't undermine a
whole species breeding instinct that way!
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>
>>societies, we face a choice of either becoming extinct in our isolated
>>little world or trying to create a society which has some chance of long
>>term survival,
>
>No. We shall become extinct if we allow the immigration.
I don't understand - are you saying Caucasians will be shipped off to
death camps, or something?
We won't disappear, just the proportion of us will change.
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>
>
>Long term demographic projections are worthless. None have ever come
>true. RH
Then why do gullible people believe the extreme claim that we'll become
a minority in our own country in 60 years (or whatever the figure was)?
billy
Adrain the Afflicted:
extinction is a certainty if people with your views and mad multicultural
sentiments have their way.
It is racists - like me - who will make sure you do not have your way and
the distinction of the white race (who wholly and solely created the modern
world and all that is in it) continues.
regards, billy
**************
Dr. Sunil
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020404171414.20270C-100000@biochem>, Dr.
> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020404134105.20017F-100000@biochem>, Dr.
> >> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> For myself, I have never been bored in my life provided I am left to
> >> >> occupy myself as I choose. RH
> >> >
> >> >So you ended up on uk.p.m. !
> >> >
> >> That is one of the things I choose to do. RH
> >
> >That bored, huh?!
> >
> It takes little time. I feel a duty to keep an eye on you. RH
Note: The unemployed subject has so much time on his hands he's
developing stalker tendencies.
Robert Henderson
Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020404171414.20270C-100000@biochem>, Dr.
>> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020404134105.20017F-100000@biochem>, Dr.
>> >> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For myself, I have never been bored in my life provided I am left to
>> >> >> occupy myself as I choose. RH
>> >> >
>> >> >So you ended up on uk.p.m. !
>> >> >
>> >> That is one of the things I choose to do. RH
>> >
>> >That bored, huh?!
>> >
>> It takes little time. I feel a duty to keep an eye on you. RH
>
>Note: The unemployed subject has so much time on his hands he's
>developing stalker tendencies.
>
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>
>>>Anyway, with the imbalance in birthrates between 3rd world and Western
>>>societies, we face a choice of either becoming extinct in our isolated
>>>little world or trying to create a society which has some chance of long
>>>term survival,
>>
>>No. We shall become extinct if we allow the immigration.
>
>I don't understand - are you saying Caucasians will be shipped off to
>death camps, or something?
>
We shall become a minority in our own land. At that point, all is lost.
RH
>We won't disappear, just the proportion of us will change.
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
Because that fear is based on continuing immigration not native birth
rates. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
I have never suggested it would. However, the crime rate would reduce.
RH
--
Robert Henderson
Ma...@trudgill.org
wrote:
>> you take five wives
>Common in certain sections of the white, Christian USA.
About 30 inbred morons in some backwood does not constitute "common"
by any stretch of the imagination!!
Dr. Sunil
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020404181859.20257D-100000@biochem>, Dr.
> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020404171414.20270C-100000@biochem>, Dr.
> >> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020404134105.20017F-100000@biochem>, Dr.
> >> >> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> For myself, I have never been bored in my life provided I am left to
> >> >> >> occupy myself as I choose. RH
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So you ended up on uk.p.m. !
> >> >> >
> >> >> That is one of the things I choose to do. RH
> >> >
> >> >That bored, huh?!
> >> >
> >> It takes little time. I feel a duty to keep an eye on you. RH
> >
> >Note: The unemployed subject has so much time on his hands he's
> >developing stalker tendencies.
> >
> If you are developing such tendencies, I suggest you seek help. RH
You're the one who's out of work, Robert. I can always get Pall Mall
to get in touch if you're after that cleaning vacancy here.
Dr. Sunil
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
But I thought 'Long term demographic projections are worthless'.
Dr. Sunil
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
> In article <epk98MAT...@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
> <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
> >On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
> >stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
> >>>
> >>>Anyway, with the imbalance in birthrates between 3rd world and Western
> >>>societies, we face a choice of either becoming extinct in our isolated
> >>>little world or trying to create a society which has some chance of long
> >>>term survival,
> >>
> >>No. We shall become extinct if we allow the immigration.
> >
> >I don't understand - are you saying Caucasians will be shipped off to
> >death camps, or something?
> >
>
> We shall become a minority in our own land. At that point, all is lost.
> RH
Survival of the fittest, I suppose. I forget, Robert - did you
contribute the England's gene pool?
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>
>>'magic fix' for crime problems?
>
>I have never suggested it would. However, the crime rate would reduce.
Temporarily perhaps, but the only way to really fight crime is to tackle
the underlying social problems that are at its root.
Once the population see that expelling immigrants didn't have the
desired effect, they'll being looking for another scapegoat.
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>
>>
>>I don't understand - are you saying Caucasians will be shipped off to
>>death camps, or something?
>>
>We shall become a minority in our own land. At that point, all is lost.
Isn't there a contradiction here?
Minorities generally qualify for special treatment, don't they? :)
billy
Adrain the Afflicted,
will you learn to read postings - and thereby avoid wasting time and posting
space.
You will see from the above I was not talking about *my* preferences but
Jonathan Prat's preferences.
His obvious preference in terms of "acceptability" is his perversion. And
the net has nothing to do - as a "development" - with his perversion; unless
you are referring to the number of homo-porn sites it is said the internet
offers.
However, I would used the word "degradation" rather than "development" in
that case.
regards, billy
***************
billy
> x-no-archive: yes> news:a8ham7$rsg15$5...@ID-109418.news.dfncis.de...
> history and heritage and culture in the name of ... what?
***************
D. Long,
I have been following your postings with a great deal of interest, in that
you describe a trend in the USA which is exactly mirrored in the UK.
After the recent race riots in the British towns of Bradford and Oldham, a
report was instituted as to its "causes".
The following is an extract from that report:
By the mid-eighties the focus of anti-racist protest in Bradford had shifted
from political issues, such as policing and immigration, to religious and
cultural issues: a demand for Muslim schools, separate education for girls,
and perhaps more controversially, the confrontation over the publication of
The Satanic Verses. This process was strengthened by a new relationship
between the local council and local mosques. In 1981, the council helped set
up and fund the Bradford Council of Mosques. By channelling resources
through the mosques, the council hoped to strengthen the position of
conservative religious leaders and dampen the more militant voices on the
streets.
As part of its multicultural brief to allow different communities to express
their distinct identities, the council also helped set up two other
religious umbrella groups: the Federation for Sikh Organisations and the
Vishwa Hindu Parishad, both created in 1984. The consequence was to create
divisions and tensions within and between different Asian communities as
each fought for a greater allocation of council funding.
There had always been residential segregation between the black and white
communities in Bradford, thanks to a combination of racism, especially in
council house allocation, and of a desire among Asians to find protection in
numbers. But within Asian areas, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus lived cheek by
jowl for much of the post-war period. In the eighties, however, the three
communities started dividing. They began increasingly to live in different
areas, attend different schools and organise through different institutions.
By the early nineties even the Asian business community was institutionally
divided along community lines, with the creation in 1987 of the largely
Hindu and Sikh Institute of Asian Businesses; of the Hindu Economic
Development Forum in 1989; and of the Muslim-dominated Asian Business and
Professional Club in 1991. The Asian Youth Movement, the beacon in the 1970s
of a united struggle against racism, split up, torn apart by such
multicultural tensions.
(end of quote)
So when you raised the question aimed at the previous poster ("What is
fascinating is your willingness to displace your own history and heritage
and culture in the name of ... what?") the "name of what" is what is
contained in the report. And it is not a nice "what".
regards, billy
***************
billy
> In article <a8fclv$65o$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy <jo...@billy100.DEL
> ETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
> >
> >"Jonathan Bratt" <Jona...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:z9iS1VAn...@moseley1.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <a8ah3r$4l1$3...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy
<jo...@billy100.DEL
> >> ETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
> >>
> >> last few decades - not all of it for the better. What divides us is
> >> whether one believes that on balance the cost is worth it in the long
> >> run. I believe it is, you do not, and I don't think the difference in
> >> opinion can be reconciled.
> >> --
> >> Jonathan Bratt
> >*****************
> >Jonathan Prat,
> >The "on balance" factor of which you approve is the "acceptance" of the
> >perversion of homosexuality.
>
> Oh lots more. Emancipation of women, cultural diversity, mobility and on
> and on.
Jonathan Prat,
the so called emancipation of women was started pre 1939 war. And tell the
people of Oldham and Bradford about "cultural diversity" whose expression is
the periodic burning down of our towns and cities and which requires ever
increasing and pernicious laws to maintain the dangerous farce of the "joys
of diversity".
And what is this "mobility"? Are you on about having a car? A mixed
blessing.
But is you are talking about "social mobility", it has always been there.
regards, billy
**************
> >Well - on balance - I believe that was a great mistake whose cost has yet
to
> >be paid.
> >There was nothing wrong with previous time's disapproval of a perversion
> >which went against nature and which has the same mental disorder - in the
> >displacement of the sexual instinct to the wrong object - as necrophilia,
> >peadophilia and various other sexual fetishes.
>
> Yawn yawn.
Jonathan Prat,
do you deny that the displacement of the sexual instinct on the part of the
homosexual is not of the same order as that of the necrophile and the
paedophilia and that of various other sexual fetishes?
If you do, what evidence have you got to make your perversion distinct from
those others?
again a regards, from billy
**********************
>
> >This balanced view will be the one to eventually prevail as the cost of
> >"permissive" homosexuality becomes fully realised.
> >By this and all the other necessary "corrections", we might find our way
> >back to the "safe society".
>
> Any idea when this might be then?
> --
> Jonathan Bratt
Jonathan Prat,
If you study history, you will see it has a "moral pendulum" which
oscillates between the Permissive and the Puritanical.
An example is the pre Victorian period when immorality, sexual disease and
crime was rife. The Victorians reacted by instituting the moral restraints
which finally led to the immensely orderly and law abiding society of the
late 1800s and which lasted into the period up to the 1939 war.
This happens because people are immensely attracted to moral licence but
when they see the harm it does to society, and the price they have to pay
for it, their moral pendulum swings the other way.
We are now in the swing of the pendulum experience in pre Victorian times of
moral licence and laxity.
It is now being recognised it cannot go on without the sort of brake-down of
society the early Victorians feared.
Permissiveness will have to go the way the Victorians sent it and one of the
perversions which will be a justifiable casualty of the pendulum's swing
will be yours.
I would suggest the trend will be seen in the next decade, The signs of the
reverse swing are now taking place and its swing is an inevitability.
a further regards, from billy
************************
Robert Henderson
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
Only where the elite of the majority are treasonable. RHN
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>
>
They are when based on natural increase. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>
>>>Then you acknowledge that just expelling immigrants would not be a
>>>'magic fix' for crime problems?
>>
>>I have never suggested it would. However, the crime rate would reduce.
>
>Temporarily perhaps,
No. permanently because blacks have a persistent higher offending rate
regardless of the ups and downs of overall offending. RH
> but the only way to really fight crime is to tackle
>the underlying social problems that are at its root.
>
>Once the population see that expelling immigrants didn't have the
>desired effect, they'll being looking for another scapegoat.
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020404181859.20257D-100000@biochem>, Dr.
>> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020404171414.20270C-100000@biochem>, Dr.
>> >> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020404134105.20017F-100000@biochem>, Dr.
>> >> >> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> For myself, I have never been bored in my life provided I am left to
>> >> >> >> occupy myself as I choose. RH
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >So you ended up on uk.p.m. !
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> That is one of the things I choose to do. RH
>> >> >
>> >> >That bored, huh?!
>> >> >
>> >> It takes little time. I feel a duty to keep an eye on you. RH
>> >
>> >Note: The unemployed subject has so much time on his hands he's
>> >developing stalker tendencies.
>> >
>> If you are developing such tendencies, I suggest you seek help. RH
>
>You're the one who's out of work, Robert.
Retired. RH
>I can always get Pall Mall
>to get in touch if you're after that cleaning vacancy here.
No, that is your job. RH
>
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>
>
As you have forgotten, I shall not burden your mind with additional
data. It is obviously too much for you. RH
>> >We won't disappear, just the proportion of us will change.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Henderson
>>
>>
>
--
Robert Henderson
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>
>>
>>Temporarily perhaps,
>
>No. permanently because blacks have a persistent higher offending rate
>regardless of the ups and downs of overall offending. RH
IMO you're ignoring human nature. Besides, if there were no black
criminals, I suspect white criminals would fill the space created.
Robert Henderson
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
You have no reason to believe that white criminality would rise overall.
RH
--
Robert Henderson
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>
>>criminals, I suspect white criminals would fill the space created.
>
>You have no reason to believe that white criminality would rise overall.
I have no reason to suspect it wouldn't, either.
Considering how much money illegal drug smuggling generates, it's hard
to imagine no white criminals stepping in.
Robert Henderson
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 6 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
>stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>
>>>IMO you're ignoring human nature. Besides, if there were no black
>>>criminals, I suspect white criminals would fill the space created.
>>
>>You have no reason to believe that white criminality would rise overall.
>
>I have no reason to suspect it wouldn't, either.
>
Yes you do because white offending rates are lower than those of blacks.
RH
>Considering how much money illegal drug smuggling generates, it's hard
>to imagine no white criminals stepping in.
--
Robert Henderson
Dr. Sunil
You're not 65, though. Therefore out of work.
> >I can always get Pall Mall
> >to get in touch if you're after that cleaning vacancy here.
>
> No, that is your job. RH
Look I know you do get awfully bored these days. These floors are
filthy! I need somebody to clean our lab and computer area while I do
my research!
Dr. Sunil
I see - no children, Robert. Should have thought about that
in your more 'frisky' days!
Ma...@trudgill.org
wrote:
>> Retired. RH
>
>You're not 65, though. Therefore out of work.
>
Since when can you not retire before the age of 65?
Robert Henderson
Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>
>> Retired. RH
>
>You're not 65, though. Therefore out of work.
>
>> >I can always get Pall Mall
>> >to get in touch if you're after that cleaning vacancy here.
>>
>> No, that is your job. RH
>
>Look I know you do get awfully bored these days. These floors are
>filthy! I need somebody to clean our lab and computer area while I do
>my research!
Do get on with your work! RH
--
Robert Henderson
Dr. Sunil
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020408135925.26061L-100000@biochem>, Dr.
> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> >
> >> Retired. RH
> >
> >You're not 65, though. Therefore out of work.
> >
> No. That is merely the state pension age. Many retire before then. RH
Translation: "I cannot find gainful employment - even as a cleaner".
> >> >I can always get Pall Mall
> >> >to get in touch if you're after that cleaning vacancy here.
> >>
> >> No, that is your job. RH
> >
> >Look I know you do get awfully bored these days. These floors are
> >filthy! I need somebody to clean our lab and computer area while I do
> >my research!
>
>
>
> Do get on with your work! RH
Yes, the experiments in the lab are going OK, but the floors are dirty
- I need you to clean them for me.
Robert Henderson
Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020408135925.26061L-100000@biochem>, Dr.
>> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>> >
>> >> Retired. RH
>> >
>> >You're not 65, though. Therefore out of work.
>> >
>> No. That is merely the state pension age. Many retire before then. RH
>
>Translation: "I cannot find gainful employment - even as a cleaner".
No. I am simply retired. RH
>
>> >> >I can always get Pall Mall
>> >> >to get in touch if you're after that cleaning vacancy here.
>> >>
>> >> No, that is your job. RH
>> >
>> >Look I know you do get awfully bored these days. These floors are
>> >filthy! I need somebody to clean our lab and computer area while I do
>> >my research!
>>
>>
>>
>> Do get on with your work! RH
>
>Yes, the experiments in the lab are going OK, but the floors are dirty
>- I need you to clean them for me.
>
Stop using public property improperlyn and get on with your cleaning! RH
--
Robert Henderson
billy
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u+DRDlBC...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
Robert,
Why do you indulge the Prat of the Punjab by replying to his inanities.
His replies are at the level of a backward ten year old.
He tried that nonsense with me, once, but I shut him up with the following
message:
"Prat of the Punjab: When you have something sensible to declare I will
reply."
Give him this appropriate treatment and he will stop wasting posting and
download time.
regards, billy
***********
Robert Henderson
ETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
>> Do get on with your work! RH
>> --
>> Robert Henderson
>********************
>Robert,
>Why do you indulge the Prat of the Punjab by replying to his inanities.
Well, Billy, as someone born when the Empire was a reality, I still have
a sense of responsibility towards our erstwhile imperial subjects. One
as backward as Sunil is especially in need of proper English
supervision. Think of the damage he might cause left to his own devices!
RH
>His replies are at the level of a backward ten year old.
>He tried that nonsense with me, once, but I shut him up with the following
>message:
>"Prat of the Punjab: When you have something sensible to declare I will
>reply."
>Give him this appropriate treatment and he will stop wasting posting and
>download time.
>regards, billy
>***********
>
--
Robert Henderson
Dr. Sunil
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
> In article <a8t70i$ha$3...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy <jo...@billy100.DEL
> ETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
> >> Do get on with your work! RH
> >> --
> >> Robert Henderson
> >********************
> >Robert,
> >Why do you indulge the Prat of the Punjab by replying to his inanities.
>
>
> Well, Billy, as someone born when the Empire was a reality, I still have
> a sense of responsibility towards our erstwhile imperial subjects. One
I am a British subject, actually!
Dr. Sunil
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020408174109.22971B-100000@biochem>, Dr.
> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020408135925.26061L-100000@biochem>, Dr.
> >> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> >> >
> >> >> Retired. RH
> >> >
> >> >You're not 65, though. Therefore out of work.
> >> >
> >> No. That is merely the state pension age. Many retire before then. RH
> >
> >Translation: "I cannot find gainful employment - even as a cleaner".
>
> No. I am simply retired. RH
But getting a jpb would surely earn you enough money to enter
politics.
> >> >> >I can always get Pall Mall
> >> >> >to get in touch if you're after that cleaning vacancy here.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, that is your job. RH
> >> >
> >> >Look I know you do get awfully bored these days. These floors are
> >> >filthy! I need somebody to clean our lab and computer area while I do
> >> >my research!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Do get on with your work! RH
> >
> >Yes, the experiments in the lab are going OK, but the floors are dirty
> >- I need you to clean them for me.
> >
>
> Stop using public property improperlyn and get on with your cleaning! RH
I got official confirmation of my doctorate today - finally!
Dr. Sunil
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, billy wrote:
>
> "Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:u+DRDlBC...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020408135925.26061L-100000@biochem>, Dr.
> > Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> > >
> > >> Retired. RH
> > >
> > >You're not 65, though. Therefore out of work.
> > >
> > No. That is merely the state pension age. Many retire before then. RH
> >
> > >> >I can always get Pall Mall
> > >> >to get in touch if you're after that cleaning vacancy here.
> > >>
> > >> No, that is your job. RH
> > >
> > >Look I know you do get awfully bored these days. These floors are
> > >filthy! I need somebody to clean our lab and computer area while I do
> > >my research!
> >
> >
> >
> > Do get on with your work! RH
> > --
> > Robert Henderson
> ********************
> Robert,
> Why do you indulge the Prat of the Punjab by replying to his inanities.
Osama billy Laden,
In that case, why have you reacted to this thread?
regards,
Sunil
--
athomik
news:a8hdd1$62s$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> "athomik" <ma...@askadrian.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Pop
> > ulation_Growth/Population_Growth.htm
> > or http://www.overpopulation.com/discussion/fullthread$msgnum=429 to see
the
> > way many European countries are heading. (and remember that this is
despite
> > the fact that many countries such as Germany and Italy have had a
> > significant increase in the rate of immigration)
>
> What is fascinating is your willingness to displace your own
> yourself of the foreigners and encourage child birth among
> the natives. Projections aren't inevitabilities.
>
It's not a willingness to displace my history, heritage and culture. History
and heritage cannot be affected by anyone today. It's already happened and
it's unchangeable.
Culture on the other hand, is a very varied and constantly changing
phenomenon. It is always being affected not only by our own history and
heritage, but by outside influences which constantly bombard our society,
now more than ever. In the long term, it is impossible to predict what form
this culture will take. I'm sure the Romans never saw the dark ages coming,
just as the Saxons never dreamt of having French rulers.
What we regard as the English language is an amalgam of fragments from most
of North Western Europe as well as the Romans. Yet I doubt that any Briton
would consider it 'un-British' or regard with the sort of disdain reserved
nowadays for EU matters by some.
The bottom line is, that unless white supremacists of Northen Europe and
North America get together and start reproducing a lot more enthusiastically
than they are now, white people as a 'pure' racial type will dissappear
eventually (just as other racial types are likely to be largely modified in
the long term - even now there is only one small population of islanders in
the Indian Ocean (Anadaman Islands?) which can claim any sort of unchanged
genetic heritage of any length).
This will however have no predictable effect on culture, which is an
entirely unrelated subject and has never successfully been developed within
the sort of artificial constraints envisaged by White Supremacists or other
isolationist group.(which would be particularly unworkable in our global 1st
World culture)
--
athomik
Robert Henderson
Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>
>> a sense of responsibility towards our erstwhile imperial subjects. One
>
>I am a British subject, actually!
>
Nationality Act you are a subject and a citizen. Neither status means
that you require any less supervision. RH
>> as backward as Sunil is especially in need of proper English
>> supervision. Think of the damage he might cause left to his own devices!
>> RH
>>
--
Robert Henderson
athomik
> In article <ePvdFiF8...@activist.demon.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
> <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> writes
> >On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
> >
> >Temporarily perhaps,
>
> No. permanently because blacks have a persistent higher offending rate
> regardless of the ups and downs of overall offending. RH
>
Is this a racial inevitability or is their current predominance in certain
types of crime down to outside influences? In drug dealing, for example, do
you really believe that if all Yardies were deported tommorow, there
wouldn't be just as many white drug gangs by next week? If you create a
vacuum at the bottom end of the social ladder, do you believe that this void
wouldn't be filled by more white people pretty quickly?
Considering that current drug legislation affects both the competition in
the drugs trade as well as the social decline of many users, both of which
are major contributors to the rising crime rates, I doubt that you would see
very much of a long term improvement in crime rates by excluding certain
ethnic groups.
--
athomik
Dr. Sunil
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, athomik wrote:
> the long term - even now there is only one small population of islanders in
> the Indian Ocean (Anadaman Islands?) which can claim any sort of unchanged
> genetic heritage of any length).
Andamans.
Dr. Sunil
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Robert Henderson wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.1020409154810.29471A-100000@biochem>, Dr.
> Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> >
> >> Well, Billy, as someone born when the Empire was a reality, I still have
> >> a sense of responsibility towards our erstwhile imperial subjects. One
> >
> >I am a British subject, actually!
> >
> I said erstwhile imperial subject. Actually, since the 1981
> Nationality Act you are a subject and a citizen. Neither status means
> that you require any less supervision. RH
I have rights and responsibilities in/to this country (eg. the vote
and paying taxes).
Robert Henderson
Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes, the experiments in the lab are going OK, but the floors are dirty
>> >- I need you to clean them for me.
>> >
>>
>> Stop using public property improperlyn and get on with your cleaning! RH
>
>I got official confirmation of my doctorate today - finally!
>
--
Robert Henderson
Dr. Sunil
I can send you a scan of the letter if you want!
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>>>
>>>>IMO you're ignoring human nature. Besides, if there were no black
>>>>criminals, I suspect white criminals would fill the space created.
>>>
>>>You have no reason to believe that white criminality would rise overall.
>>
>>I have no reason to suspect it wouldn't, either.
>>
>Yes you do because white offending rates are lower than those of blacks.
My point was - I believe the white offending rate would rise.
Robert Henderson
Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> I said erstwhile imperial subject. Actually, since the 1981
>> Nationality Act you are a subject and a citizen. Neither status means
>> that you require any less supervision. RH
>
>I have rights and responsibilities in/to this country (eg. the vote
>and paying taxes).
>
--
Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson
<ma...@askadrian.co.uk> writes
>
>> No. permanently because blacks have a persistent higher offending rate
>> regardless of the ups and downs of overall offending. RH
>>
>
>Is this a racial inevitability or is their current predominance in certain
>types of crime down to outside influences? In drug dealing, for example, do
>you really believe that if all Yardies were deported tommorow, there
>wouldn't be just as many white drug gangs by next week?
Yes. Not only that, but blacks are generally more violent. RH
>If you create a
>vacuum at the bottom end of the social ladder, do you believe that this void
>wouldn't be filled by more white people pretty quickly?
>
>Considering that current drug legislation affects both the competition in
>the drugs trade as well as the social decline of many users, both of which
>are major contributors to the rising crime rates, I doubt that you would see
>very much of a long term improvement in crime rates by excluding certain
>ethnic groups.
--
Robert Henderson
billy
> In article <a8t70i$ha$3...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy <jo...@billy100.DEL
> ETETHISBITfreeserve.co.uk> writes
> >> Do get on with your work! RH
> >> --
> >> Robert Henderson
> >********************
> >Robert,
> >Why do you indulge the Prat of the Punjab by replying to his inanities.
>
>
> Well, Billy, as someone born when the Empire was a reality, I still have
> a sense of responsibility towards our erstwhile imperial subjects. One
> as backward as Sunil is especially in need of proper English
> supervision. Think of the damage he might cause left to his own devices!
> RH
>
Robert,
you have the kindly nature of an Englishman - which could be your undoing
because the lesser breeds without that sensitivity and sense of fairness
will take advantage of it.
The Prat of the Punjab has an Asian mind, temperament and disposition - and
is therefore suspect.
It is highly likely he will not respond to kindness but see your kindness as
all Asians do: as a sign of weakness.
regards, billy
***********