Race realism grows - BBC says "Why should the British have to change their ways" shock!
Robert Henderson
the subject of national identity and the end of multiculturalism.
Many of the callers were unambiguously anti-immigrant and particularly
resolute in their objections to Islam (they would not have got one air
even six months ago).
Even more interesting was Worricker's behaviour. At one point he said to
one of the more aggressive Muslim callers who was pushing the "The
British must change to accommodate us" line "Why should the British do
that?".
The only studio guests were both Muslim (no white English, pro-English
guests, natch - things do not change all at once ). When one of them
interjected to someone criticising Islam with "Do we have to listen to
this crap?" he was met by Worricker saying "Let him finish". A
stunned Muslim studio presence silence ensued as the BBC's usual liberal
bigot cringing appeasement of Muslims failed to work. RH
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
che guevara
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>The Radio 5 phone-in of 5 April hosted by Julian Worricker addressed
>the subject of national identity and the end of multiculturalism.
>
>Many of the callers were unambiguously anti-immigrant and particularly
>resolute in their objections to Islam (they would not have got one air
>even six months ago).
>
>Even more interesting was Worricker's behaviour. At one point he said to
>one of the more aggressive Muslim callers who was pushing the "The
>British must change to accommodate us" line "Why should the British do
>that?".
>
>The only studio guests were both Muslim (no white English, pro-English
>guests, natch - things do not change all at once ). When one of them
>interjected to someone criticising Islam with "Do we have to listen to
>this crap?" he was met by Worricker saying "Let him finish". A
>stunned Muslim studio presence silence ensued as the BBC's usual liberal
>bigot cringing appeasement of Muslims failed to work. RH
'the times the are a-changing' (R Zimmerman, 1960s summat)
'and merrily i say so, tra la la' (Che, April 5th 2004)
now for my plan: those who don't like it here should be ordered to apply
to emigrate to a muslim country of their choice. if they decline to do
so, they should be shipped to currently uninhabited scottish islands,
where we will have erected for them a mini muslim town or village, but
where they will still be subjected to UK law.
i can't think of a better plan.
oh, and those who burn the union jack and chant that bin liner's on his
way should be clapped up inside. with bliar for company.
and no, i am of the centre, usually centre left, but i saw all this shit
coming long-ish ago. a very astute former diplomatic warned me of it in
the 1980s.
che
Maria
Knickers. Why should Scotland have to put up with them? Why not deport
them to wherever their origins are?
che guevara
<ivegot6kidsooerhowt...@ntlworld.com> writes
their origins may well be....England.
they can make hand-sewn haggis bags for the wee scottish fellahs and be
forced to pray to allah every 5 seconds, 24/7.
--
che
David Platt
Robert Henderson wrote:
> The Radio 5 phone-in of 5 April hosted by Julian Worricker addressed
> the subject of national identity and the end of multiculturalism.
>
> Many of the callers were unambiguously anti-immigrant and particularly
> resolute in their objections to Islam (they would not have got one air
> even six months ago).
People, and even the 'lovies' in the media it seems are finally waking
up to what has been unfolding in front of their faces for so many years.
The crux of the matter now is, is there still time to reverse the trend,
how do you tell millions that it's time to go home without causing chaos?
Maybe we already have been told the answer to this by a great statesman
back in 1968, who was ridiculed for his sage advice.
Aramis Gunton
writes
>The crux of the matter now is, is there still time to reverse the
>trend,
>how do you tell millions that it's time to go home without causing chaos?
Heat the tin roof slowly. Eventually only the rabid pussies will be left
hot footing it and they can be justifiably 'put to sleep'
--
Aramis Gunton
Peter
> The Radio 5 phone-in of 5 April hosted by Julian Worricker addressed
> the subject of national identity and the end of multiculturalism.
>
> Many of the callers were unambiguously anti-immigrant and particularly
> resolute in their objections to Islam (they would not have got one air
> even six months ago).
>
> Even more interesting was Worricker's behaviour. At one point he said to
> one of the more aggressive Muslim callers who was pushing the "The
> British must change to accommodate us" line "Why should the British do
> that?".
>
> The only studio guests were both Muslim (no white English, pro-English
> guests, natch - things do not change all at once ). When one of them
> interjected to someone criticising Islam with "Do we have to listen to
> this crap?" he was met by Worricker saying "Let him finish". A
> stunned Muslim studio presence silence ensued as the BBC's usual liberal
> bigot cringing appeasement of Muslims failed to work. RH
I caught a little of this myself. I have noticed a shift over the past
week or so in the normally pc sensitive BBC. It has not changed completely
though, as an asian identifying 'the muslim problem' as the main challenge
to racial integration during the phone-in was quickly censored by the
muslim contributor. However, the muslim contributor himself was great
overall, calling for support for a british identity and rejection of
multi-culturalism in stark contrast to a pc-obsessed black contributor. I
enjoyed the way the muslim told the truth that muslims were simply more
difficult to integrate into british society due to their emotional
allegiance to, for example, pakistan and islam, than other ethnic groups.
Let's be clear, it is white people who have imposed pc concepts on white
people. Muslims did not instigate this nonsense, but the left-wing british
establishment, using third world peoples as a battering ram against british
national identity. It was gratifying to see a muslim defend britishness.
This is a sad trend, though, that only a gay man, pim fortuyn, and anyone
else who cannot be conveniently branded a right-wing extremist are the only
ones who gain headway in such a debate in the western media. This
underlines the continuing power of political correctness.
Overall I really enjoyed the steady stream of the ordinary white people,
though, who phoned in and voiced serious concerns about political
correctness and multiculturalism, supported by the muslim. This sort of
programme would not have been possible unless the establishment had not
realised that sweeping under the carpet racial tensions and objections to
multiculturalism was no longer effective. Especially with threat of a
muslim bomb in britain ready to rip apart the current consensus. I just
hope it does not take the deaths of british people to disprove the
multicultural model as it stands; I hope the tactical retreat of the forces
of political correctness turns into a major reverse.
anone...@spam.nothanks
<cubedr...@cubedrum.doc> wrote:
>>The only studio guests were both Muslim (no white English, pro-English
>>guests, natch - things do not change all at once ). When one of them
>>interjected to someone criticising Islam with "Do we have to listen to
>>this crap?" he was met by Worricker saying "Let him finish". A
>>stunned Muslim studio presence silence ensued as the BBC's usual liberal
>>bigot cringing appeasement of Muslims failed to work. RH
>
>'the times the are a-changing' (R Zimmerman, 1960s summat)
>
>'and merrily i say so, tra la la' (Che, April 5th 2004)
>
>now for my plan: those who don't like it here should be ordered to apply
>to emigrate to a muslim country of their choice. if they decline to do
>so, they should be shipped to currently uninhabited scottish islands,
>where we will have erected for them a mini muslim town or village, but
>where they will still be subjected to UK law.
>
>i can't think of a better plan.
Which is why everyone ignores you
John Bull
"Peter" <peter_d...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a6r6lfnd0wi2.jjt5biwme8hy$.dlg@40tude.net...
Peter!, I am a thorough going bastard according to some people on this NG,
thank fuck, my message is getting across:-))
I would however like to shake your hand for a superbly considered and
written piece!
The race realists are finally making their mark upon this world, even the
darkies are beginning to see the light.
Strange then that so many posters on this ng can't, maybe they'll be the
rats who won't escape the sinking ship, I do hope so:-))
Stephen Glynn
A few points, though.
First -- and I keep on asking this question, and never get a satisfactory
answer -- what do people mean when they talk about "multiculturalism" and
"integration"? I think I know what I mean by the terms, which is
essentially getting on with your own life and letting other people get on
with theirs. If their beliefs or cultural background or whatever lead
them to do something that might be perfectly acceptable where they come from
but isn't acceptable here then they've got problems and might be very well
advised to move somewhere where these cultural practices are more
acceptable, whether it's driving on the right-hand-side of the road or
whatever else. I don't, by the way, buy into the idea that "honour
killings", for example, are particularly "culturally acceptable" anywhere
even though they might be acceptable to particular groups with a culture.
But that's neither here nor there, since they definitely aren't "culturally
acceptable" here and we've got perfectly good laws about murder. But if
someone wants to walk down the road wearing a headscarf or a burkha then why
get vexed about it? She certainly don't cause anything like the disruption
to civil society that loonies in saffron robes cause by dancing up and down
Oxford Street chanting "hari Krishna" and creating traffic jams.
Second, you're jumbling up ethnicity, culture and religion. Clearly a
Muslim from Nigeria hasn't got much in common ethnically with a Muslim from
Malaysia. His culture probably doesn't have much in common with the
Malaysian's either. And, as we can see at the moment in Iraq people from
the same ethnic group and culture who share the same religion -- Islam --
don't necessarily see eye to eye about whether you should be a Sunni or a
Shia Muslim any more than Catholics and Protestants in NI necessarily get on
particularly well with each other. That, btw, is a dispute that's cast in
religious terms even though it's obviously about the things people usually
fight over -- territory, money and power. Similarly, I'm willing to bet
that grudge many Muslims have against Western countries in general and the
USA in particular isn't so much about religion as about American foreign and
economic policy.
This gets you into very dangerous territory when you start talking about the
"threat of a Muslim bomb in Britain today". Sorry, but wouldn't you think
that an Iraqi was looking at it from the wrong point of view if he started
complaining that the US and the UK had been dropping "Christian bombs" on
his country? It certainly used to get my Parish Priest quite riled when
the press here used to refer to "Irish Catholics" planting bombs on the not
unreasonable grounds that he'd certainly never done such a thing and,
moreover, the Church has very firm views on the subject of murder.
I've seen something like this a couple of times before. I didn't like it
then and I don't like it now. Once was when I lived in the States around
the time of the Iranian hostages crisis. A chum of mine, an Indian (as in
from Bombay rather than Native American) who was working over there on
contract used to get threatening phone calls in the middle of the night from
clowns who'd apparently decided he was Iranian and wanted to tell him to
release the hostages PDQ or face the consequences. Great fun,
particularly since his wife and young daughter were living in the same
apartment. And, as he said, even if he had been Iranian or even a Muslim
it wasn't very likely that he'd either got American hostages stashed
somewhere or that he could phone up the Ayatollah and ask him to the
hostages go. Similarly just after the Brighton Bombings a colleague of
mine, a perfectly harmless accountant from County Clare, used to get no end
of stick when he walked into a pub and ordered a drink in an Irish accent or
even sat on the tube reading the Irish Times. And again, he started really
worrying and understandably getting very pissed off when his wife started
getting scared to go shopping on her own because of the reaction she got as
soon as she opened her mouth.
Lastly, "political correctness". This is something I've never understood.
Most of the time it seems to be what I, being somewhat old-fashioned,
consider common courtesy. If someone objects to a particular term then
don't use it unless you intend to offend them. Someone recently posted
here as an example of "political correctness" a series of "preferred
phrases" that a social services department in Canada had come up with. OK,
some of them were rather convoluted. But it got me thinking about one of my
best friends, who was in a car smash some years ago that's made quite a mess
of her legs. She doesn't like the term "cripple" because she finds it
rather insulting. More importantly, since her job means she has to do a
lot of international travelling she's always having to explain to airlines,
hotels and clients what her various mobility problems involve. As far as
she's concerned it doesn't really help BA, the Hilton Hotel chain or her
clients to know that she's "a cripple" but it does help everyone concerned
if they know precisely what special arrangements she wants making to
accommodate her mobility problems ("yes, I can manage 100 yards or so with
my sticks but much further than that and I'm afraid I need a wheelchair.
Can you arrange one locally or should I bring my collapsible one? Yes, I
can make it to check-in and the departure lounge on my own but I will need a
chair to get me to boarding at Heathrow Terminal 3 when the flight's
called").
Seems to me that "political correctness" is all too often a term that people
invent to cover something that they fear might upset someone completely
unreasonably and then somehow assume the world is full of completely
unreasonable people who want to impose "polticial correctness" without ever
stopping to think "hang on, have I ever met such a person?". It's a bit
like these Islamic fundamentalists who want to turn us all into Muslims.
All I can say is that the Jehovah's Witnesses seem a damn sight more
energetic about trying to convert people than do the Muslims, at least
anywhere I've ever been in the UK.
Steve
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 01/04/2004
Peter
>
> A few points, though.
>
> Second, you're jumbling up ethnicity, culture and religion. Clearly a
> Muslim from Nigeria hasn't got much in common ethnically with a Muslim from
> Malaysia. His culture probably doesn't have much in common with the
> Malaysian's either. And, as we can see at the moment in Iraq people from
> the same ethnic group and culture who share the same religion -- Islam --
> don't necessarily see eye to eye about whether you should be a Sunni or a
> Shia Muslim any more than Catholics and Protestants in NI necessarily get on
> particularly well with each other. That, btw, is a dispute that's cast in
> religious terms even though it's obviously about the things people usually
> fight over -- territory, money and power. Similarly, I'm willing to bet
> that grudge many Muslims have against Western countries in general and the
> USA in particular isn't so much about religion as about American foreign and
> economic policy.
>
> This gets you into very dangerous territory when you start talking about the
> "threat of a Muslim bomb in Britain today". Sorry, but wouldn't you think
> that an Iraqi was looking at it from the wrong point of view if he started
> complaining that the US and the UK had been dropping "Christian bombs" on
> his country? It certainly used to get my Parish Priest quite riled when
> the press here used to refer to "Irish Catholics" planting bombs on the not
> unreasonable grounds that he'd certainly never done such a thing and,
> moreover, the Church has very firm views on the subject of murder.
The point is a fair one, but I think it shows some naivete about muslims.
Islam is an ideology similar to communism, including prescriptive measures
for the organisation of the state, behaviour of individuals etc - concepts
such as democracy are negated. Religious fervour is fused with the islamic
ideology, though, due to the belief in God and seeing rewards in the
afterlife, unlike communism which only saw reward in this life. This
produces much more fanaticism and is why muslims from nigeria and malaysia
have more in common than you would like to admit. Islam teaches muslims to
subordinate their own cultural idenity and nationality the same way
communists rejected these things. Muslims call each other brothers because
of their political and religous homogeneity, including for many belief in
the idea of a worldwide islamic nation.
Apart from bush's crusade gaffe, what basis do muslims have for saying
christian bombs? If they said jewish bombs, I can definitely see they have
a point, however.
>
> I've seen something like this a couple of times before. I didn't like it
> then and I don't like it now.
see above.
>
> Lastly, "political correctness". This is something I've never understood.
> Most of the time it seems to be what I, being somewhat old-fashioned,
> consider common courtesy.
If it was as simple as that, why would disciplinary and sometimes legal
measures be taken against those who are sometimes 'rude'? It is more a way
of creating over-sensitivity with the aim of pushing certain agendas such
as disability rights, gay rights, positive discrimination where the demands
get more and more extreme.
>
> like these Islamic fundamentalists who want to turn us all into Muslims.
> All I can say is that the Jehovah's Witnesses seem a damn sight more
> energetic about trying to convert people than do the Muslims, at least
> anywhere I've ever been in the UK.
>
No, many want to bypass the 'attempt at conversion' stage and go straight
to the killing.