Fact We Should All Fear
billy
constantly, as a political issue.
Those in favour of immigration and against racism advocate a
multicultural, multiracial society; because, it seems, all its
difficulties can be resolved by way of proper education and tolerance;
with a program of enlightened education and laws ensuring equality".
With this, it is believed, racial diversity along with their various
cultures and beliefs can be accommodated in any land.
However, the question is: what education will work? Can people be
educated out of one of the most powerful of human impulses:
Tribalism -
along with its identity entrenching forces?
Anthony D. Smith, in his book: "National Identity" defined the
fundamental elements of national identity as follows:
1) A homeland or territory
2) Common myths and historical memories
3) A common culture
4) Common legal rights and duties for all members
5) Territorial mobility within the area of identity for all members.
This concept along with its need for an identity seems so powerfully
irrepressible that the UK has never really gelled; because the Scots
and Welsh and Irish, and, now, even the English, are beginning to use
those five fundamentals in a distinct way peculiar to them; and insist
that it is "for" them - thus leading to the inevitable division of the
UK into its "bits" even after 300 years of unity.
All the five factors we also saw in the Balkans - also determining
their split.
However, this impulse towards tribalism and the satisfying feeling of
belonging it gives can be found at every level, and more familiarly,
and noisily, in football; which also contains the five fundamentals:.
1) The home Stadium
2) The legends of past glories, successes and games
3) a common culture of symbols and colours, chants and anthems
4) Common loyalties and duties in attending matches and supporting
team
5) Member sharing the same terraces and transports.
Two rival tribes meet to give battle. Excitement surges. Blood is
sometimes
spilt. Skirmishes with the other tribal members ensues.
So tribalism is all around and is nowhere diminished in spite of all
the warnings against its forces. And its excitements surges every now
and again, and more frighteningly in warfare - this in spite of all
the "education" and pious hopes - both religious and secular -
expressed constantly over the years.
In World War One, a cynical poet wrote:
"Peace on earth we pray, and sing it,
And pay a thousand priests to bring it.
After 2000 years of pious mass,
We have got as far as poisoned gas."
A frightening fact about the singular failure of "education"?
But what is more frightening is the fact that, through mass
immigration (equal in numbers to two and a half times that of the
original population of Kosovo) we are seeing in our midst the
creation of "tribes" having different orientations regarding those
mentioned five fundamentals. And through their different concepts and
growing numbers, there arises not only the possibility of tension
within the country in which they have created their own territorial
enclaves, but possibilities of tension project on to other countries
as they make their own "foreign policies".
For instance:
A report in The Times, yesterday, carried the headline:
"British Muslims Declare Holy War On Russia."
It mentioned that over 100 Muslims left Britain the day before for
Chechnya. And that Abu Jihad, one of the group's leaders who returned
to Britain from fighting there only last week, said the men would meet
a further 350 recruits at undisclosed points in Europe.
This arises because the British Muslim fundamentalist in Britain have
issued a fatwa calling for attacks on Russian government and military
targets.
This report became vocally supported, this morning, on BBC Radio 4, by
a spokesperson for the Islamic group; who expanded the fact that a
fatwa had been issued on Yeltsin and a Jehad against Russia, its
properties and its people, anywhere in the world - including Britain;
and the injunction of the Jehad was binding on all Muslims.
This confidence to pursue their own line is enhanced by the fact that
their communities are growing at a fast rate.
For instance: Take the town of Leicester, for which the 1991 census
showed
an immigrant population representing one third of the total
population; but which the projection for the year 2001 indicates that
they will be the majority group in that town by that time.
This growth is not only confined to that particular town but seems to
be the trend in
all immigrant towns:
For instance: take the town of Oldham and its figures for households:
1996: White: 83,760 Pakistani: 2110 Bangladeshi: 1150
2001: White: 83,460 Pakistani: 2770 Bangladeshi: 1550
2011: White: 83,600 Pakistani: 4580 Bangladeshi: 2760
The white household have stayed static but the Asian households are
expected to double - this again due to increasing number as the
Leicester trend indicates.
What this growth does is make the immigrant communities more confident
to
maintain their own culture and be more viable economically and
therefore
more capable of maintaining themselves as separate entities - in their
own enclaves - and therefore liable to pursue their own policies, as
indicated above.
This Muslim independence is indicated by the fact that the Muslims
already have their own "Parliament." when, at its inauguration, the
late founder (Dr. Siddiki) envisaged England becoming the first
European Muslim State.
Are these facts we should fear - especially when it produces from
Britain a hostility towards a country which is still formidable in its
arms and unpredictable in its responses?
Are these the circumstances the demonized Enoch Powell had in mind
when he made his speech? He was a learned man and no doubt familiar
with the great writers of English literature. He must therefore have
known the following poem which might have shaped his thoughts:
The stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk -
I cannot feel his mind.
I see his face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.
The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wonted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.
The stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control -
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.
The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But at least they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And what ever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.
This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf -
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
Rudyard Kipling 1865-1936
Contained in this, is there facts we should all fear?
regards, billy
Thomas Deas
"billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:833oqt$577$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> In this Newsgroup, the argument about racism and immigration rages,
> constantly, as a political issue.
> Those in favour of immigration and against racism advocate a
> multicultural, multiracial society; because, it seems, all its
> difficulties can be resolved by way of proper education and tolerance;
> with a program of enlightened education and laws ensuring equality".
> With this, it is believed, racial diversity along with their various
> cultures and beliefs can be accommodated in any land.
> However, the question is: what education will work?
So, because tolerance does not produce universal peace, love and free beer,
you prefer intolerance which is better how? How does your plan work?
You may not have meant it like this, but being anti-racist is not the same
as being pro-immigration; very few are pro-immigration, if that means
throwing open the borders to all comers.
Roger
billy <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> frothed and ranted in message
news:833oqt$577$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
<pages and pages of meaningless paranoia snipped.>
Nothing to reply to here. billly has finally flipped.
RogerT
'Droid
>
> In this Newsgroup, the argument about racism and immigration rages,
<snip>
> Contained in this, is there facts we should all fear?
> regards, billy
1) Racial tolerance != Pro immigration
2) I have never seen such a romantised view of football hooliganism, and other
crime. You rcreed seems to be that crime is alright as long as whites commit it.
Crime is crime: I don't care who commits it, they deserve punishment. Criminals
are not of my stock whether their skin be white, black or any shade of brown in
between. You go and live with your white criminals: I'll stay with my white,
brown and black law abiding people.
'Droid
Rich Egan
It's long so I'm snipping .
> Rudyard Kipling 1865-1936
>
> Contained in this, is there facts we should all fear?
> regards, billy
Excellent post Billy ! Keep up the good work ! Disregard those who think
that you are insane, Racist, intolerant ETC you know the drill . I find
the predictions contained with in your post frightening ! Not only for the
UK but for what they portend for America as well . While these preople are
colonizing Britain and Europe and the US. Ask yourself " are there any
corresponding colonies being built in thehomelandsof these unarmed
invaders? " Theanswer is of course NO! whats afoot here is the ultimate
destruction , thru absorption , of the white race . The only race that ever
really counted .
Rich
Sic Semper Tyrannis
abelard
<jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>In this Newsgroup, the argument about racism and immigration rages,
>constantly, as a political issue.
no it doesn't....a very few nut cases continually attempt to raise
their 'racism' as an issue....
it is not an issue in any civilised and educated community.....
it is a fairly rare mental disease.....
people suffering from the disease tend to rant on street
corners until kindly escorted to a place of safety by
concerned police operatives....
we also sometimes get invasions of sad farts
who try to save us all for some other strange cult....
such people are caring but entirely disoriented in the
modern world.....
responsible and concerned posters attempt to help them....
they do not take their ramblings seriously...only their illness....
some imagine invasions from space or the return of long
dead humans are 'political issues'....'racism' is no different....
you are ill....get help....come down to earth....your fears are
paranoid....
like most 'mad' people you lack insight....
a typical symptom is your complete lack of humour....
another is your assumption that no one else has thought
about your dis-ease just because they inform you
that you are nuts....
the reality is that they have thought it through....usually
at the age of 5 or 10...and realised it is just silly....
their main response to you is pity.....or the understanding
an adult shows to a child....
or the irritation busy adults show to an irritating and intrusive
child....
or the chuckling behind hands that adults sometimes,
perhaps foolishly, when they find a child's errors funny....
the one thing they do not do...is to take you seriously....
only when you catch onto that....calm down....and attempt
to learn....will people treat you with serious respect....
for then they will judge that you are prepared to grow and
to learn.
>Those in favour of immigration and against racism
as already pointed out to you in two posts bonehead...
objection to the irrationality of 'racism' does not imply
'favour of immigration'.....
thus your whole post is built upon sand...as usual....
>"Peace on earth we pray, and sing it,
>And pay a thousand priests to bring it.
i would suggest that there are more productive actions
available...
as roger states....you are nuts....or as i would put it...
you exhibit great mental disorganisation....
your 'logic' is appalling....
you are embarrassing.....
the only fact 'we' should fear is ignorance....
please either grow up...or get back in your hole...
web site at www.abelard.org - new doc on the efficacy of prayer.
..also education, logic and emu....over 100 doc. requests daily
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Hammerton
> In this Newsgroup, the argument about racism and immigration rages,
> constantly, as a political issue.
> Those in favour of immigration and against racism advocate a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Being anti-racist does not necessarily mean being pro-immigration. For
myself I think immigration should be limited to numbers that can
easily be absorbed, especially in a densely populated country like the
UK. There are limits both to the rate of immigration that can be dealt
with without problems (if only logistical) and the total population of
a country that can be supported. The decision as to who should be
allowed in should not IMHO be made on racial grounds.
[snip]
> Contained in this, is there facts we should all fear?
No IMHO.
James
--
James Hammerton, Department of Computer Science, University College Dublin
WWW Pages: http://www.cs.ucd.ie/staff/jhammerton/
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james
Roger
news:9reb5sg1nvuk08kvr...@4ax.com...
> as roger states....you are nuts....or as i would put it...
> you exhibit great mental disorganisation....
too many syllables. billy many lose his teeth along with his marbles.
RogerT
abelard
<ro...@volney.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>abelard <abe...@www.abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:9reb5sg1nvuk08kvr...@4ax.com...
>
>> as roger states....you are nuts....or as i would put it...
>> you exhibit great mental disorganisation....
>
>too many syllables.
only when it's funny....:-)
>billy many lose his teeth along with his marbles.
i think that may already be the case....
spray that again.....at least alf garnett has a sense of
self parody....
regards.
Rameses
<jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> In this Newsgroup, the argument about racism and
> immigration rages,
> constantly, as a political issue.
Which is refreshing because in the mass media we only ever
get one side of the argument.
> Those in favour of immigration and against racism
> advocate a
> multicultural, multiracial society; because, it seems,
> all its
> difficulties can be resolved by way of proper
> education and tolerance;
> with a program of enlightened education and laws
> ensuring equality".
What is the difference between that and brainwashing?
> Anthony D. Smith, in his book: "National Identity"
> defined the
> fundamental elements of national identity as follows:
> 1) A homeland or territory
Particularly relevant for our island race.
> 2) Common myths and historical memories
Likewise for those who seek to destroy a nation must first
destroy the memories of its myths and history - as has been
done to Britain.
> 3) A common culture
> 4) Common legal rights and duties for all members
> 5) Territorial mobility within the area of identity
> for all members.
> This concept along with its need for an identity seems
> so powerfully
> irrepressible that the UK has never really gelled;
> because the Scots
> and Welsh and Irish, and, now, even the English, are
> beginning to use
> those five fundamentals in a distinct way peculiar to
> them;
There is diversity within all nations. Even today the United
Kingdom is not as mobile as many believe. People still live
where their parents and ancestors lived. This is not
incompatible with the concept of nationhood. The mass media
often hype up the differences within the United Kingdom -
even spouting nonsense like Britain is "mycegenated" or "a
nation of immigrants", which is nonsense. We are a nation
formed by the greatest of north European tribes - not by
economic refugees and bogus asylum seekers.
and insist
> that it is "for" them - thus leading to the inevitable
> division of the
> UK into its "bits" even after 300 years of unity.
> All the five factors we also saw in the Balkans - also
> determining
> their split.
> However, this impulse towards tribalism and the
> satisfying feeling of
> belonging it gives can be found at every level, and
> more familiarly,
> and noisily, in football; which also contains the five
> fundamentals:.
It was going well until you came up with this one. What have
ball games and drunken football hooligan scum got to do with
nationalism? The sort of "nationalism" that surround
football is the same nonsense that causes people to support
Chelsea, or whoever. I'm sure most football fans would
rather seem their home club than their "nation" win. And, of
course, they idolise black players.
> What this growth does is make the immigrant
> communities more confident
> to
> maintain their own culture and be more viable
> economically and
> therefore
> more capable of maintaining themselves as separate
> entities - in their
> own enclaves - and therefore liable to pursue their
> own policies, as
> indicated above.
What is more worrying is that the immigrants will (as
intended) be mixed with the British population, creating a
non-race of European-Third World mongrels with no more sense
of nationhood or history than modern day South Americans.
> Are these the circumstances the demonized Enoch Powell
> had in mind
> when he made his speech?
In an interview Powell described himself as a "safety valve"
(or something like that). His theory was that if it had not
been for him, who would the anti-immigration masses have
turned to? In other words he was saying he was a tool to
maintain the multicultural state. He was also fanatically
pro-Zionist and pro-international capitalist. I have little
respect for him.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Spartacus
right-wing sources - Enoch Powell and Rudyard Kipling.
Apparently education can teach us nothing, but a Kipling
poem holds the key to the sort of "ideal" society which
Billy envisages.
I'm not quite sure what the pseudo-academic categories of
national identity were supposed to prove, but their
resemblance to any situation (let alone the UK one) is
minimal. What is the "British", or even English, history
and tradition which Billy refers to? This ,presumably,
white traditon is the typical right-wing bolx spouted on
these issues - Britain's history is one of
multiculturalism, Anglo-Saxons, Normans etc.
For all the problems which the 'immigrant' communities face
- the idea that they are on the margins of society and
forming enclaves is apocalyptic drivel. For all the
problems there is no such thing as a (racial)"them" and
"us" in British society - except for those small minded
opportunistic politicians who seek to make political
capital out of perceived differences and ignore the real
material divisons in society.
Rameses
<ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> For
> myself I think immigration should be limited to
> numbers that can
> easily be absorbed, especially in a densely populated
> country like the
> UK. There are limits both to the rate of immigration
> that can be dealt
> with without problems (if only logistical) and the
> total population of
> a country that can be supported. The decision as to
> who should be
> allowed in should not IMHO be made on racial grounds.
> [snip]
>
1) If the intention is to "absorb" immigrants, do you think
it would be easier to absorb a million Danes or a million
Zulus?
2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants? And don't you
think it would harm the country? Unless you accept that all
the races are entirely equal in every respect, absorbing a
million Zulus would make Britain more like Africa - less
intelligence, civilisation and culture. And if a million
Zulus were absorbed - so that everyone in Britain had Zulu
ancestry (just as almost everyone in Brazil has African
ancestry), isn't that cultural genocide?
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>However, the question is: what education will work? Can people be
>educated out of one of the most powerful of human impulses:
>Tribalism -
>along with its identity entrenching forces?
I think we have to distinguish between instinct, which cannot be wished
away, and 'tribalism' which is a learned attribute.
Allegiance to a particular group or idea is certainly not genetic, as it
can change over time, so I don't regard tribalism as inevitable. It's
only seen that way because we are all influenced by it from birth.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>> In this Newsgroup, the argument about racism and immigration rages,
>> constantly, as a political issue.
>> Those in favour of immigration and against racism advocate a
>
>Being anti-racist does not necessarily mean being pro-immigration.
I agree, it's just that the PC lobby want to create that impression in
our minds.
'Droid
>
> In article <qaemcpe...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James Hammerton
> <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > For
> > myself I think immigration should be limited to
> > numbers that can
> > easily be absorbed, especially in a densely populated
> > country like the
> > UK. There are limits both to the rate of immigration
> > that can be dealt
> > with without problems (if only logistical) and the
> > total population of
> > a country that can be supported. The decision as to
> > who should be
> > allowed in should not IMHO be made on racial grounds.
> > [snip]
> >
>
> 1) If the intention is to "absorb" immigrants, do you think
> it would be easier to absorb a million Danes or a million
> Zulus?
Irrelevant. No one is talking about absorbing a million of anything.
> 2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants?
Because it is better for us and for them than creating ghettos and the policy of
separation.
> And don't you
> think it would harm the country?
Not at the current level of immigration.
> Unless you accept that all
> the races are entirely equal in every respect, absorbing a
> million Zulus would make Britain more like Africa - less
> intelligence, civilisation and culture. And if a million
> Zulus were absorbed - so that everyone in Britain had Zulu
> ancestry (just as almost everyone in Brazil has African
> ancestry), isn't that cultural genocide?
Do you regard the Saxon or Norman invasions as cultural genocide? If so, the
answer is yes. It woudl certainly give an influx of Zulu culture, but I would
dispute your comment about intelligence, culture and civilisation. The big
difference was technology, not the others.
'Droid
billy
Roger <ro...@volney.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:833sat$h1k$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Roger Trash,
I think the people who have flipped are those who see no danger in
what I have accurately described.
regards, billy
billy
Rich Egan <rich...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:834a4t$gr1$3...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> billy <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:833oqt$577$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
rages,
>
>
> >
> > Contained in this, is there facts we should all fear?
> > regards, billy
>
think
> that you are insane, Racist, intolerant ETC you know the drill . I
find
> the predictions contained with in your post frightening ! Not only
for the
preople are
> colonizing Britain and Europe and the US. Ask yourself " are there
any
> corresponding colonies being built in thehomelandsof these unarmed
> invaders? " Theanswer is of course NO! whats afoot here is the
ultimate
> destruction , thru absorption , of the white race . The only race
that ever
> really counted .
> Rich
> Sic Semper Tyrannis
>
Rich,
what I say in my posting is the unadulterated truth: "Facts we should
all fear".
The usual diatribe will no doubt be issuing forth from those who wish
not to face the facts - as you rightly point out.
regards, billy
billy
> >constantly, as a political issue.
>
>
> objection to the irrationality of 'racism' does not imply
> 'favour of immigration'.....
> thus your whole post is built upon sand...as usual....
>
> >And pay a thousand priests to bring it.
>
> available...
>
> you exhibit great mental disorganisation....
> you are embarrassing.....
>
> the only fact 'we' should fear is ignorance....
> please either grow up...or get back in your hole...
>
abelard,
as I have said before: Your semiliterate comic-book English shows you
are a person of poor education and low intelligence, But even *you*
must realise that having people in our midst, behaving like a loose
cannon, pointing at a country bristling with nuclear weapons is
something we must fear.
Your diatribe indicates that you have "got the message" but must
somehow discredit the messenger.
regards, billy
billy
'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:38557337...@netcomuk.co.uk...
> billy wrote:
> >
> > In this Newsgroup, the argument about racism and immigration
rages,
>
>
> > Contained in this, is there facts we should all fear?
> > regards, billy
>
>
> 2) I have never seen such a romantised view of football hooliganism,
and other
> crime. You rcreed seems to be that crime is alright as long as
whites commit it.
> Crime is crime: I don't care who commits it, they deserve
punishment. Criminals
> are not of my stock whether their skin be white, black or any shade
of brown in
> between. You go and live with your white criminals: I'll stay with
my white,
> brown and black law abiding people.
>
> 'Droid
Droid,
I never said anything about crime. I mentioned football crowds as an
example of the impulse towards tribalism.
The point I was making is the formation of independent "states"
constructing their own foreign policy within this country.
regards, billy
P.S. is your black law abiding people those in the Moss Side Estate
in Manchester, which has just witnessed its third shooting in four
days.
billy
Thomas Deas <tj...@spam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:833qmn$s63$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> "billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:833oqt$577$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
rages,
> > constantly, as a political issue.
> > Those in favour of immigration and against racism advocate a
> > multicultural, multiracial society; because, it seems, all its
> > difficulties can be resolved by way of proper education and
tolerance;
> > with a program of enlightened education and laws ensuring
equality".
> > With this, it is believed, racial diversity along with their
various
> > cultures and beliefs can be accommodated in any land.
> > However, the question is: what education will work?
>
free beer,
> you prefer intolerance which is better how? How does your plan work?
>
> You may not have meant it like this, but being anti-racist is not
the same
> as being pro-immigration; very few are pro-immigration, if that
means
>
>
My plan works as follows:
Only allow into the country those that the country really needs and
can profit from.
They can only enter if they are sound in health and are able to
support themselves.
If they want to apply for British citizenship, they must serve a
probationary period of ten years. After that, show that they have been
of good conduct and not a charge upon the state. They must then swear
a oath of allegiance to this country and show they have a good
knowledge of its political processes, customs and history.
If their oath is violated, at any time, afterwards, the citizenship
will be withdrawn and they will be deported.
Under that system, we would get very few immigrants, but those who
came under that system could be respected for their worth.
If we needed labour under short term expediencies, we could issue work
permits for a specified time - after which, they must leave.
Of course, you would not get the Loony Left - come one come all -
agreeing to that.
regards, billy
billy
James Hammerton <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:qaemcpe...@tardis.ed.ac.uk...
> "billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> > In this Newsgroup, the argument about racism and immigration
rages,
> > constantly, as a political issue.
> > Those in favour of immigration and against racism advocate a
>
> Being anti-racist does not necessarily mean being pro-immigration.
> myself I think immigration should be limited to numbers that can
> easily be absorbed, especially in a densely populated country like
the
> UK. There are limits both to the rate of immigration that can be
dealt
> with without problems (if only logistical) and the total population
of
> allowed in should not IMHO be made on racial grounds.
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> James
>
if you do not think that having people in our midst, training
terrorists and constructing their own foreign policy against a nation
which still has the clout to turn quite nasty, then, IMHO, you must be
bonkers.
regards, billy
Roger
> if you do not think that having people in our midst, training
> terrorists and constructing their own foreign policy against a nation
> which still has the clout to turn quite nasty, then, IMHO, you must be
> bonkers
If you will provide us with the names and addresses of these combat 18 and
column 88 types and the whereabouts of their weapons, rest assured that
constables will be despatched very quickly to sort them out.
RogerT
Roger
> I think the people who have flipped are those who see no danger in
> what I have accurately described.
Blocked toilets are a serious danger billy. I think that everyone here hopes
you get yours fixed soon
RogerT
'Droid
>
> 'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:38557337...@netcomuk.co.uk...
> > billy wrote:
> > >
> rages,
> >
> >
> > > Contained in this, is there facts we should all fear?
> > > regards, billy
> >
> >
> > 2) I have never seen such a romantised view of football hooliganism,
> and other
> > crime. You rcreed seems to be that crime is alright as long as
> whites commit it.
> > Crime is crime: I don't care who commits it, they deserve
> punishment. Criminals
> > are not of my stock whether their skin be white, black or any shade
> of brown in
> > between. You go and live with your white criminals: I'll stay with
> my white,
> > brown and black law abiding people.
> >
> > 'Droid
>
> Droid,
> I never said anything about crime. I mentioned football crowds as an
> example of the impulse towards tribalism.
To my knowledge the example you used is classed as criminal behaviour. It
certainly seems to get the police agitated.
> The point I was making is the formation of independent "states"
> constructing their own foreign policy within this country.
> regards, billy
> P.S. is your black law abiding people those in the Moss Side Estate
> in Manchester, which has just witnessed its third shooting in four
> days.
Many of them are law abiding. The problem, as I understand it, is the drugs
trade, and those involved are most certainly not the law abiding section of the
community. The only minor consolation is that these shootings are usually, but
unfortunately not always, of other people within the criminal fraternity.
'Droid
Thomas Deas
alone and picking on Indians instead. If I see a policeman coming I don't
know what to do. I'd like to think I could control myself. (Endquote)
abelard
<jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>P.S. is your black law abiding people those in the Moss Side Estate
>in Manchester, which has just witnessed its third shooting in four
>days.
take it real slow bonehead....
the skin colour of the shooter is not relevant....
the person shooting the gun is the issue....
until you stop confusing the two....you remain barmy.....
i get the impression you are trying real hard.....
but every time you slip up.....the watchers can
see you are still infected.....
you must be very very careful....
every time you dip your toe back into the poison...
you reinforce the sickness.....
you must let go of it....there is no other way....
you will have to make your case without mentioning 'race'
without even thinking about 'race'.....
don't mention aliens either....
it just gives the game away.....
you are allowed to be mad...as long as you can hide it well....
but that is a very difficult job...it has an awful tendency to pop
out....just when you are least expecting it....
much better give it up....
did you know that ~7 times as many blacks as whites, as a proportion
of population, are murdered in the us....?
go read this document on my site...
www.abelard.org\iqedfran\iqedfran.htm
if you can use a browser yet...
if you really have got an offspring doing psych at uni....
get them to explain any bits that give you difficulty....
abelard
<jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>as I have said before: Your semiliterate comic-book English shows you
>are a person of poor education and low intelligence, But even *you*
>must realise that having people in our midst, behaving like a loose
>cannon, pointing at a country bristling with nuclear weapons is
>something we must fear.
yeah...all those blacks takin' over the nukes....and loose
cannons....that'll give me a real bad night....
>Your diatribe indicates that you have "got the message"
surely not...'Your semiliterate comic-book English shows you
are a person of poor education and low
intelligence'
such a person could never understand your genius....
but then, how could such genius imagine that a semiliterate
could understand your abstruse 'message'......
you really do confuse my single brane sell.....
> but must
>somehow discredit the messenger.
is that messenger for god bonehead?
once more struggling to keep up with a card carrying member
of the new moronreich....
abelard
<jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>My plan works as follows:
sounds very like immigration policies in many countries....
are you sure it really is 'your plan' bonehead?
>Only allow into the country those that the country really needs and
>can profit from.
>They can only enter if they are sound in health and are able to
>support themselves.
>If they want to apply for British citizenship, they must serve a
>probationary period of ten years. After that, show that they have been
>of good conduct and not a charge upon the state. They must then swear
>a oath of allegiance to this country and show they have a good
>knowledge of its political processes, customs and history.
>If their oath is violated, at any time, afterwards, the citizenship
>will be withdrawn and they will be deported.
>Under that system, we would get very few immigrants,
there are ~6 billion people out there bonehead.....
100s of millions of them far better educated than yourself....
most of them more intelligent....
most of them poorer.....
i think you had better start considering quotas....
that's about numbers bonehead....
> but those who
>came under that system could be respected for their worth.
>If we needed labour under short term expediencies, we could issue work
>permits for a specified time - after which, they must leave.
>Of course, you would not get the Loony Left - come one come all -
>agreeing to that.
as usual bonehead....you have not mastered you brief....
for your homework....
which pms reigned over the greatest expansions
of emigration in the uk......?
to give you a lot of help as you are rather silly....
try reading chapter 4 of andrew robert's 'eminent churchillians'
185799213x..1994...paper....the number for the hardback will
be different...you may need to know that if you use a library....
it must be incredibly irritating to have some semi illiterate keep
mocking you bonehead...
of course, you could start studying and try to get a degree.....
then you could really put me in my place....
facts are stubborn things...zobel.....
James Hammerton
> In article <qaemcpe...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James Hammerton
> <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > For
> > myself I think immigration should be limited to
> > numbers that can
> > easily be absorbed, especially in a densely populated
[snip]
> 1) If the intention is to "absorb" immigrants, do you think
> it would be easier to absorb a million Danes or a million
> Zulus?
Depends on which Danes and which Zulus. Also if you only want people
who are in tune with British culture to be let in in preference to
those who are not, test their knowledge and affinity with the culture
and only let those in who know a sufficient amount about it. You don't
need to do it on grounds of race/skin colour/nationality.
> 2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants?
Because societies and cultures that try to close themselves off from
outside influences will stagnate.
> And don't you
> think it would harm the country?
Why would it?
> Unless you accept that all
> the races are entirely equal in every respect,
Which I do not, but the following does not logically follow from this either.
> absorbing a
> million Zulus would make Britain more like Africa - less
> intelligence, civilisation and culture.
Not necessarily. All of these are strongly influenced by the
technology and wealth of a country and the influx of people with
different perspectives on life may add to the creativity and
adaptability of our culture.
> And if a million
> Zulus were absorbed - so that everyone in Britain had Zulu
> ancestry (just as almost everyone in Brazil has African
> ancestry), isn't that cultural genocide?
Nope it has nothing to do with the killing off of all the members of a
race and there is no reason to believe British culture would die
either in such circumstances. Change, yes, but then culture is not a
static entity but is in constant evolution. Also if the "out of
Africa" theory of the origins of humanity is correct we are all people
with African ancestry.
mma...@my-deja.com
abelard <abe...@www.abelard.org> wrote:
> did you know that ~7 times as many blacks as whites, as a proportion
> of population, are murdered in the us....?
I have a hard time understanding much of what you write, but presumably
this is some kind of lame attempt to claim that white Americans are
racist murderers by deliberately ignoring the question of who killed
them?
In reality, most of the murderers and victims are black drug dealers
and their associates; color is irrelevant, the problem is that American
policy since the 60s has created huge inner city ghettos where violence
and drug dealing are the only ways to get ahead (and worse, often
glamorized in popular culture), and that's inevitably caused an increase
in murders amongst the people who live there. That they're black is just
an accident of history.
Mark
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>can profit from.
Would similar apply to native Brits, or are our home-grown dole
scroungers somehow better?
>They can only enter if they are sound in health and are able to
>support themselves.
>If they want to apply for British citizenship, they must serve a
>probationary period of ten years.
Why ten?
> After that, show that they have been
>of good conduct and not a charge upon the state.
Measured how?
> They must then swear
>a oath of allegiance to this country and show they have a good
>knowledge of its political processes, customs and history.
Sounds like the US.
>If their oath is violated, at any time, afterwards, the citizenship
>will be withdrawn and they will be deported.
>Under that system, we would get very few immigrants, but those who
>came under that system could be respected for their worth.
>If we needed labour under short term expediencies, we could issue work
>permits for a specified time - after which, they must leave.
>Of course, you would not get the Loony Left - come one come all -
>agreeing to that.
The loony left are at most 1% of the population, (except by your unusual
definition, which seems to include 'Middle England').
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>all fear".
>The usual diatribe will no doubt be issuing forth from those who wish
>not to face the facts - as you rightly point out.
Do you KNOW they are facts, or just THINK they are?
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>intended) be mixed with the British population, creating a
>non-race of European-Third World mongrels with no more sense
>of nationhood or history than modern day South Americans.
>
The US has a far greater racial mix than us, yet has a strong sense of
nationhood. They fought & won a war against us, over it!
abelard
>In article <vvag5ss7tfjtueuhr...@4ax.com>,
> abelard <abe...@www.abelard.org> wrote:
>> did you know that ~7 times as many blacks as whites, as a proportion
>> of population, are murdered in the us....?
>
>I have a hard time understanding much of what you write, but presumably
>this is some kind of lame attempt to claim that white Americans are
>racist murderers by deliberately ignoring the question of who killed
>them?
no...it is an attempt to make dumb brains think beyond their
stereotypes....
the usual form is 8 times the number of murder per head
of population are perpetrated by blacks.....
the purpose of that statement is of the nature that you suggest....
>In reality, most of the murderers and victims are black drug dealers
the drug 'war' is counter productive....everyone who
studies the issue knows that....
it is having the same effect that prohibition did in the
20s....criminalising large numbers while generating
huge profits and corruption....
>and their associates; color is irrelevant, the problem is that American
>policy since the 60s
before the 60s other games were run to stop blacks voting....
> has created huge inner city ghettos where violence
>and drug dealing are the only ways to get ahead (and worse, often
>glamorized in popular culture), and that's inevitably caused an increase
>in murders amongst the people who live there. That they're black is just
>an accident of history.
that is what they tell us...much of it is likely true....
'Droid
> > They must then swear
> >a oath of allegiance to this country and show they have a good
> >knowledge of its political processes, customs and history.
>
> Sounds like the US.
Actually this part is a good idea. It would help the immigrants to understand
the society in which they are living and would hopefully help them assimilate
into society, rather than the current situation where first generation
immigrants tend to stay apart. This could also be helped by language tuition in
English, which would ultimately help to make them more independent within our
society.
'Droid
Rameses
More fool you if you present modern day America as the kind
of nation you want Britain to be. The LA riots showed just
how strong their "sense of nationhood" is.
Rameses
wrote:
> In article
> <vvag5ss7tfjtueuhr...@4ax.com>,
> abelard <abe...@www.abelard.org> wrote:
> > did you know that ~7 times as many blacks as whites,
> as a proportion
> > of population, are murdered in the us....?
> I have a hard time understanding much of what you
> write, but presumably
> this is some kind of lame attempt to claim that white
> Americans are
> racist murderers by deliberately ignoring the question
> of who killed
> them?
> black drug dealers
> is that American
> ghettos where violence
> and drug dealing are the only ways to get ahead (and
> worse, often
> glamorized in popular culture), and that's inevitably
> caused an increase
> in murders amongst the people who live there. That
> they're black is just
> an accident of history.
The vast majority of inter-racial crime in US (including
murder, rape and violence) is black on white. I'll produce
the FBI statistics if anyone is interested (and if I can be
bothered to look them up). Yet in Britain we only ever hear
of "Hate" crimes committed by whites in the US.
Thomas Deas
"Rameses" <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:011588b2...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com...
> The vast majority of inter-racial crime in US (including
> murder, rape and violence) is black on white. I'll produce
> the FBI statistics if anyone is interested (and if I can be
> bothered to look them up). Yet in Britain we only ever hear
> of "Hate" crimes committed by whites in the US.
But are the b-o-w crimes 'Hate' crimes?
Rameses
<ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Rameses <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> writes:
> > In article <qaemcpe...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James
> Hammerton
> > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
>
> > 1) If the intention is to "absorb" immigrants, do
> you think
> > it would be easier to absorb a million Danes or a
> million
> > Zulus?
> Depends on which Danes and which Zulus. Also if you
> only want people
> who are in tune with British culture to be let in in
> preference to
> those who are not, test their knowledge and affinity
> with the culture
> and only let those in who know a sufficient amount
> about it. You don't
> need to do it on grounds of race/skin
> colour/nationality.
>
And how many asylum seekers from Eritrea do you think have
knowledge and affinity with British culture?
> > 2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants?
> Because societies and cultures that try to close
> themselves off from
> outside influences will stagnate.
Britain seemed to be doing okay between 1066 and 1939 (when
immigration was negligible - except for a few European
protestants, and a few Jews (after Cromwell started letting
them in). British stagnation began after we started letting
in immigrants (though this was not the only reason for the
stagnation). We were the greatest nation on earth. Now we
are ... not.
> > And don't you
> > think it would harm the country?
> Why would it?
> > Unless you accept that all
> > the races are entirely equal in every respect,
> Which I do not, but the following does not logically
> follow from this either.
If we accept that certain races are undesirable (because
they have nothing to contribute by way of intelligence,
industry and culture) then allowing them into the country
would indded be harmful.
> > absorbing a
> > million Zulus would make Britain more like Africa -
> less
> > intelligence, civilisation and culture.
> Not necessarily. All of these are strongly influenced
> by the
> technology and wealth of a country and the influx of
> people with
> different perspectives on life may add to the
> creativity and
> adaptability of our culture.
But technology and wealth is a result of invention,
creativity and industry. British history proves the British
have plenty of that. African history proves Africans do not.
> > And if a million
> > Zulus were absorbed - so that everyone in Britain
> had Zulu
> > ancestry (just as almost everyone in Brazil has
> African
> > ancestry), isn't that cultural genocide?
> Nope it has nothing to do with the killing off of all
> the members of a
> race and there is no reason to believe British culture
> would die
> either in such circumstances. Change, yes, but then
Genocide does not just mean physically exterminating a race.
The British race (or at least those of European race who
live in Britain) exists now and has existed for thousands of
years. If it does not exist in a few generations - that is
genocide. I thing the UN definition of genocide would
confirm that.
> culture is not a
> static entity but is in constant evolution. Also if
> the "out of
> Africa" theory of the origins of humanity is correct
> we are all people
> with African ancestry.
> James
Our culture would be evolving if it were progressing on its
own terms. What we are experiencing is not the evolution,
but the destruction of our culture.
As for 'out of Africa' - for a start, this is a matter of
academic debate. Some say Africa, some say Asia, some say
Siberia. But if members of the European race (such as
Cro-Magnon man) swept out of Africa 35,000 years ago, that
does not mean we descend from Africans as we now understand
the word. That is - we were not once Negroes. Negroes are
those who stayed behind from sub-suhara Africa. There is no
evidence that Africans and Europeans share common human
ancestry. We may have to go all the way back to homo erectus
to find common ancestry between Africans and Europeans. In
any case, the races have been separate for so long that this
debate is irrelevant anyway.
Rameses
<nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> Rameses wrote:
> >
> > In article <qaemcpe...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James
> Hammerton
> > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > 1) If the intention is to "absorb" immigrants, do
> you think
> > it would be easier to absorb a million Danes or a
> million
> > Zulus?
> Irrelevant. No one is talking about absorbing a
> million of anything.
> > 2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants?
> Because it is better for us and for them than creating
> ghettos and the policy of
> separation.
Nice self-contradiction there 'Droid.
> > And don't you
> > think it would harm the country?
> Not at the current level of immigration.
If you look at the long term the absorbtion of even the
current level of immigrants will have a massive (and
harmful) impact of the British populace.
> > Unless you accept that all
> > the races are entirely equal in every respect,
> absorbing a
> > million Zulus would make Britain more like Africa -
> less
> > intelligence, civilisation and culture. And if a
> million
> > Zulus were absorbed - so that everyone in Britain
> had Zulu
> > ancestry (just as almost everyone in Brazil has
> African
> > ancestry), isn't that cultural genocide?
> Do you regard the Saxon or Norman invasions as
> cultural genocide? If so, the
> answer is yes. It woudl certainly give an influx of
Not at all - because the Saxon and Normans (and indeed all
our ancestors) belonged to the same European culture. If you
look at the art, symbols, history, genes and so on of the
Saxons and Europeans you will see they belonged to different
tribes - but the same culture. Certainly the same race.
There is a world of difference between the Norman conquest
(which brought in a wave of perhaps the greatest tribe in
Europe - which enhanced our own) with the coming of economic
refugees and asylum seekers.
> Zulu culture, but I would
> dispute your comment about intelligence, culture and
> civilisation. The big
> difference was technology, not the others.
> 'Droid
Technology was a consequence of knowledge, which was
developed by generations of Europeans with high
intelligence. You will not find potential Isaac Newtons or
Charles Darwins among the Zulus.
BOEDICIA
>From: 'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk>
>Date: Mon, 13 December 1999 05:29 PM EST
>Message-id: <38557337...@netcomuk.co.uk>
>
>billy wrote:
>>
>> In this Newsgroup, the argument about racism and immigration rages,
>
><snip>
>
>> Contained in this, is there facts we should all fear?
>> regards, billy
>
>1) Racial tolerance != Pro immigration
>
>2) I have never seen such a romantised view of football hooliganism, and
>other
>crime. You rcreed seems to be that crime is alright as long as whites commit
>it.
>Crime is crime: I don't care who commits it, they deserve punishment.
>Criminals
>are not of my stock whether their skin be white, black or any shade of brown
>in
>between. You go and live with your white criminals: I'll stay with my white,
>brown and black law abiding people.
You would be better employed in looking at the crime statistics prior to the
invasion
of non-whites and the obscene crime
rates of today. You could start with the
number of murders in pre 1948 London
and the murder rate today. Then go to
the rape statistics. Also find out what
the illegal drug situation was in Britain
before the Triads, Jamaican "Yardies"
were allowed in and what is was prior
to that. How many "home invasions"?
How many street assaults etc. etc. etc.
*That* is the only way to determine the
affect of what happens when a nation
formerly composed of whites and
Christians suddenly is overwhelmed
with those not of their race or culture.
"Dad killed for having posh car"
"A business was murdered because he drove his luxury car into a deprved area"
police said.
It happened in a suburb of Manchester
when a gang demanded a "tax" for
having a "posh car". -Express Nov. 9th. 1999
At one time in most British cities only
doctors and rich people had "posh"
cars. I wonder how many were murdered
when they went into "deprived areas".
As for "white criminals" - one wonders
if they are not taking lessons from what
they see everyday on the streets of once
great cities. Would these young whites
be killing had their nation not been
invaded by criminals from 3rd. world
countries. They didn't in the past.
Borstal was a place for young offenders,
but I doubt there were many gang-rapists
and cop killers among them.
BOEDICIA
>Date: Mon, 13 December 1999 05:40 PM EST
>Message-id: <833sat$h1k$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>
>
>
>billy <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> frothed and ranted in message
>news:833oqt$577$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
><pages and pages of meaningless paranoia snipped.>
i.e. Better not repost it. It makes too much
sense and besides it makes me "paranoid".
>Nothing to reply to here. billly has finally flipped.
But not enough to go out and gang-rape
a white tourist, kill a PC or WPC,
run naked through through the streets
wielding a samarui, peddle drugs,
become a Rasta pimp, rape a 16 year old
schoolboy and a white woman all in the
space of 24 hours, whilst at the same time drawing benefit under 4 different
names and I doubt he has ever given
his nation''s secrets to her enemies.
That is best left to the offspring of Latvian
jew "refugees".
Friends of yours?
BOEDICIA
>Date: Mon, 13 December 1999 09:35 PM EST
>Message-id: <834a4t$gr1$3...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>
>billy <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>> Rudyard Kipling 1865-1936
>>
>> Contained in this, is there facts we should all fear?
>> regards, billy
>Excellent post Billy ! Keep up the good work ! Disregard those who think
>that you are insane, Racist, intolerant ETC you know the drill . I find
>the predictions contained with in your post frightening ! Not only for the
>UK but for what they portend for
>America as well . While these preople are
>colonizing Britain and Europe and the US. Ask yourself " are there any
>corresponding colonies being built in thehomelandsof these unarmed
>invaders? " Theanswer is of course NO! whats afoot here is the ultimate
>destruction , thru absorption , of the
>white race . The only race that ever
>really counted .
Billy is great and the time he takes to post
his excellent observations is appreciated
by those of us who know the truth when
we see it. It is said that one is known
by their enemies. In this NG the enemies
of Billy and other "racists" (if that word were ever removed from their
vocabulary,
they would be dumbstruck) are a sorry
collection of fairy cakes who hates
"Christianism" and the "Roman Church"
in particular , New York Yids whose
posts consists of a few hundred "so what's" and "what a hoot", a moron
whose one-liners consist of "you're mad".
and a few teen aged University students
who post at the expense of the British taxpayer while sneering at the people
who are paying for their computer use
and time - one of them posted that "Lucifer" was his "Master". Add to that
those who have been on welfare since Lassie was a pup and the usual
Trotskyites and defenders of Bolshie
treason and you see the reason why
Billy and the rest of us treat them with
the contempt they serve - that is when
their insane drivel isn't making us ROTFL
BTW - "We are in Kosovo because we
care about saving lives and we care about
the character of the multi-ethnic,
Post Cold War world. Our military
involvement was guided by the
principles of multi-ethnic, tolerant,
inclusive democracy. We have been fighting against the idea that statehood
must be based entirely on ethnicity".
Clinton - San Francisco April 15th. 1999
Just what is this obscenity saying?
That these ancient nation/states should
no longer belong to those who founded them, but must be forced to accept
those who are not part of their great cultures? That France no longer belong
to the French, Sweden to the Swedes,
Germany to the Germans, etc. etc. etc?
No wonder it is now known as The Kosher White House. The offspring of a
dirty Scots Gyp is now mouthing the words of his "advisors" - the same
"advisors" who advised him to destroy
Serbia because they were too "nationalistic". i.e. too white and Christian.
Apparently Israel can be "The Jewish State", but white Christian nations
have no right to be white and Christian.
> Sic Semper Tyrannis
And the sooner the better.
BOEDICIA
>Date: Wed, 15 December 1999 09:44 PM EST
>Message-id: <838vrr$nte$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
><abe...@www.abelard.org> wrote in message
>> it is a fairly rare mental disease.....
>> people suffering from the disease tend to rant on street
snip fairy cake's usual anti-Christian bigotry. What can one expect from
a raving queen who talks to machines.
>> some imagine invasions from space or the return of long
>> dead humans
"he" means Christ. See - the usual bigotry against Christians.
>> >"Peace on earth we pray, and sing it,
>> >And pay a thousand priests to bring it.
And yet again. It would make a change
if this yak lover would criticise the yids
and their money grubbing and financing
of pornography and the exhibition of
black Madonnas with elephant dung all
over them but nooooooo, little 'ol
fruit bat is afraid to do that. They might
come after "him" and accuse "him"
of "racism" or even worse, of being
"paranoid".
>> as roger states....you are nuts...
His favourite word. In fact he knows no other. Frankly I think Woger Wabbit
is bonkers.
>> your 'logic' is appalling....
>> you are embarrassing.....
Well, he would be if he showed up
at the Pink Pussy Cat in one of your
pink feather boas.
>abelard,
>as I have said before: Your semiliterate comic-book English shows you
>are a person of poor education and low intelligence,
Not only that "he" is probably very
angry that "fred" has done a runner
and he has to go the chemist's
"himself" to pick up his pills.
> But even *you*
>must realise that having people in our midst, behaving like a loose
>cannon, pointing at a country bristling with nuclear weapons is
>something we must fear.
How do you like the way he uses the
word "disease" when describing "racism"?
Surely *that* is a word the likes of "him"
and other fairy cakes should be avoiding
considering that it is *they* who brought
*that* plague into the world.
To borrow from Woger Wabbit the artful
dodger, he must be "mad". First sign
isn't it?
BOEDICIA
>Date: Wed, 15 December 1999 12:53 PM EST
>Message-id: <02344dea...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com
>In article <qaemcpe...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James Hammerton
><ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> For
>> myself I think immigration should be limited to
>> numbers that can
>> easily be absorbed, especially in a densely populated
>> country like the
>> UK. There are limits both to the rate of immigration
>> that can be dealt
>> with without problems (if only logistical) and the
>> total population of
>> a country that can be supported. The decision as to
>> who should be
>> allowed in should not IMHO be made on racial grounds.
>1) If the intention is to "absorb" immigrants, do you think
>it would be easier to absorb a million Danes or a million Zulus?
That same question was asked by Pat
Buchanan a few years ago when he
was speaking at a University near
Washington D.C. Only it wasn't Danes.
He asked "what would you prefer as immigrants. A million Englishmen or
a million Zulus"? The students screamed
out "Zulus". Naturally after the day's
end, they all went home to their jew
suburb. I wonder what their families
answer would have been had the question
been asked of them!
>And if a million
>Zulus were absorbed - so that everyone in Britain had Zulu
>ancestry (just as almost everyone in Brazil has African
>ancestry), isn't that cultural genocide?
Not to mention the rape and homocide of the locals by the thousands ala the
"New"
South Africa.
BOEDICIA
>From: Rameses <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid>
>Message-id: <02c123cd...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com>
>James
>> Hammerton
>> > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Depends on which Danes and which Zulus. Also if you
>> only want people
>> who are in tune with British culture to be let in in
>> preference to
>> those who are not, test their knowledge and affinity
>> with the culture
>> and only let those in who know a sufficient amount
>> about it. You don't
>> need to do it on grounds of race/skin
>> colour/nationality.
Australia did for a long time. They had enough problems with their local blacks
and knew the problems that occur
when different races attempt to merge.
Their crime rate was also, like Britain's
very low. No longer. The same gangs
and drug problems that now infest Britain
can be seen in Austlaian cities.
>And how many asylum seekers from Eritrea do you think have
>knowledge and affinity with British culture?
Well, they could join up with the
Yardies or Triads, just to make them
feel at home.
>> > 2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants?
>
>> Because societies and cultures that try to close
>> themselves off from
>> outside influences will stagnate.
Rubbish. Britain built the greatest
Empire the world has even seen and
they did it without the help of Rastas, Gyps and the Russian/jew Mafia.
>Britain seemed to be doing okay between 1066 and 1939 (when
>immigration was negligible - except for a few European
>protestants, and a few Jews (after Cromwell started letting
>them in).
Yes, They had been thrown out twice.
*That* crime can be added to the
obscenity of Regicide. Just imagine
if they had been kept out of Britain, just
as George Washington and his crowd
wanted them kept of the U.S., Melitta
Norwood never would have had the opportunity to betray the nation that took
in her "refugee" father.
>If we accept that certain races are undesirable (because
>they have nothing to contribute by way of intelligence,
>industry and culture) then allowing them into the country
>would indded be harmful.
But trendy.
>> > absorbing a
>> > million Zulus would make Britain more like Africa -
>> less
>> > intelligence, civilisation and culture.
>> Not necessarily. All of these are strongly influenced
>> by the
>> technology and wealth of a country and the influx of
>> people with
>> different perspectives on life may add to the
>> creativity and
>> adaptability of our culture.
>But technology and wealth is a result of invention,
>creativity and industry. British history proves the British
>have plenty of that. African history proves Africans do not.
And never will. Since the whites left
Africa and they got their "independence"
they can't even feed themselves, let
alone pay their enormous debt.
Every 17 seconds a woman is raped in So.
Africa. Unfortunately many of them are white.
Cliff Morrison
A pathetic statist ritual that in similar present-day context in any
less dumbed-down dump might be laughed out of sight.
Mrs.Thomson
<ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
>If you look at the long term the absorbtion of even the
>current level of immigrants will have a massive (and
>harmful) impact of the British populace.
Whether it is harmful or not, depends on your POV.
>> > Unless you accept that all
>> > the races are entirely equal in every respect,
>> absorbing a
>> > million Zulus would make Britain more like Africa -
>> less
>> > intelligence, civilisation and culture. And if a
>> million
>> > Zulus were absorbed - so that everyone in Britain
>> had Zulu
>> > ancestry (just as almost everyone in Brazil has
>> African
>> > ancestry), isn't that cultural genocide?
>
>> Do you regard the Saxon or Norman invasions as
>> cultural genocide? If so, the
>> answer is yes. It woudl certainly give an influx of
>There is a world of difference between the Norman conquest
>(which brought in a wave of perhaps the greatest tribe in
>Europe - which enhanced our own) with the coming of economic
>refugees and asylum seekers.
I get it: invasion and subjugation is 'good' if
the conquerors are 'superior' in some way.
Excuse me for not wishing my country to be
subjugated by anybody.
>
>Technology was a consequence of knowledge,
Whose?
> which was
>developed by generations of Europeans with high
>intelligence. You will not find potential Isaac Newtons or
>Charles Darwins among the Zulus.
>
How do you know?
'Droid
Not really. Even in a single government world, it would be wise to ensure that
people can speak the dominant language in the area that they live and that they
understand how the governemnt functions in that region. Otherwise they will not
be able to participate in the processes that affect so much of their lives.
'Droid
'Droid
>
> In article <3857D9F8...@netcomuk.co.uk>, 'Droid
> <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> > Rameses wrote:
> > >
> > Hammerton
> > > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > 1) If the intention is to "absorb" immigrants, do
> > you think
> > > it would be easier to absorb a million Danes or a
> > million
> > > Zulus?
>
> > million of anything.
>
>
> > ghettos and the policy of
> > separation.
>
> Nice self-contradiction there 'Droid.
Explain. I hope it is not that you consider my first answer as being in
contradiction to the second. It isn't.
> > > And don't you
> > > think it would harm the country?
>
> > Not at the current level of immigration.
>
> If you look at the long term the absorbtion of even the
> current level of immigrants will have a massive (and
> harmful) impact of the British populace.
How exactly? Immigration has been a fact of life in these islands for centuries.
The immigration you refer to has been in progress for decades. We are still
here.
> > > Unless you accept that all
> > > the races are entirely equal in every respect,
> > absorbing a
> > > million Zulus would make Britain more like Africa -
> > less
> > > intelligence, civilisation and culture. And if a
> > million
> > > Zulus were absorbed - so that everyone in Britain
> > had Zulu
> > > ancestry (just as almost everyone in Brazil has
> > African
> > > ancestry), isn't that cultural genocide?
>
> > Do you regard the Saxon or Norman invasions as
> > cultural genocide? If so, the
> > answer is yes. It woudl certainly give an influx of
>
> Not at all - because the Saxon and Normans (and indeed all
> our ancestors) belonged to the same European culture.
Rubbish. The Saxons when they invaded these islands were not even Christian. You
seem to forget that this occurred when the fastest means of transport was the
horse: there was no single European culture. There still isn't.
> If you
> look at the art, symbols, history, genes and so on of the
> Saxons and Europeans you will see they belonged to different
> tribes - but the same culture. Certainly the same race.
They were the same race, but not the same culture. The only common thread was
Christianity, and even then they couldn't agree, and that was much later. The
Vikings and the Saxons were not Christian. Europe as a whole had a whole variety
of Gods and culture.
> There is a world of difference between the Norman conquest
> (which brought in a wave of perhaps the greatest tribe in
> Europe - which enhanced our own) with the coming of economic
> refugees and asylum seekers.
Not in the terms you express the latter influx. The effects of the Norman
invasion was precisely that you ascribe to the current immigration. I agree that
they are not comparable: the current immigranst are having nowhere near the
cultural effect the Normans (or the Saxons or Romans) did.
> > Zulu culture, but I would
> > dispute your comment about intelligence, culture and
> > civilisation. The big
> > difference was technology, not the others.
> > 'Droid
>
> Technology was a consequence of knowledge, which was
> developed by generations of Europeans with high
> intelligence. You will not find potential Isaac Newtons or
> Charles Darwins among the Zulus.
I agree that technology is a consequence of knowledge. But the generation of
new knowledge depends on education in the old. The problem is that without
knowledge of the previous giants, people will not be able to achieve anything
new. If Newton had not had the education he did, he would not have achieved
much.
'Droid
'Droid
>
> >Subject: Re: Fact We Should All Fear
> >From: Rameses <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid>
> >Date: Thu, 16 December 1999 02:10 PM EST
> >Message-id: <02c123cd...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com>
>
> >James
> >> Hammerton
> >> > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Depends on which Danes and which Zulus. Also if you
> >> only want people
> >> who are in tune with British culture to be let in in
> >> preference to
> >> those who are not, test their knowledge and affinity
> >> with the culture
> >> and only let those in who know a sufficient amount
> >> about it. You don't
> >> need to do it on grounds of race/skin
> >> colour/nationality.
>
> Australia did for a long time. They had enough problems with their local blacks
I wonder why. It couldn't have been because they were invading their land
perhaps? I am sure you would do the same.
'Droid
'Droid
> > > 2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants?
>
> > Because societies and cultures that try to close
> > themselves off from
> > outside influences will stagnate.
>
> Britain seemed to be doing okay between 1066 and 1939 (when
> immigration was negligible - except for a few European
> protestants, and a few Jews (after Cromwell started letting
> them in). British stagnation began after we started letting
> in immigrants (though this was not the only reason for the
> stagnation). We were the greatest nation on earth. Now we
> are ... not.
You need to have another look at the immigration figures.
> > > And don't you
> > > think it would harm the country?
> > Why would it?
> > > Unless you accept that all
> > > the races are entirely equal in every respect,
> > Which I do not, but the following does not logically
> > follow from this either.
>
> If we accept that certain races are undesirable (because
> they have nothing to contribute by way of intelligence,
> industry and culture) then allowing them into the country
> would indded be harmful.
The problem is that we do not accept that assumption.
> > > absorbing a
> > > million Zulus would make Britain more like Africa -
> > less
> > > intelligence, civilisation and culture.
>
> > Not necessarily. All of these are strongly influenced
> > by the
> > technology and wealth of a country and the influx of
> > people with
> > different perspectives on life may add to the
> > creativity and
> > adaptability of our culture.
>
> But technology and wealth is a result of invention,
> creativity and industry. British history proves the British
> have plenty of that. African history proves Africans do not.
African history proves nothing of the kind. It does however show that progress
is slower when there is less need to progress. North Africa, in contact with
Europe, was well in step until their shortsightedness with the slave trade
crippled them.
> > culture is not a
> > static entity but is in constant evolution. Also if
> > the "out of
> > Africa" theory of the origins of humanity is correct
> > we are all people
> > with African ancestry.
> > James
>
> Our culture would be evolving if it were progressing on its
> own terms. What we are experiencing is not the evolution,
> but the destruction of our culture.
Then our culture has never evolved as it has always been subject to external
influences. I do not see any of our culture being destroyed, just added to.
> As for 'out of Africa' - for a start, this is a matter of
> academic debate. Some say Africa, some say Asia, some say
> Siberia. But if members of the European race (such as
> Cro-Magnon man) swept out of Africa 35,000 years ago, that
> does not mean we descend from Africans as we now understand
> the word. That is - we were not once Negroes. Negroes are
> those who stayed behind from sub-suhara Africa. There is no
> evidence that Africans and Europeans share common human
> ancestry.
There is. In fact there is less genetic variation in human genetics (including
all races) than there is in most other species. It would appear that at some
point there was a genetic bottleneck.
> We may have to go all the way back to homo erectus
> to find common ancestry between Africans and Europeans. In
> any case, the races have been separate for so long that this
> debate is irrelevant anyway.
You obviously subscribe to the parallel evolution theory.
'Droid
'Droid
> >> > Unless you accept that all
> >> > the races are entirely equal in every respect,
> >> absorbing a
> >> > million Zulus would make Britain more like Africa -
> >> less
> >> > intelligence, civilisation and culture. And if a
> >> million
> >> > Zulus were absorbed - so that everyone in Britain
> >> had Zulu
> >> > ancestry (just as almost everyone in Brazil has
> >> African
> >> > ancestry), isn't that cultural genocide?
> >
> >> Do you regard the Saxon or Norman invasions as
> >> cultural genocide? If so, the
> >> answer is yes. It woudl certainly give an influx of
>
> >There is a world of difference between the Norman conquest
> >(which brought in a wave of perhaps the greatest tribe in
> >Europe - which enhanced our own) with the coming of economic
> >refugees and asylum seekers.
>
> I get it: invasion and subjugation is 'good' if
> the conquerors are 'superior' in some way.
That seems to be the gist, especially when whites are the conquerors. I have to
wonder how true this principle they would be if we were ever invaded by aliens.
Somehow I suspect that they would become a troublesome native rather than
accepting the superiority of the invader and thanking them for their gift of
higher civilisation and the infrastructure they would undoubtedly put in place.
'Droid
abelard
<ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
>The vast majority of inter-racial crime in US (including
>murder, rape and violence) is black on white.
what about the ghettos?
what percentage of 'crime' is 'inter-racial'?
what is a 'race'?
does it include italian descendants attacking german descendants?
do i remember that approaching 85% of us 'blacks' have white
ancestors...
how much black makes a black? do you apply adolph's rules?
do you pass them...adolph didn't...
> I'll produce
>the FBI statistics if anyone is interested
yes...you do that....
>(and if I can be
>bothered to look them up).
ah, the let out clause...why am i not surprised.....
>Yet in Britain we only ever hear
>of "Hate" crimes committed by whites in the US.
so tell us about the others....and give the figures
in *both* directions....
but you are just babbling as usual ain't you goebbels...
why do you care moron....?
why not attend to the criminals ?
why don't you care about the victims?
you 5 could build your very own concentration camp....
and go live in it....
you could call it the moronreich home for the terminally confused...
or you could be repatriated to egypt...
abelard
<ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
>Britain seemed to be doing okay between 1066 and 1939 (when
>immigration was negligible - except for a few European
>protestants, and a few Jews (after Cromwell started letting
>them in). British stagnation began after we started letting
>in immigrants (though this was not the only reason for the
>stagnation). We were the greatest nation on earth. Now we
>are ... not.
god you are thick....
gdp has risen over 50% in 20 years....
>But technology and wealth is a result of invention,
what have you invented moron?
>creativity and industry. British history proves the British
>have plenty of that. African history proves Africans do not.
>As for 'out of Africa' - for a start, this is a matter of
>academic debate. Some say Africa, some say Asia, some say
>Siberia. But if members of the European race (such as
>Cro-Magnon man) swept out of Africa 35,000 years ago, that
>does not mean we descend from Africans as we now understand
>the word. That is - we were not once Negroes. Negroes are
>those who stayed behind from sub-suhara Africa. There is no
>evidence that Africans and Europeans share common human
>ancestry. We may have to go all the way back to homo erectus
>to find common ancestry between Africans and Europeans. In
>any case, the races have been separate for so long that this
>debate is irrelevant anyway.
there is more genetic variation between 'whites'
than between 'whites' and 'blacks'.....
how do you explain that einstein....pure chance...?
go get yourself an education moron....
you ain't bright enuf to be mad....
James Hammerton
> In article <qak8mfd...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James Hammerton
> <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Rameses <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> writes:
> > > In article <qaemcpe...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James
> > Hammerton
> > > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >
[snip]
>
> > Depends on which Danes and which Zulus. Also if you
> > only want people
> > who are in tune with British culture to be let in in
> > preference to
> > those who are not, test their knowledge and affinity
> > with the culture
> > and only let those in who know a sufficient amount
> > about it. You don't
> > need to do it on grounds of race/skin
> > colour/nationality.
> >
>
> And how many asylum seekers from Eritrea do you think have
> knowledge and affinity with British culture?
I don't know but if you are selecting only those who do have knowledge
what's the problem? Besides with asylum seekers there is a case for
letting people in because they'd be killed/oppressed in their country
of origin.
> > > 2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants?
>
> > Because societies and cultures that try to close
> > themselves off from
> > outside influences will stagnate.
>
> Britain seemed to be doing okay between 1066 and 1939 (when
> immigration was negligible - except for a few European
Rubbish.
[snip]
> > > And don't you
> > > think it would harm the country?
> > Why would it?
> > > Unless you accept that all
> > > the races are entirely equal in every respect,
> > Which I do not, but the following does not logically
> > follow from this either.
>
> If we accept that certain races are undesirable (because
Which I do not.
[snip]
> > Nope it has nothing to do with the killing off of all
> > the members of a
> > race and there is no reason to believe British culture
> > would die
> > either in such circumstances. Change, yes, but then
>
> Genocide does not just mean physically exterminating a race.
Physically exterminating a race is precisely what I've always understood
the word to mean.
> The British race (or at least those of European race who
> live in Britain) exists now and has existed for thousands of
> years. If it does not exist in a few generations - that is
> genocide.
I don't think you can equate the two meanings you are using here. The
active wiping out of a people is one thing, the disappearance of a
people due to miscegenation is quite another.
> I thing the UN definition of genocide would
> confirm that.
Perhaps you'd care to quote it then.
> > culture is not a
> > static entity but is in constant evolution. Also if
> > the "out of
> > Africa" theory of the origins of humanity is correct
> > we are all people
> > with African ancestry.
> > James
>
> Our culture would be evolving if it were progressing on its
> own terms. What we are experiencing is not the evolution,
> but the destruction of our culture.
Please indicate exactly which parts of our culture are being
destroyed and how. As far as I can tell "British" culture is if anything
thriving and being exported out to other parts of the world.
> As for 'out of Africa' - for a start, this is a matter of
> academic debate. Some say Africa, some say Asia, some say
I know. That is why I said *If* the out of Africa theory is true.
> Siberia. But if members of the European race (such as
> Cro-Magnon man) swept out of Africa 35,000 years ago, that
> does not mean we descend from Africans as we now understand
> the word. That is - we were not once Negroes. Negroes are
> those who stayed behind from sub-suhara Africa. There is no
> evidence that Africans and Europeans share common human
> ancestry. We may have to go all the way back to homo erectus
The fact that we share a large proportion of our genes is evidence.
> to find common ancestry between Africans and Europeans. In
So?
James
--
James Hammerton, Department of Computer Science, University College Dublin
WWW Pages: http://www.cs.ucd.ie/staff/jhammerton/
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>> >
>> The US has a far greater racial mix than us, yet has a
>> strong sense of
>> nationhood. They fought & won a war against us, over
>> it!
>
>of nation you want Britain to be.
The richest in the world, you mean?
>The LA riots showed just
>how strong their "sense of nationhood" is.
billy
Spartacus <garycalde...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1b0840d8...@usw-ex0110-076.remarq.com...
> Billy, never let it be said that you resort to cliched
> right-wing sources - Enoch Powell and Rudyard Kipling.
> Apparently education can teach us nothing, but a Kipling
> poem holds the key to the sort of "ideal" society which
> Billy envisages.
> I'm not quite sure what the pseudo-academic categories of
> national identity were supposed to prove, but their
> resemblance to any situation (let alone the UK one) is
> minimal. What is the "British", or even English, history
> and tradition which Billy refers to? This ,presumably,
> white traditon is the typical right-wing bolx spouted on
> these issues - Britain's history is one of
> multiculturalism, Anglo-Saxons, Normans etc.
> For all the problems which the 'immigrant' communities face
> - the idea that they are on the margins of society and
> forming enclaves is apocalyptic drivel. For all the
> problems there is no such thing as a (racial)"them" and
> "us" in British society - except for those small minded
> opportunistic politicians who seek to make political
> capital out of perceived differences and ignore the real
> material divisons in society.
>
>
> * Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also
find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping.
Smart is Beautiful
Spartacus,
I notice the end words of your posting say "Smart is Beautiful".
However, I find what you have stated, above, is neither smart nor
beautiful.
If you cannot see the divisions that are opening up in this society,
you yourself, are not smart (and I doubt if you are beautiful).
A few quotes:
1) From the black footballer John Barnes's autobiography:
"I feel more Jamaican than English because I am black."
"A lot of black people born in England feel more Jamaican"
"I tried hard for England out of professional pride, but not
patriotism - because I never felt any."
(end of quotes)
2) From the black newspaper: 'The Voice', which stated in a heading:
"Seeking out their roots. Young black Britons are flocking to classes
to learn African languages."
And it quotes those in such classes as saying:
"Even though I was born in London I'm not entirely comfortable with my
identity as Black British."
and again, another person:
"Just saying that I'm Black British doesn't give me that sense of
belonging."
The article finished by stating:
"If you are one of those people who believe in the philosophy of Kwame
Nkrumha, and want Africans to be Africans wherever they are on the
planet, then you at least want to try to connect." (end of quotes)
Now: if they cannot be English or British and want to be African, then
division exists; and your pious hope (and I quote from above): "there
is no such thing as a (racial) "them" and "us" in British society"
(end of quote) looks a bit sick. They are willingly entering into and
making divisions themselves - without any pushing from the so called
white racists. It is all a question of identity as I stated in my
original posting.
Rudyard Kipling and Enoch Powell and Norman Tebbit are looking
increasingly right.
regards, billy
P.S. I notice none of them dash back to live in Africa. Perhaps living
in a place where they feel they do not belong - but is nevertheless
economically comfortable -is better than Africa - unfortunately for
Britain who has to put up with large numbers of divisive non-British
and the problems that creates.
BTW: The Anglo-Saxons, the Normans and the etc, were all of the same
stock and had the same culture (Christian European)
It is only in very recent years that large numbers not of the same
stock and even antagonistic culture (like Islam) have unfortunately
arrived.
another regards, from billy
billy
Rameses <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <833oqt$577$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, "billy"
> <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > In this Newsgroup, the argument about racism and
> > immigration rages,
>
> Which is refreshing because in the mass media we only ever
> get one side of the argument.
>
> > Those in favour of immigration and against racism
> > advocate a
> > multicultural, multiracial society; because, it seems,
> > all its
> > difficulties can be resolved by way of proper
> > education and tolerance;
> > with a program of enlightened education and laws
> > ensuring equality".
>
> What is the difference between that and brainwashing?
>
>
> > Anthony D. Smith, in his book: "National Identity"
> > defined the
> > fundamental elements of national identity as follows:
> > 1) A homeland or territory
>
> Particularly relevant for our island race.
>
> > 2) Common myths and historical memories
>
> Likewise for those who seek to destroy a nation must first
> destroy the memories of its myths and history - as has been
> done to Britain.
>
> > 3) A common culture
> > 4) Common legal rights and duties for all members
> > 5) Territorial mobility within the area of identity
> > for all members.
> > This concept along with its need for an identity seems
> > so powerfully
> > irrepressible that the UK has never really gelled;
> > because the Scots
> > and Welsh and Irish, and, now, even the English, are
> > beginning to use
> > those five fundamentals in a distinct way peculiar to
> > them;
>
>
> There is diversity within all nations. Even today the United
> Kingdom is not as mobile as many believe. People still live
> where their parents and ancestors lived. This is not
> incompatible with the concept of nationhood. The mass media
> often hype up the differences within the United Kingdom -
> even spouting nonsense like Britain is "mycegenated" or "a
> nation of immigrants", which is nonsense. We are a nation
> formed by the greatest of north European tribes - not by
> economic refugees and bogus asylum seekers.
>
>
> and insist
> > that it is "for" them - thus leading to the inevitable
> > division of the
> > UK into its "bits" even after 300 years of unity.
> > All the five factors we also saw in the Balkans - also
> > determining
> > their split.
> > However, this impulse towards tribalism and the
> > satisfying feeling of
> > belonging it gives can be found at every level, and
> > more familiarly,
> > and noisily, in football; which also contains the five
> > fundamentals:.
>
> It was going well until you came up with this one. What have
> ball games and drunken football hooligan scum got to do with
> nationalism? The sort of "nationalism" that surround
> football is the same nonsense that causes people to support
> Chelsea, or whoever. I'm sure most football fans would
> rather seem their home club than their "nation" win. And, of
> course, they idolise black players.
>
>
No, Rameses, I think I am *still* going well - even with this one.
You are not seeing the principle for the particulars. If you cannot
see the instincts of tribalism - one tribe's warriors fighting another
tribe's - with all the tensions, myths, war-cries and anthems which go
with tribalism, you are not looking beyond the commercial overlays.
Given the right circumstances, that tribalism will expand into the
greater tribalism of nation - and identity with the identifiable
nation.
For instance: When Napolean was was poise to invade Britain, Sussex
Landowner, Lord Sheffield, raise a corps of Light Infantry from
poachers, smugglers and general ruffians - numbering over 1000 men.
The worst looking and worse men made excellent skirmishers, he
claimed.
He claimed men who made their living by evading the law and
gamekeepers had no difficulty in running rings around the French.
Further: Joseph Donaldson, from a genteel background, who joined a
Highland regiment to fight Napolean, was appalled by his foul-mouthed
fellow recruits, who spent their bounties on whisky drunk by the half
pint. However, he found drill, discipline and the growth of a sense of
comradeship transformed these men into some of the best soldiers in
Wellington's army - with a sense of pride in their regiment and
country.
So it is with football supporter and their ilk - even today. They are
just rehearsing for the larger battle where their highly developed
sense of tribalism will ensure their "enthusiasm".
regards, billy
P.S. Whatever you think of Enoch Powell, at least he had the courage
to speak the "politically unspeakable"
billy
Paul Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PGnltcBu...@activist.demon.co.uk...
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, billy <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> stated
this
> considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
> >educated out of one of the most powerful of human impulses:
> >Tribalism -
> >along with its identity entrenching forces?
>
> I think we have to distinguish between instinct, which cannot be
wished
> away, and 'tribalism' which is a learned attribute.
>
> Allegiance to a particular group or idea is certainly not genetic,
as it
> can change over time, so I don't regard tribalism as inevitable.
It's
> only seen that way because we are all influenced by it from birth.
> --
"Proof" "Source"
But without proof and source: What went wrong in Yugoslavia where
tribalism is now rampant; and also what is happening in Chechenya -
where a small tribe is fighting a big one?
They were all, in those settings, brought up under the same
educational system - and, in many cases, lived next door to one and
other.
But take the Armenians, for instance - let alone the Kurds: They have
been moved, attacked, sent to all corners of the world and - in 1915 -
at the hands of the Turks - were subjected to genocide, yet they still
retain a strong sense of unity and identity. The same applies to the
Jews. Why has these identities not withered away? What "impulse" is
maintaining it? - and the more it is threatened, the stronger the
impulse seems to get.
regards, billy
billy
Roger <ro...@volney.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:836af1$hqj$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> abelard <abe...@www.abelard.org> wrote in message
> news:9reb5sg1nvuk08kvr...@4ax.com...
>
> > as roger states....you are nuts....or as i would put it...
> > you exhibit great mental disorganisation....
>
> too many syllables. billy many lose his teeth along with his
marbles.
>
> RogerT
>
Roger Trash (along with your "off his rocker" member of the same loony
ideological camp - Abe Lard)
Attend to the issue and not lapse into silly remarks.
It shows you have no answer to facts you do not wish to accept.
regards, billy
Rameses
Hyett <pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Rameses
> <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid>
> I replied -
> >> >
> >> The US has a far greater racial mix than us, yet
> has a
> >> strong sense of
> >> nationhood. They fought & won a war against us, over
> >> it!
> >
> >More fool you if you present modern day America as
> the kind
> >of nation you want Britain to be.
> The richest in the world, you mean?
Per capita I think Iceland is the richest in the world.
Rameses
<ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Rameses <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> writes:
> > In article <qak8mfd...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James
> Hammerton
> > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Rameses <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid>
> writes:
> > > > In article <qaemcpe...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>,
> James
> > > Hammerton
> > > > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > And how many asylum seekers from Eritrea do you
> think have
> > knowledge and affinity with British culture?
> I don't know but if you are selecting only those who
> do have knowledge
> what's the problem? Besides with asylum seekers there
So few would have any knowledge or affinity with British
culture that it would be a waste of time and resources even
to test them.
> is a case for
> letting people in because they'd be killed/oppressed
> in their country
> of origin.
>
But so many around the world claim to be killed or oppressed
that we can make no real difference to human suffering by
letting a few of them in. Anyway, why do we have the duty to
solve the world's problems?
> > > > 2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants?
> >
> > > Because societies and cultures that try to close
> > > themselves off from
> > > outside influences will stagnate.
> >
> > Britain seemed to be doing okay between 1066 and
> 1939 (when
> > immigration was negligible - except for a few
> European
> Rubbish.
Please expand on that answer.
> >
> > If we accept that certain races are undesirable
> (because
> Which I do not.
> [snip]
But certain races (such as Bushmen and Aboriginals) are
known to have very low IQs and very high propensity to
criminality. Do you not think allowing such races into the
country (and thereby into our genepool) is undesirable?
> > Genocide does not just mean physically exterminating
> a race.
> Physically exterminating a race is precisely what I've
> always understood
> the word to mean.
> > The British race (or at least those of European race
> who
> > live in Britain) exists now and has existed for
> thousands of
> > years. If it does not exist in a few generations -
> that is
> > genocide.
> I don't think you can equate the two meanings you are
> using here. The
> active wiping out of a people is one thing, the
> disappearance of a
> people due to miscegenation is quite another.
> > I thing the UN definition of genocide would
> > confirm that.
> Perhaps you'd care to quote it then.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide
Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or
accession by General Assembly resolution
260 A (III) of 9 December 1948
entry into force 12 January 1951, in
accordance with article XIII
Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether
committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime
under international law which they undertake to prevent and
to punish.
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the
following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole
or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,
as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole
or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another
group.
I believe the last 3 should cover miscegenation and
anti-British brainwashing (though obviously this is not the
official UN interpretation).
> destroyed and how. As far as I can tell "British"
> culture is if anything
> thriving and being exported out to other parts of the
> world.
>
I think you are confusing popular anti-culture with culture,
which is bound up with ideas of history and race.
> The fact that we share a large proportion of our genes
> is evidence.
We also share a large proportion our genes with apes. That
is hardly a reason for importing millions of them.
> > to find common ancestry between Africans and
> Europeans. In
> So?
I was merely rebutting your "hey man, were all humans out of
Africa" statement.
Rameses
<nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> Rameses wrote:
> >
> > In article <3857D9F8...@netcomuk.co.uk>, 'Droid
> > <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Rameses wrote:
> > > >
> James
> > > Hammerton
> > > > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > you think
> > > > it would be easier to absorb a million Danes or a
> > > million
> > > > Zulus?
> >
> > > Irrelevant. No one is talking about absorbing a
> > > million of anything.
> >
> >
> creating
> > > ghettos and the policy of
> > > separation.
> >
> > Nice self-contradiction there 'Droid.
> Explain. I hope it is not that you consider my first
> answer as being in
> contradiction to the second. It isn't.
First you said no one is talking about absorbing anything
(presumably meaning immigrants), then you gave a reason why
we would want to absorb immigrants.
> > If you look at the long term the absorbtion of even
> the
> > current level of immigrants will have a massive (and
> > harmful) impact of the British populace.
> How exactly? Immigration has been a fact of life in
> these islands for centuries.
In very small quantities - and only those of the same race.
So the character of the British race has not been altered
for centuries, millenia even.
> The immigration you refer to has been in progress for
> decades. We are still
> here.
But for how many generations?
> > Not at all - because the Saxon and Normans (and
> indeed all
> > our ancestors) belonged to the same European
> culture.
> Rubbish. The Saxons when they invaded these islands
> were not even Christian. You
> seem to forget that this occurred when the fastest
> means of transport was the
> horse: there was no single European culture. There
> still isn't.
There was a European race (with various tribes) and a
European culture (with variation, but of common ancestry and
following a common thread). Those who settled in Britain
belonged to almost identical tribes (in racial terms). The
genes of those living in Britain 1000 years ago are
practically identical to today's British population.
> > If you
> > look at the art, symbols, history, genes and so on
> of the
> > Saxons and Europeans you will see they belonged to
> different
> > tribes - but the same culture. Certainly the same
> race.
> They were the same race, but not the same culture. The
> only common thread was
> Christianity, and even then they couldn't agree, and
> that was much later. The
> Vikings and the Saxons were not Christian. Europe as a
> whole had a whole variety
> of Gods and culture.
And much blood was shed as a result. But the long term
consequence of the coming of the various tribes was
beneficial - because it created a highly successful nation.
I suspect the mongrel non-race that will form in a few
generations will achieve as little as the mongrel non-races
of the world do today.
> > There is a world of difference between the Norman
> conquest
> > (which brought in a wave of perhaps the greatest
> tribe in
> > Europe - which enhanced our own) with the coming of
> economic
> > refugees and asylum seekers.
> Not in the terms you express the latter influx. The
> effects of the Norman
> invasion was precisely that you ascribe to the current
> immigration. I agree that
> they are not comparable: the current immigranst are
> having nowhere near the
> cultural effect the Normans (or the Saxons or Romans)
> did.
The current immigration influx will downgrade the population
in terms of achievement, intelligence and culture. It will
also break the link with our British-European heritage. Do
they celebrate Crecy in multicultural schools?
> I agree that technology is a consequence of
> knowledge. But the generation of
> new knowledge depends on education in the old. The
> problem is that without
> knowledge of the previous giants, people will not be
> able to achieve anything
> new. If Newton had not had the education he did, he
> would not have achieved
> much.
> 'Droid
I agree with you about the importance of education. But no
matter how good an education an Aboriginal is given, he will
never make the same impact on our knowledge and
understanding that the great European thinkers have.
James Hammerton
> In article <qaiu1xl...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James Hammerton
> <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Rameses <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> writes:
> > > In article <qak8mfd...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James
> > Hammerton
> > > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > Rameses <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid>
> > writes:
> > > > > In article <qaemcpe...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>,
> > James
> > > > Hammerton
> > > > > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
>
>
> > > And how many asylum seekers from Eritrea do you
> > think have
> > > knowledge and affinity with British culture?
> > I don't know but if you are selecting only those who
> > do have knowledge
> > what's the problem? Besides with asylum seekers there
>
> So few would have any knowledge or affinity with British
> culture that it would be a waste of time and resources even
> to test them.
No it wouldn't, because even those few may make a valuable
contribution to British society (for that matter even the one's who do
not have much knowledge might).
> > is a case for
> > letting people in because they'd be killed/oppressed
> > in their country
> > of origin.
> >
>
> But so many around the world claim to be killed or oppressed
> that we can make no real difference to human suffering by
> letting a few of them in. Anyway, why do we have the duty to
It would make a difference to those we let in.
> solve the world's problems?
We don't, save where we are the ones contributing to them. But I don't
see why we shouldn't let such people in.
> > > > > 2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants?
> > >
> > > > Because societies and cultures that try to close
> > > > themselves off from
> > > > outside influences will stagnate.
> > >
> > > Britain seemed to be doing okay between 1066 and
> > 1939 (when
> > > immigration was negligible - except for a few
> > European
>
> > Rubbish.
>
> Please expand on that answer.
Migration of people to and from the UK has been occurring throughout
the period you mention.
>
> > >
> > > If we accept that certain races are undesirable
> > (because
> > Which I do not.
> > [snip]
>
> But certain races (such as Bushmen and Aboriginals) are
> known to have very low IQs and very high propensity to
> criminality.
What do you call a "very high propensity to criminality" here?
> Do you not think allowing such races into the
> country (and thereby into our genepool) is undesirable?
You seem to be assuming the low IQs and criminality are genetically
caused. Both can be strongly influenced by the culture/environment
people live in. Also if you're really concerned about criminality and
IQ, you should be arguing for the testing of people's IQs rather than
blanket bans on immigration from those groups.
[snip]
> > > I thing the UN definition of genocide would
> > > confirm that.
> > Perhaps you'd care to quote it then.
>
> Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
> Genocide
>
> Approved and proposed for signature and ratification or
> accession by General Assembly resolution
> 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948
>
> entry into force 12 January 1951, in
> accordance with article XIII
>
>
>
> Article 1
>
> The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether
> committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime
> under international law which they undertake to prevent and
> to punish.
>
> Article 2
>
> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the
> following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole
> or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group,
> as such:
>
> (a) Killing members of the group;
This is silly. A literal interpretation of this would suggest that
just killing one member of a group is classified as genocide. This
seems to equate simple murder with the systematic attempt to destroy a
group. I think the UN have adopted a very poor definition here.
> (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the
> group;
Likewise this would suggest that beating someone up is an act of
genocide.
> (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
> calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole
> or in part;
>
> (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
> group;
>
> (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another
> group.
>
> I believe the last 3 should cover miscegenation and
Miscegenation (unless it is actually forced) does not involve forcibly
transferring children from one group to another, imposing measures to
prevent births in any groups or the deliberate (or otherwise)
infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the
destruction of a group. If people from different groups decide
voluntarily to interbreed I see no problem moral or otherwise with it
and none of the above 3 situations are involved either.
[snip]
> > destroyed and how. As far as I can tell "British"
> > culture is if anything
> > thriving and being exported out to other parts of the
> > world.
> >
>
> I think you are confusing popular anti-culture with culture,
> which is bound up with ideas of history and race.
OK tell me exactly which bits of our culture are under threat and what
evidence you have that they are being destroyed then.
>
>
> > The fact that we share a large proportion of our genes
> > is evidence.
>
> We also share a large proportion our genes with apes. That
> is hardly a reason for importing millions of them.
We were talking about people's ancestry at this point not immigration.
Rameses
pl...@plonk.co.uk (Mrs.Thomson) wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:23:29 -0800, Rameses
> <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
> I get it: invasion and subjugation is 'good' if
> the conquerors are 'superior' in some way.
> Excuse me for not wishing my country to be
> subjugated by anybody.
> >
If you look at the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Anglo-Saxons
took a similar view. But the (very) long term consequences
of the Viking and Norman influence was probably beneficial.
Of course, there is no modern day comparison. We live in an
age of settled states and I too do not want to see my
country subjugated. Sadly, I fear that is what is happening.
> >Technology was a consequence of knowledge,
> Whose?
> > which was
> >developed by generations of Europeans with high
> >intelligence. You will not find potential Isaac
> Newtons or
> >Charles Darwins among the Zulus.
> >
> How do you know?
You are welcome to go to Africa and try and find some
geniuses out there. You would be the first one.
Rameses
<jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Rameses <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote
> in message
> news:1a8b91da...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com...
> > In article <833oqt$577$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "billy"
> > <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> No, Rameses, I think I am *still* going well - even
> with this one.
> You are not seeing the principle for the particulars.
> If you cannot
> see the instincts of tribalism - one tribe's warriors
> fighting another
> tribe's - with all the tensions, myths, war-cries and
> anthems which go
> with tribalism, you are not looking beyond the
> commercial overlays.
> Given the right circumstances, that tribalism will
> expand into the
> greater tribalism of nation - and identity with the
> identifiable
> nation.
But ordinary people look down of football hooligans - so are
likely to be put off nationalism if they think it would
involve associating with them.
No doubt football hooligans and ruffians would make good
soldiers. But it is not politically expedient to associate
your ideas with their actions.
Mrs.Thomson
<ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
>If you look at the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Anglo-Saxons
>took a similar view. But the (very) long term consequences
>of the Viking and Norman influence was probably beneficial.
>Of course, there is no modern day comparison. We live in an
>age of settled states and I too do not want to see my
>country subjugated. Sadly, I fear that is what is happening.
The only people that seem to be attempting to
subjugate us are the US and the European Union.
>> >Technology was a consequence of knowledge,
>> Whose?
>> > which was
>> >developed by generations of Europeans with high
>> >intelligence. You will not find potential Isaac
>> Newtons or
>> >Charles Darwins among the Zulus.
>> >
>> How do you know?
>
>You are welcome to go to Africa and try and find some
>geniuses out there. You would be the first one.
Why has nobody tried before and if no-one has, how
do you know there are none to be found?
How would you find them?
Roger
news:83duji$qql$2...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Attend to the issue and not lapse into silly remarks.
> It shows you have no answer to facts you do not wish to accept.
The issue is simple. There is a paranoid racist loony called billy who
insists of outpouring his delusions for all the world to read.
There are no facts emanating from this billy loony, only moronic froth.
Fortunately, this billy loon is begining to crack. his paranoia is begining
to hurt him.
RogerT
abelard
<jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Roger <ro...@volney.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:836af1$hqj$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> abelard <abe...@www.abelard.org> wrote in message
>> news:9reb5sg1nvuk08kvr...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > as roger states....you are nuts....or as i would put it...
>> > you exhibit great mental disorganisation....
>>
>> too many syllables. billy many lose his teeth along with his
>marbles.
>>
>> RogerT
>Roger Trash (along with your "off his rocker" member of the same loony
>ideological camp - Abe Lard)
get out of that without moving!
regards.
Rameses
<nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> Rameses wrote:
> > > > 2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants?
> >
> > > Because societies and cultures that try to close
> > > themselves off from
> > > outside influences will stagnate.
> >
> > Britain seemed to be doing okay between 1066 and
> 1939 (when
> > immigration was negligible - except for a few
> European
> letting
> > them in). British stagnation began after we started
> letting
> > in immigrants (though this was not the only reason
> for the
> > stagnation). We were the greatest nation on earth.
> Now we
> > are ... not.
> figures.
Enlighten me.
> >
> > But technology and wealth is a result of invention,
> > creativity and industry. British history proves the
> British
> > have plenty of that. African history proves Africans
> do not.
> African history proves nothing of the kind. It does
> however show that progress
> is slower when there is less need to progress. North
> Africa, in contact with
> Europe, was well in step until their shortsightedness
> with the slave trade
> crippled them.
If the Africans could have developed the kind of technology
we have, they would have. That they didn't is a result of
their inability, not the lack of need to progress.
There was slavery in Africa long before Europeans arrived.
> > > culture is not a
> > > static entity but is in constant evolution. Also if
> > > the "out of
> > > Africa" theory of the origins of humanity is
> correct
> > > we are all people
> > > with African ancestry.
> > > James
> >
> > Our culture would be evolving if it were progressing
> on its
> > own terms. What we are experiencing is not the
> evolution,
> > but the destruction of our culture.
> Then our culture has never evolved as it has always
> been subject to external
> influences. I do not see any of our culture being
> destroyed, just added to.
That depends what your definition of "our culture" is. My
definition is European culture - a particular blend of which
has formed into British culture.
James Hammerton
> In article <38597D7A...@netcomuk.co.uk>, 'Droid
> <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> > Rameses wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3857D9F8...@netcomuk.co.uk>, 'Droid
> > > <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Rameses wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <qaemcpe...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>,
> > James
> > > > Hammerton
> > > > > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) If the intention is to "absorb" immigrants, do
> > > > you think
> > > > > it would be easier to absorb a million Danes or a
> > > > million
> > > > > Zulus?
> > >
> > > > Irrelevant. No one is talking about absorbing a
> > > > million of anything.
> > >
> > > > > 2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants?
> > >
> > > > Because it is better for us and for them than
> > creating
> > > > ghettos and the policy of
> > > > separation.
> > >
> > > Nice self-contradiction there 'Droid.
> > Explain. I hope it is not that you consider my first
> > answer as being in
> > contradiction to the second. It isn't.
>
> First you said no one is talking about absorbing anything
No he said no one it talking about absorbing *a million* of anything.
Mrs.Thomson
<ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
>No doubt football hooligans and ruffians would make good
>soldiers. But it is not politically expedient to associate
>your ideas with their actions.
Surely not a touch of political correctness
sneaking in? :)
Mrs.Thomson
<ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
>If the Africans could have developed the kind of technology
>we have, they would have.
Even if they didn't need to?
>That they didn't is a result of
>their inability, not the lack of need to progress.
Why did they need to progress? Given that African
people have not died out, presumably the system
they were using was quite adequate for their
needs.
>There was slavery in Africa long before Europeans arrived.
There was slavery in Europe long before the
Europeans went to Africa to recruit slaves.
billy
Thomas Deas <tj...@spam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:83bdt0$shk$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>
> "Rameses" <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > The vast majority of inter-racial crime in US (including
> > the FBI statistics if anyone is interested (and if I can be
> > bothered to look them up). Yet in Britain we only ever hear
> > of "Hate" crimes committed by whites in the US.
>
>
Are you suggesting those they kill they really love?
regards, billy
billy
Rameses <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <3857D9F8...@netcomuk.co.uk>, 'Droid
> <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> > Rameses wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <qaemcpe...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James
> > Hammerton
> > > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > 1) If the intention is to "absorb" immigrants, do
> > you think
> > > it would be easier to absorb a million Danes or a
> > million
> > > Zulus?
>
> > Irrelevant. No one is talking about absorbing a
> > million of anything.
>
> > > 2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants?
>
> > Because it is better for us and for them than creating
> > ghettos and the policy of
> > separation.
>
> Nice self-contradiction there 'Droid.
>
> > > think it would harm the country?
>
>
> If you look at the long term the absorbtion of even the
> current level of immigrants will have a massive (and
> harmful) impact of the British populace.
>
> > > the races are entirely equal in every respect,
> > > million Zulus would make Britain more like Africa -
> > less
> > > intelligence, civilisation and culture. And if a
> > million
> > > Zulus were absorbed - so that everyone in Britain
> > had Zulu
> > > ancestry (just as almost everyone in Brazil has
> > African
> > > ancestry), isn't that cultural genocide?
>
> > Do you regard the Saxon or Norman invasions as
> > cultural genocide? If so, the
> > answer is yes. It woudl certainly give an influx of
>
> look at the art, symbols, history, genes and so on of the
> Saxons and Europeans you will see they belonged to different
> tribes - but the same culture. Certainly the same race.
> (which brought in a wave of perhaps the greatest tribe in
> Europe - which enhanced our own) with the coming of economic
> refugees and asylum seekers.
>
> > dispute your comment about intelligence, culture and
> > civilisation. The big
> > difference was technology, not the others.
> > 'Droid
>
> Technology was a consequence of knowledge, which was
> developed by generations of Europeans with high
> intelligence. You will not find potential Isaac Newtons or
> Charles Darwins among the Zulus.
>
Rameses,
you are stating the obvious which anyone with the normal powers of
observation, average intelligence and a dollop of common sense would
rcognise.
But, it seems - and sadly - there are many posting to this NG who lack
all three attributes (or they just do not want to admit the obvious)
regards, billy
billy
> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:10:37 -0800, Rameses
> <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> >immigration was negligible - except for a few European
> >protestants, and a few Jews (after Cromwell started letting
> >them in). British stagnation began after we started letting
> >in immigrants (though this was not the only reason for the
> >stagnation). We were the greatest nation on earth. Now we
> >are ... not.
>
> gdp has risen over 50% in 20 years....
>
>
>
> >have plenty of that. African history proves Africans do not.
> >academic debate. Some say Africa, some say Asia, some say
> >Cro-Magnon man) swept out of Africa 35,000 years ago, that
> >does not mean we descend from Africans as we now understand
> >the word. That is - we were not once Negroes. Negroes are
> >those who stayed behind from sub-suhara Africa. There is no
> >evidence that Africans and Europeans share common human
> >ancestry. We may have to go all the way back to homo erectus
> >debate is irrelevant anyway.
>
> there is more genetic variation between 'whites'
> than between 'whites' and 'blacks'.....
> how do you explain that einstein....pure chance...?
>
"Sooo-urce!" "Proo-ooof"
regards, billy
billy
James Hammerton <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:qaiu1xl...@tardis.ed.ac.uk...
> Rameses <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> writes:
>
> > In article <qak8mfd...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James Hammerton
> > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Rameses <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> writes:
> > > > In article <qaemcpe...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, James
> > > Hammerton
> > > > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > >
>
>
> >
>
> > As for 'out of Africa' - for a start, this is a matter of
> > academic debate. Some say Africa, some say Asia, some say
>
>
> > Siberia. But if members of the European race (such as
> > Cro-Magnon man) swept out of Africa 35,000 years ago, that
> > does not mean we descend from Africans as we now understand
> > the word. That is - we were not once Negroes. Negroes are
> > those who stayed behind from sub-suhara Africa. There is no
> > evidence that Africans and Europeans share common human
> > ancestry. We may have to go all the way back to homo erectus
>
>
We share something like 98% of our genes with a chimpanze, but the 2%
makes a vast difference.
We also share over 50% of genes with a banana.
regards, billy
billy
'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:385982F6...@netcomuk.co.uk...
> "Mrs.Thomson" wrote:
>
> > >> > Unless you accept that all
> > >> > the races are entirely equal in every respect,
> > >> absorbing a
> > >> > million Zulus would make Britain more like Africa -
> > >> less
> > >> > intelligence, civilisation and culture. And if a
> > >> million
> > >> > Zulus were absorbed - so that everyone in Britain
> > >> had Zulu
> > >> > ancestry (just as almost everyone in Brazil has
> > >> African
> > >> > ancestry), isn't that cultural genocide?
> > >
> > >> Do you regard the Saxon or Norman invasions as
> > >> cultural genocide? If so, the
> > >> answer is yes. It woudl certainly give an influx of
> >
> > >(which brought in a wave of perhaps the greatest tribe in
> > >Europe - which enhanced our own) with the coming of economic
> > >refugees and asylum seekers.
> >
> > the conquerors are 'superior' in some way.
>
conquerors. I have to
> wonder how true this principle they would be if we were ever invaded
by aliens.
> Somehow I suspect that they would become a troublesome native rather
than
> accepting the superiority of the invader and thanking them for their
gift of
> higher civilisation and the infrastructure they would undoubtedly
put in place.
>
> 'Droid
Droid,
If one has to be conquered, it is far better it should be by those of
the same racial stock and who share the same culture.
In the case of the Normans (or Norsemen - i.e North-Men) you could not
have told an Anglo-Saxon apart from most Normans. They were all
stemming from Viking stock - Rollo - the Viking - being the first Duke
of Normandy.
There was much contact between the two peoples long before 1066 and
the two would have readily worshipped in the same churches and
understood and followed essentially Scandinavian derived laws. That is
why the Normans soon "disappeared" into Anglo-Saxon society.
Without tracing ancestry, now, you couldn't tell Anglo-Saxon or Norman
origins.
If the Normans would have been Negro, one could easily discern who was
of Norman descent and who of Anglo-Saxon - even today.
regards, billy
billy
> Paul Hyett wrote:
>
> > > They must then swear
> > >a oath of allegiance to this country and show they have a good
> > >knowledge of its political processes, customs and history.
> >
> > Sounds like the US.
>
> Actually this part is a good idea. It would help the immigrants to
understand
> the society in which they are living and would hopefully help them
assimilate
> into society, rather than the current situation where first
generation
> immigrants tend to stay apart. This could also be helped by language
tuition in
> English, which would ultimately help to make them more independent
within our
> society.
>
> 'Droid
'Droid - good on yer, mate.
You are spot on.
regards, billy
billy
> Cliff Morrison wrote:
> >
> > In article <3859336E...@netcomuk.co.uk>, nm...@netcomuk.co.uk
wrote:
> >
> > > Paul Hyett wrote:
> > >
> > > > > They must then swear
> > > > >a oath of allegiance to this country and show they have a
good
> > > > >knowledge of its political processes, customs and history.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like the US.
> > >
> > > Actually this part is a good idea. It would help the immigrants
to understand
> > > the society in which they are living and would hopefully help
them assimilate
> > > into society, rather than the current situation where first
generation
> > > immigrants tend to stay apart. This could also be helped by
language
> > tuition in
> > > English, which would ultimately help to make them more
independent within our
> > > society.
> >
any
> > less dumbed-down dump might be laughed out of sight.
>
> Not really. Even in a single government world, it would be wise to
ensure that
> people can speak the dominant language in the area that they live
and that they
> understand how the governemnt functions in that region. Otherwise
they will not
> be able to participate in the processes that affect so much of their
lives.
>
> 'Droid
'Droid,
You have got it right. Shared values and ease of communication is
essential to unity.
regards, billy
'Droid
>
> In article <38597FF5...@netcomuk.co.uk>, 'Droid
> <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> > Rameses wrote:
> > > > > 2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants?
> > >
> > > > themselves off from
> > > > outside influences will stagnate.
> > >
> > 1939 (when
> > > immigration was negligible - except for a few
> > European
> > > protestants, and a few Jews (after Cromwell started
> > letting
> > > them in). British stagnation began after we started
> > letting
> > > in immigrants (though this was not the only reason
> > for the
> > > stagnation). We were the greatest nation on earth.
> > Now we
> > > are ... not.
> > figures.
>
> Enlighten me.
For starters, you seem to have ignored the immigration as a result of the slave
trade.
> > > But technology and wealth is a result of invention,
> > > creativity and industry. British history proves the
> > British
> > > have plenty of that. African history proves Africans
> > do not.
>
> > African history proves nothing of the kind. It does
> > however show that progress
> > is slower when there is less need to progress. North
> > Africa, in contact with
> > Europe, was well in step until their shortsightedness
> > with the slave trade
> > crippled them.
>
> If the Africans could have developed the kind of technology
> we have, they would have. That they didn't is a result of
> their inability, not the lack of need to progress.
Development of technology has always much more a case of solving a problem, than
just creation of technology. That is why war (or the threat of) has always been
a major accelerant to technological progress. A society also requires enough
resources for people to have the time for development. That requires a ready and
reliable food source.
> There was slavery in Africa long before Europeans arrived.
I know. However, it much smaller in scale, and tended to be of a different
nature in that many slaves were slaves for a limited term.
> > > > culture is not a
> > > > static entity but is in constant evolution. Also if
> > > > the "out of
> > > > Africa" theory of the origins of humanity is
> > correct
> > > > we are all people
> > > > with African ancestry.
> > > > James
> > >
> > > Our culture would be evolving if it were progressing
> > on its
> > > own terms. What we are experiencing is not the
> > evolution,
> > > but the destruction of our culture.
> > Then our culture has never evolved as it has always
> > been subject to external
> > influences. I do not see any of our culture being
> > destroyed, just added to.
>
> That depends what your definition of "our culture" is. My
> definition is European culture - a particular blend of which
> has formed into British culture.
I still don't see any of it being destroyed. New culture is being added.
'Droid
'Droid
>
> In article <38597D7A...@netcomuk.co.uk>, 'Droid
> <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> > Rameses wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3857D9F8...@netcomuk.co.uk>, 'Droid
> > > <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Rameses wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <qaemcpe...@tardis.ed.ac.uk>,
> > James
> > > > Hammerton
> > > > > <ja...@tardis.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > you think
> > > > > it would be easier to absorb a million Danes or a
> > > > million
> > > > > Zulus?
> > >
> > > > Irrelevant. No one is talking about absorbing a
> > > > million of anything.
> > >
> > >
> > creating
> > > > ghettos and the policy of
> > > > separation.
> > >
> > > Nice self-contradiction there 'Droid.
> > answer as being in
> > contradiction to the second. It isn't.
>
> (presumably meaning immigrants), then you gave a reason why
> we would want to absorb immigrants.
I said no-one was talking about absorbing a *million* of anything. Current
immigration stands at around 50,000 per year, which is not only a much lower
figure but composed not of a single race//nationality such as Danes or Zulus,
but is made up of many different origins. However, it is in our interestes to
absorb, rather than segregate, the current immigration. The same principle would
apply if we were dealing with 1 million immigrants, although that rate woudl
probably be too high for this nation to sustain from a logistical standpoint.
> > > If you look at the long term the absorbtion of even
> > the
> > > current level of immigrants will have a massive (and
> > > harmful) impact of the British populace.
>
> > How exactly? Immigration has been a fact of life in
> > these islands for centuries.
>
> In very small quantities - and only those of the same race.
> So the character of the British race has not been altered
> for centuries, millenia even.
The Saxon immigration was not small scale, nor was the Norman. They were indeed
all white, but their cultures were a lot different from those already living in
Britain.
> > The immigration you refer to has been in progress for
> > decades. We are still
> > here.
>
> But for how many generations?
>
> > > Not at all - because the Saxon and Normans (and
> > indeed all
> > > our ancestors) belonged to the same European
> > culture.
>
> > Rubbish. The Saxons when they invaded these islands
> > were not even Christian. You
> > seem to forget that this occurred when the fastest
> > means of transport was the
> > horse: there was no single European culture. There
> > still isn't.
>
> There was a European race (with various tribes) and a
> European culture (with variation, but of common ancestry and
> following a common thread). Those who settled in Britain
> belonged to almost identical tribes (in racial terms). The
> genes of those living in Britain 1000 years ago are
> practically identical to today's British population.
I don't think the Romans and Norse would agree with you. As for a 1,00 years
ago, that would be the case as that was the time of the last major influx, after
1066.
> > > If you
> > > look at the art, symbols, history, genes and so on
> > of the
> > > Saxons and Europeans you will see they belonged to
> > different
> > > tribes - but the same culture. Certainly the same
> > race.
> > They were the same race, but not the same culture. The
> > only common thread was
> > Christianity, and even then they couldn't agree, and
> > that was much later. The
> > Vikings and the Saxons were not Christian. Europe as a
> > whole had a whole variety
> > of Gods and culture.
>
> And much blood was shed as a result. But the long term
> consequence of the coming of the various tribes was
> beneficial - because it created a highly successful nation.
> I suspect the mongrel non-race that will form in a few
> generations will achieve as little as the mongrel non-races
> of the world do today.
Now you are contradicting yourself. As you say union has benefited our nation,
and will continue to do so.
> > > There is a world of difference between the Norman
> > conquest
> > > (which brought in a wave of perhaps the greatest
> > tribe in
> > > Europe - which enhanced our own) with the coming of
> > economic
> > > refugees and asylum seekers.
>
> > Not in the terms you express the latter influx. The
> > effects of the Norman
> > invasion was precisely that you ascribe to the current
> > immigration. I agree that
> > they are not comparable: the current immigranst are
> > having nowhere near the
> > cultural effect the Normans (or the Saxons or Romans)
> > did.
>
> The current immigration influx will downgrade the population
> in terms of achievement, intelligence and culture. It will
> also break the link with our British-European heritage. Do
> they celebrate Crecy in multicultural schools?
I fail to see how immigration will affect intelligence or achievement. It will,
of course, affect our culture, but then so has every immigration as did
imperialism.
Currently a large number of immigranst are Europeans, and most of the rest are
from the Commonwealth, both groups falling well into our British-European
heritage.
> > I agree that technology is a consequence of
> > knowledge. But the generation of
> > new knowledge depends on education in the old. The
> > problem is that without
> > knowledge of the previous giants, people will not be
> > able to achieve anything
> > new. If Newton had not had the education he did, he
> > would not have achieved
> > much.
> > 'Droid
>
> I agree with you about the importance of education. But no
> matter how good an education an Aboriginal is given, he will
> never make the same impact on our knowledge and
> understanding that the great European thinkers have.
How do you know? It has never been tested. Educated non-whites have contributed
a large amount, especially in early Islam, before it fell into the dogma trap,
and the East before and after its self imposed isolation.
'Droid
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>as it
>> can change over time, so I don't regard tribalism as inevitable.
>It's
>> only seen that way because we are all influenced by it from birth.
>> --
>
>"Proof" "Source"
I thought 'common sense' didn't need it? :)
>But without proof and source: What went wrong in Yugoslavia where
>tribalism is now rampant; and also what is happening in Chechenya -
>where a small tribe is fighting a big one?
>They were all, in those settings, brought up under the same
>educational system - and, in many cases, lived next door to one and
>other.
The problem is history. They are fighting over past grievances (real or
imagined), not living in the present.
The world would be a much safer place if everyone stopped allowing past
injustices to influence their present actions.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Mrs.Thomson
<jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>If one has to be conquered, it is far better it should be by those of
>the same racial stock and who share the same culture.
Then why did we even bother sacrificing so many
British men fighting the Germans?
Does this mean that they lost their lives for
nothing?
Roger
>
> "Sooo-urce!" "Proo-ooof"
You mean you have some. When do you intend to post it. (Not your delusions
though).
RogerT
Roger
> We also share over 50% of genes with a banana.
You seem to have inherited both halves. Explains why you are soft and
yellow.
RogerT
BOEDICIA
>From: "billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk>
>Date: Fri, 17 December 1999 09:40 PM EST
>Message-id: <83gerv$vg7$3...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>
>abelard <abe...@www.abelard.org> wrote in message
>> there is more genetic variation between 'whites'
>> than between 'whites' and 'blacks'.....
>> how do you explain that einstein....pure chance...?
>"Sooo-urce!" "Proo-ooof"
"Proo-ooof" ? Oh sorry, Billy, I thought
you said "poof". Ol' Fairy Cake certainly
likes these coloureds doesn't "he"?
I did notice in one post where "he" spoke
of "us blacks" and I immediately said to
myself - "ha ha, now we know why "he"
and Woger Wabbit are always fnding
excuses for the machete choppers"
and then I realised that he meant
"U.S. blacks", but being functionally
illiterate "he" couldn't quite manage to find
the caps and full stop key. So I'm
afraid "he's" back to being "Abe" once
more and posting his anti "christianism"
stuff. So far, I haven't noticed any
anti-jew stuff - have you?
"Communism is jewish. That''s
why the jew owned papers won't print
anything about the Bolshevik Revolution
being jew financed". - Hilaire Belloc
Well, not in so many words. What he really said was that the jew owned
wire services (Reuters) were deliberately
omitting the fact that jews were in control
of the Bolshevik government in Russia.
Well as Fairy Cake said, he *was* a
Catholic.
'Droid
>
> Thomas Deas <tj...@spam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:83bdt0$shk$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> >
> > > The vast majority of inter-racial crime in US (including
> > > murder, rape and violence) is black on white. I'll produce
> > > the FBI statistics if anyone is interested (and if I can be
> > > bothered to look them up). Yet in Britain we only ever hear
> > > of "Hate" crimes committed by whites in the US.
> >
> > But are the b-o-w crimes 'Hate' crimes?
> >
>
> Are you suggesting those they kill they really love?
IIRC most murderers are known by their victims. Passion is one of the major
motives for the crime.
'Droid
'Droid
> > "Mrs.Thomson" wrote:
> >
> > > >> > Unless you accept that all
> > > >> > the races are entirely equal in every respect,
> > > >> absorbing a
> > > >> > million Zulus would make Britain more like Africa -
> > > >> less
> > > >> > intelligence, civilisation and culture. And if a
> > > >> million
> > > >> > Zulus were absorbed - so that everyone in Britain
> > > >> had Zulu
> > > >> > ancestry (just as almost everyone in Brazil has
> > > >> African
> > > >> > ancestry), isn't that cultural genocide?
> > > >
> > > >> Do you regard the Saxon or Norman invasions as
> > > >> cultural genocide? If so, the
> > > >> answer is yes. It woudl certainly give an influx of
> > >
> > > >(which brought in a wave of perhaps the greatest tribe in
> > > >Europe - which enhanced our own) with the coming of economic
> > > >refugees and asylum seekers.
> > >
> > > the conquerors are 'superior' in some way.
> >
> > That seems to be the gist, especially when whites are the
> conquerors. I have to
> > wonder how true this principle they would be if we were ever invaded
> by aliens.
> > Somehow I suspect that they would become a troublesome native rather
> than
> > accepting the superiority of the invader and thanking them for their
> gift of
> > higher civilisation and the infrastructure they would undoubtedly
> put in place.
> >
> > 'Droid
>
> Droid,
> the same racial stock and who share the same culture.
IN my opinion being conquered by Germans is as bad as being conquered by
Japanese.
> In the case of the Normans (or Norsemen - i.e North-Men) you could not
> have told an Anglo-Saxon apart from most Normans. They were all
> stemming from Viking stock - Rollo - the Viking - being the first Duke
> of Normandy.
True enough, except the Saxons were mainly blond, the Normans mainly brunette.
It was easy enough to tell them apart naked, but besides that, their dress was
different. Those of the time would have known who was who.
> There was much contact between the two peoples long before 1066 and
> the two would have readily worshipped in the same churches and
> understood and followed essentially Scandinavian derived laws. That is
> why the Normans soon "disappeared" into Anglo-Saxon society.
> Without tracing ancestry, now, you couldn't tell Anglo-Saxon or Norman
> origins.
Now you can't, almost a millenium on, because interbreeding has happened in the
intervening centuries. Then you could. There has been contact between Britain
and the rest of the world for centuries, but that doesn't add any validation to
them conquering us.
> If the Normans would have been Negro, one could easily discern who was
> of Norman descent and who of Anglo-Saxon - even today.
Not with the same amount of interbreeding over the centuries. In the same way
that hair, eyes and other superficial features have merged, so skin colour would
have merged if the Normans had been black. I was blond and blue eyed as a young
child, but am now brunette with green eyes, due to my mixed heritage.
'Droid
abelard
<jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"Sooo-urce!" "Proo-ooof"
go get educated...you could not follow the argument
at present....
you'll need a minimum of stats at 'a' level....
and a good shot of genetics just to get near....
you are way way out of your depth bonehead...
like roger...i get the impression that your madness
is beginning to hurt you....thus i am inclined to
give you a, thus far, very small portion of the time of day....
you lack a great number of very basic concepts and facts....
consider that a child raised in the ussr became a good
little communist where as a child raised in rome believes
faithfully that the pope is infallible.....
do you seriously imagine that had they been born in the
reverse places that their belief systems and allegiances
would have turned out the same?
there is clearly an instinct or three to form groups....but it
is clearly environmentally determined.....
there is clearly an instinct to piss and shit where you stand
or squat....there is no instinct to find a piece of porcelain
and to aim at that....
once there were millions killed by infectious diseases....
we learnt how they were caused....we changed our
behaviour...
now we have bombs that can kill millions....we have a pressing
motive to stop wiping ourselves out....we have made much
progress in the few decades since the manhattan project
made human beings come to the conclusion that perhaps
future wars won't be so much fun.....a thing that even you
might be able to grasp...
the human species is rather successful and quite bright....
present company excepted....
we are working rather hard on the solutions to the matters
that you are stupid enuf to whine on about....we have already
made considerable progress.....if you have a child as you
claim, that is in fact studying psychology....if their tutors are
any good at all...they should be teaching them this stuff....
you will notice the effects in the changes in northern ireland,
the middle east...and growing in many other ways unnoticed
by the gutter press...which source, appears to be your prime
fount of misinformation....
if you are telling the truth...you could always ask the kid to teach
you...though i imagine you would be far more likely to feel
threatened...and bluster at them how you know better...just
as you do here....
go get some books on animal behaviour...i have listed some
of the better ones on my site booklist....if you bother doing
a bit of study instead of ranting like a demented banana....
others will help you with further reading and clarification....
of course that would mean admitting that you don't know....
a thing that takes more courage that you appear to be able
to easily muster...
just as we learnt to shit in a porcelain bucket...so we can learn
to change our relational behaviour and our child rearing
practices...see for example the outline curriculum document
at my site....
if we intend to live rather than wipe out our little planet...we are
going to have no choice....
you are an ignorant old fossil who is not keeping up with change....
you can keep whining interminably...or you can study and
work to catch up....
you can learn...or continue as a nuisance and a waste of space...
as they say on some quiz programmes...the choice is yours.....
consider that in various communities the person who imagines
they are the father of a child is up to 30% incorrect in that
assumption....depending upon the culture....
can you imagine the statistical effects of that level of uncertainty
over a few generations?
yet we have the village idiot who thinks it can smell 'jewish'
blood...
schicklgruber's family came from an area where it is estimated
that 40% of the population was illegitimate....
as zobel said....facts are stubborn things....
Rich Egan
> billy wrote:
> >
> > 'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:385982F6...@netcomuk.co.uk...
> > > "Mrs.Thomson" wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> > Unless you accept that all
> > > > >> > the races are entirely equal in every respect,
> > > > >> absorbing a
> > > > >> > million Zulus would make Britain more like Africa -
> > > > >> less
>
> > If the Normans would have been Negro, one could easily discern who was
> > of Norman descent and who of Anglo-Saxon - even today.
>
> Not with the same amount of interbreeding over the centuries. In the same
way
> that hair, eyes and other superficial features have merged, so skin colour
would
> have merged if the Normans had been black. I was blond and blue eyed as a
young
> child, but am now brunette with green eyes, due to my mixed heritage.
>
> 'Droid
You're all missing the point arguing about Saxons and Normans and Vikings
( Yes and I'm really upset that you left the Celts out). Look to South
America and
North America . North America was settled mainly by English , Germans ,
Irish and
Scots . They did not interbreed with the indians. I won't bore you with our
history .
So America was mainly settled by the Spanish and Portuguese, who did breed
with
the Indians . Bear inmind that the south American Indians were some of the
most
advanced of all the natives of the Americas. The Incas in particular
.Compare the
progress and acheivements of the people's of the two areas.I won't go into
it here.
But It must say something about mixing races .
Rich
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Rich Egan
BOEDICIA <boed...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991216161310...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Fact We Should All Fear
>
>
>
> Billy is great and the time he takes to post
> his excellent observations is appreciated
> by those of us who know the truth when
> we see it. It is said that one is known
> by their enemies. In this NG the enemies
> of Billy and other "racists" (if that word were ever removed from their
> vocabulary,
It slowly is being taken from them as more and more of us proudly apply
this label to ourselves . It has lost a considerable amount of it's sting.
> they would be dumbstruck) are a sorry
> collection of fairy cakes who hates
> "Christianism" and the "Roman Church"
> in particular , New York Yids whose
> posts consists of a few hundred "so what's" and "what a hoot", a moron
> whose one-liners consist of "you're mad".
> and a few teen aged University students
> who post at the expense of the British taxpayer while sneering at the
people
> who are paying for their computer use
> and time - one of them posted that "Lucifer" was his "Master". Add to
that
> those who have been on welfare since Lassie was a pup and the usual
> Trotskyites and defenders of Bolshie
> treason and you see the reason why
> Billy and the rest of us treat them with
> the contempt they serve - that is when
> their insane drivel isn't making us ROTFL
It's pretty much the same old socialist " Can't we all be friends?"
Nonsense.
>
> BTW - "We are in Kosovo because we
> care about saving lives and we care about
> the character of the multi-ethnic,
> Post Cold War world. Our military
> involvement was guided by the
> principles of multi-ethnic, tolerant,
> inclusive democracy. We have been fighting against the idea that
statehood
> must be based entirely on ethnicity".
> Clinton - San Francisco April 15th. 1999
Yes He has ! It was to soften up the Serbians for the coming infusion of
Mau-Mau
>
> Just what is this obscenity saying?
> That these ancient nation/states should
> no longer belong to those who founded them, but must be forced to accept
> those who are not part of their great cultures? That France no longer
belong
> to the French, Sweden to the Swedes,
> Germany to the Germans, etc. etc. etc?
Yes He's applying the so -called" American Dream " to people who want
no part of it . As an American , I find this assumption of American moral
superiority embarrassing . The Idea that every other nation on earth must
mix it up with God knows who or what because in someperson'e view it's
a good thing, is incredibly arrogant on our part. And for the sake of those
who don't live here, Please don't think that we all endorse this . In fact ,
most of us don't !
>
> No wonder it is now known as The Kosher White House. The offspring of
a
> dirty Scots Gyp is now mouthing the words of his "advisors" - the same
> "advisors" who advised him to destroy
> Serbia because they were too "nationalistic". i.e. too white and
Christian.
> Apparently Israel can be "The Jewish State", but white Christian nations
> have no right to be white and Christian.
Ditto for Japan , China and the Indian sub continent !
> Rich
> > Sic Semper Tyrannis
>
> And the sooner the better.
>
>
'Droid
We are not missing the point, because we are talking about the UK, not the USA.
> So America was mainly settled by the Spanish and Portuguese, who did breed
> with
> the Indians . Bear inmind that the south American Indians were some of the
> most
> advanced of all the natives of the Americas. The Incas in particular
> .Compare the
> progress and acheivements of the people's of the two areas.I won't go into
> it here.
> But It must say something about mixing races .
Not really. It just reflects the fortunes of the relevant conquering powers in
the world.
'Droid
Rab Small
>> Zulu culture, but I would
>> dispute your comment about intelligence, culture and
>> civilisation. The big
>> difference was technology, not the others.
>> 'Droid
>
>Technology was a consequence of knowledge, which was
>developed by generations of Europeans with high
>intelligence. You will not find potential Isaac Newtons or
>Charles Darwins among the Zulus.
>
um prove that last point would you ???
Rich Egan
> billy wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Deas <tj...@spam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:83bdt0$shk$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> > >
> > > "Rameses" <ramesesi...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:011588b2...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com...
> > > > The vast majority of inter-racial crime in US (including
> >
> > >
> >
> > Are you suggesting those they kill they really love?
>
> IIRC most murderers are known by their victims. Passion is one of the
major
> motives for the crime.
>
> 'Droid
I think you are skillfully twisting the argument . What was asked was
not "do most victims know their killers ? "
But rather are there Black on White" hate" Crimes . Almost all , And there
is considerable, crime against whites
involves hatred of the victim for his or her skin color . Hundred of white
victims suffer assault, robbery , rape ,
and murder each year at the hands of Black criminals / The central park
jogger in New York was one . Bernie
Goetz, was another . Then there were the many white tourists in Florida
many of whom were British) who were
victimized because of their skin color. Blacks have been pandered too and
encouraged to thinkof themselves as
victims of white oppression for so long , now that policy is bearing fruit
in the form of Black on White crime .
Rich
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Rab Small
Rameses wrote in message <002e299c...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com>...
>In article <38597FF5...@netcomuk.co.uk>, 'Droid
><nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>> Rameses wrote:
>> > > > 2) Why would we want to absorb immigrants?
>> >
>> > > themselves off from
>> > > outside influences will stagnate.
>> >
>> > Britain seemed to be doing okay between 1066 and
>> 1939 (when
>> > immigration was negligible - except for a few
>> European
>> > protestants, and a few Jews (after Cromwell started
>> letting
>> > them in). British stagnation began after we started
>> letting
>> > in immigrants (though this was not the only reason
>> for the
>> > stagnation). We were the greatest nation on earth.
>> Now we
>> > are ... not.
>> You need to have another look at the immigration
>> figures.
>
>
>Enlighten me.
>
>
>> >
>> > creativity and industry. British history proves the
>> British
>> > have plenty of that. African history proves Africans
>> do not.
What about the Moors they were quite advanced compared to the Europeans of
the time till they were humbled by whoever <christians i think> and chinese
where much futher faster than we in Europe till the same insular tendencies
that you are proposing that we take held them back..
i dont doubt they felt the same way that you do
>
>> African history proves nothing of the kind. It does
>> however show that progress
>> is slower when there is less need to progress. North
>> Africa, in contact with
>> Europe, was well in step until their shortsightedness
>> with the slave trade
>> crippled them.
>
>If the Africans could have developed the kind of technology
>we have, they would have. That they didn't is a result of
>their inability, not the lack of need to progress.
>
>There was slavery in Africa long before Europeans arrived.
>
>> > > culture is not a
>> > > static entity but is in constant evolution. Also if
>> > > the "out of
>> > > Africa" theory of the origins of humanity is
>> correct
>> > > we are all people
>> > > with African ancestry.
>> > > James
>> >
>> > Our culture would be evolving if it were progressing
>> on its
>> > own terms. What we are experiencing is not the
>> evolution,
>> > but the destruction of our culture.
>> Then our culture has never evolved as it has always
>> been subject to external
>> influences. I do not see any of our culture being
>> destroyed, just added to.
>
>That depends what your definition of "our culture" is. My
>definition is European culture - a particular blend of which
>has formed into British culture.
>
>
>
>
>
Rich Egan
> On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 18:40:41 -0800, "billy"
> <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Sooo-urce!" "Proo-ooof"
>
> go get educated...you could not follow the argument
> at present....
> you'll need a minimum of stats at 'a' level....
> and a good shot of genetics just to get near....
> you are way way out of your depth bonehead...
>
> like roger...i get the impression that your madness
> is beginning to hurt you....thus i am inclined to
> give you a, thus far, very small portion of the time of day....
>
> you lack a great number of very basic concepts and facts....
>
> consider that a child raised in the ussr became a good
> little communist where as a child raised in rome believes
> faithfully that the pope is infallible.....
How Many little Russian children grew up hating Communism?
Lech Walensa , Swoboda and Dubcek, and all the victims of the Stasi
and the Volkspolizei grew up in their little socialist paradises.
Thousands of Chinese fled Mao's nirvana when the opportunity
availed itself . Martin Luther and all the priests and clergy who
followed him began as Catholics, enamored of the Pope . What
happened ? So much for education and indoctrination. Men will
eventually come to see the lies. It's best if there are no lies to see .
> do you seriously imagine that had they been born in the
> reverse places that their belief systems and allegiances
> would have turned out the same?
Yes they would have! I know it's hard for you to see but it's true !
How many hard core socialists have sprung from capitalist Bastions like
America? How many Successful capitalists have begun life in a socialist
state ? Clearly, the Tabula Rasa state that we imagine a person's mind to
be at birth is not exactly the case . It is from the knowledge of this
that I'm a confirmed racist. I believe that certain traits are not just
individual ,
but racial . The distinctions that Julius Ceasar noted in his book " De
Bello
Gallica " regarding the Celts , would be recognisable today . To a lesser
degree perhaps due to the advent of mass media . But still present just
the same.
> there is clearly an instinct or three to form groups....but it
> is clearly environmentally determined.....
Is it ? By groups , I think you mean Tribes . Tribes are just large
connected family groups . But They will expand as did the Celts
across Europe . From Turkey to Ireland . Was it all Economic?
was it all due to food shortages . Or was it due to a willingness to
break away and become independent ? Look again .
>
> there is clearly an instinct to piss and shit where you stand
> or squat....there is no instinct to find a piece of porcelain
> and to aim at that....
> once there were millions killed by infectious diseases....
> we learnt how they were caused....we changed our
> behaviour...
When that shit and piss bring foul odors and millions of flies
buzzing around your head . .......
>
> you can learn...or continue as a nuisance and a waste of space...
> as they say on some quiz programmes...the choice is yours.....
Oh We see . Your'e on the cutting edge of the future ,. We should
all get in line behind you and let you lead us into the brave new world
Could you share some details of this marvelous place . Since we are
all going to live there some day .
>
>
> consider that in various communities the person who imagines
> they are the father of a child is up to 30% incorrect in that
> assumption....depending upon the culture....
> can you imagine the statistical effects of that level of uncertainty
> over a few generations?
> yet we have the village idiot who thinks it can smell 'jewish'
> blood...
It isn't Jewish Blood that bothers us , it's Jewish thoughts and
ambitions that concern us .
> schicklgruber's family came from an area where it is estimated
> that 40% of the population was illegitimate....
Oh you mean 60% legitmate ................ Who Cares ?
>
> as zobel said....facts are stubborn things....
Lets see some "facts" . then we'll decide how stubborn they are
>
Rich
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Paul Hyett
considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
Roger
news:83j4fq$9e1$3...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> It isn't Jewish Blood that bothers us , it's Jewish thoughts and
> ambitions that concern us .
Always happens to people who think they can read other people's minds.
Treatable condition in its early stages, although you seem well infected.
RogerT