Local elections & voting

[BumbleBee]

The English local elections are coming up on May 1st. I have received my ballot paper in the post and in my area we can only vote by post.

Is this a pilot scheme or is this the case in every area?

What do you think of postal voting? Will it encourage more people to vote or not?

I have already voted and posted my paper back to them. (I was a little annoyed to see the BNP have a candidate in my area - I never thought I would see the day :mad: )

[Van The Man]

My mother lives in your area and she too is voting my post. I am not sure if we are, but I know your area and I share your concerns about the BNP. :(

[monocrat]

Postal voting was introduced in the last general election. Personally I think it's more convenient than having to physically going to a polling station. As for the BNP, their views may be obnoxious but I don't feel it's right to exclude them in the context of a liberal democracy.

[Captain Slog]

1 May is also the date for the Scottish parliment and local council elections. Postal voting is useful for those who can't get to a polling station, for instance the disabled of armed forces serving overseas, so yes I do think it is useful. The BNP aren't standing in my constituency, but if they were they wouldn't stand a chance against the Labour and Conservative heavyweights. Not even the Lib Dems have a foothold in South Ayrshire.

[Sanj33v]

Some areas the BNP have got a big advantage though in the fact that fundamentalism (using that word loosely) has generally caused a greater electoral turnout, whereas the apathetic "left/right of the middle" majority have a low turnout.....if you see what I mean :confused:

[Heydrich]

Oh the horrible BNP, they don't want Great Britain to be turned into a third world cesspool like South Africa - a multicultural paradise with the highest AIDS, rape, and murder rate in the world! They must be stopped!

[Guest_]

Originally posted by Heydrich
Oh the horrible BNP, they don't want Great Britain to be turned into a third world cesspool like South Africa - a multicultural paradise with the highest AIDS, rape, and murder rate in the world! They must be stopped!

Facist.

Anyways...I get a postal vote (because I'm away when the elections are. I'm pleased to say the only candidates in my area are lib dems and conservative.

[Semper Eadem]

BNP candidate in my area and I shall be voting for him as well.

My reasons (although I shouldnt have to explain them in a democratic society)

1. I oppose multi-culturalism and the destruction of the tradiotional british soceity.

2. No other party offers the same opportunities to me personally as the BNP.

3. They are a democratic party who appeal to thousands of british people.

4. They seem to be the only political party that are not scared to tell the truth.

5. All the poncy-wet, pink, liberals will get thier nickers in a twist. ;)

6. I love the publicity that the BNP generates, funny thing is, 90% is from the left complaing!:lol:

UP THE BNP, the only party at the moment for true brits!

P.S. I used to be a labour man, but I have been betrayed by them, betrayed by a party scared of its own people. A disgrace.

[Guest_]

Originally posted by Semper Eadem
I oppose multi-culturalism

Why?

2. No other party offers the same opportunities to me personally as the BNP.

What opportunities do the BNP offer you? With the exception of a facist society, of course.

4. They seem to be the only political party that are not scared to tell the truth.

Sure, they tell the truth about their "ethnic cleansing" ideals, that's great, but how on earth will it benefit anyone?

[perfect***day]

Postal voting is not only easier for everyone, but also for many people it's the only way they can vote - ill, disabled or elderly people often can't get to the polling stations (or whatever they're called!) on the day of an election. Obviously it's also good for people who may be away for the weekend or for longer.

About the BNP... personally I can see where they're coming from, trying to uphold the great 'British' society, culture and traditions, but I do feel they're a little extreme and were they to hold any positions of responsibility they would exercise quite controversial policies re: taxes, benefits, immigration etc and would not be capable of running the simpler things like the NHS and education.

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by BumbleBee
(I was a little annoyed to see the BNP have a candidate in my area - I never thought I would see the day :mad: )

You should be proud to see their name on the paper. It's the sign of a free society that even the lowest form of scum (even those like Heydrich) can put themselves up for election.

Of course, should they become powerful enough to win, they would deny this right to you in the future. Bless them.

@ Semper - fundamentalists, be they religious of racial, only offer conflict. If you are happy for that then go ahead, vote BNP. I would be interested to find out what these people offer you personally which is so magnificent...

[Sanj33v]

Shocked at the way people are using the term British....ok, shocked at the way the BNP use the term British. My family are originally from India, but Iam British. As far as Iam concerned, when a country colonizes another country (by colonize read murder a number of the countries inhabitants and plunder the wealth of the country), the inhabitants becomes their social responsibility.

[Captain Slog]

I find it strange that the extreme left in this country are given a free platform by the media and are treated as acceptable while the extreme right aren't.

[Heydrich]

Facist.

#1. I am not a Fascist.

#2. The unborn of Britain are going to be the ones who are going to pay the price of the sheer madness of Great Britain's immigration policy. They will scorn the worthless degenerates of today who have sold away the birthright of future generations in the name of political correctness. Fifty years from now we will be well on the way to the final consumation of the Islamic Republic of Great Britainstan - when London is an impoverished Third World city, a cesspool of rape, religious fanaticism, crime, poverty, voodoo, and AIDs like Johannasberg, South Africa of 2003.

[Heydrich]

Shocked at the way people are using the term British....ok, shocked at the way the BNP use the term British.

Indeed, it is very shocking indeed that the BNP hold the same values the British people did for generations, that Britain was a white European country. Great Britain however today is a country in decline. It is degenerating with each passing year. The British do not even know who the hell they are anymore, just like the Romans in their last days, just like the Americans on the otherside of the Atlantic. I am actually embarrassed my ancestors came from such a place.

My family are originally from India, but Iam British.

ROFL, truly shocking indeed. As if there is even such a thing as "immigrating" to India which is next to impossible if you are not an Indian.

As far as Iam concerned, when a country colonizes another country (by colonize read murder a number of the countries inhabitants and plunder the wealth of the country), the inhabitants becomes their social responsibility

There is a nation called India today, a much larger nation than Great Britain, and unlike the UK of 2003 that India tenaciously protects its ethnic integrity.

[Heydrich]

Why?

See Yugoslavia.

What opportunities do the BNP offer you?

The BNP is the only party in the UK determined to prevent the UK from becoming another South Africa or another Zimbabwe by the end of this century.

With the exception of a facist society, of course.

The BNP is not a fascist party. Fascism is a statist ideology, it is not necessarily racist. It is not the BNP who are responsible for the imperialism in Iraq at the moment.

Sure, they tell the truth about their "ethnic cleansing" ideals, that's great, but how on earth will it benefit anyone?

The UK will benefit enormously from not following in the footsteps of South Africa, Haiti, Rhodesia, and the American South. Importing nonwhite foreigners from all over the world and actually encouraging them to accent their differences is nothing short of complete and utter madness. It is just that sort of diversity - ethnic, racial, religious - that is responsible for the majority of bloodbaths in human history. Promoting such an absurd society is a prescription for a police state - as the government turns to the role of conflict management - which is dangerous to liberty and individual rights. Faction is not something that should actually be pursued in a society - a source of weakness.

[Captain Slog]

Heydrich, you're getting a bit repetetive.

[kevlar85]

Heydrich would you be as anti-immigrants if they were white Aryans from Germany and Scandinavia?

Britain has always been a mongrel race - I know that was originally used as a term of abuse but I think it's a good description - mongrels are better tempered and less likely to suffer the health defects of purely bred pedigree dogs. Britain has integrated Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and many others over the years - would there be as much fuss if immigrants over the last sixty years had not had different skin colours? If not then the whole argument is based on skin colour - all the white races who immigrated to Britain have had different cultures, languages and backgrounds.

[Heydrich]

Heydrich would you be as anti-immigrants if they were white Aryans from Germany and Scandinavia?

Absolutely if they came from Germany and Scandanavia and remained Germans.

Britain has always been a mongrel race

It was not until quite recently that Great Britain began to import hundreds of thousands of nonwhite immigrants annually of RADICALLY different racial and cultural backgrounds - a prescription for certain disaster shown by countless examples throughout history. Such diversity has been a source of faction for centuries in the American South and STILL plagues us to this day - a curse the wise should well avoid from OUR first hand experience.

I know that was originally used as a term of abuse but I think it's a good description - mongrels are better tempered and less likely to suffer the health defects of purely bred pedigree dogs.

ROFL actually the AIDs and other diseases are exploding in Great Britain due to the importation principally of nonwhite immigrants.

Britain has integrated Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and many others over the years[/quote]

To compare the mingling of WESTERN ethnicities, of the same race, in which the differences are primarily CULTURAL to the importation of hundreds of thousands of nonwhite immigrants from radical nonwestern backgrounds is a huge false analogy. The best example of this is the case of America where the negro faultline has endured for centuries, a barrier that has been one of America's most horrible afflictions for genrations.

would there be as much fuss if immigrants over the last sixty years had not had different skin colours?

You mean populations that are entirely IMPOSSIBLE to assimilate (i.e. to lose all distinctiveness) that come from radically different nonwestern backgrounds who are actually ENCOURAGED to accent their differences? Absolutely. That is MADNESS. That is COLONIZATION and a sign of a people that are dissolving. We have had this problem in America for centuries and the race problem has been the NUMBER ONE cause above all others of usurpation of the people's liberty by the central government. White Rhodesians and South Africans today know all to well the foolishness of the "diversity is our strength" canard. So do Southerners in the United States.

If not then the whole argument is based on skin colour

You act as if race is simply some cafe au lait thing that can simply be dismissed as irrelevent, even worse, you continue with the old race is skin colour canard. Race is a source of FACTION, of division within a society and more factions in a society the more government has to step in (usually over personal liberties) in order to maintain society. This can also be a one way ticket to despotism as is the case of the Afrikaners and White Rhodesians today, or even annihilation as was the case of the French in Haiti.

all the white races who immigrated to Britain have had different cultures, languages and backgrounds.

All the white races who immigrated to Britain were closely related populations of Western Europeans from similar cultural backgrounds. The differences between them were overwhelmingly cultural and thus it was much easier for society to meld together as a whole. This is not the case with Negroes who will ALWAYS remain a distinct population as well as other nonwhites from similar divergent backgrounds. Even worse the more these populations grow, the more they RETAIN their alien cultures, eventually the emerge the dominant culture in the UK.

That is a prescription for nothing less than national and cultural suicide, of faction, totalitarian government, and a century of internal chaos.

[Sanj33v]

"britain has always been a mongrel race" - Geremy Paxman? The English?

Actually, its not that hard to immigrate to India. And yes, non-british indians do. Ethnic integrity in the UK is unjustified.

The population of Britain is aging, and although increasing at the moment it is predicted to begin to fall by 2032 after which the new immigrants will be supporting our pensions.

Fact is, many BRITISH industries would die if it werent for immigrants from all over the world.

AIDS is also exploding due to certain religious communities, including the catholic church - whats your point?

[Aladdin]

What a sad thread this is... I've never seen such concentration of racist garbage.

Anyone who actually believes the BNP speaks the "truth" is beyond salvation.

With regard to British 'identity' and other such nonsense: if anything, multiculturalism enriches a nation. What could be better than celebrate your heritage whilst embracing the best other cultures have to offer? Besides, many citizens of Asian, African or Middle Eastern origin are British. If anything, 'patriotic' BNP supporters should celebrate Asian culture for it is as British as fish and chips, or indeed as a curry.

Ignorant and moronic remarks about the spread of AIDS and so forth are so stupid they should not need explaining. The racist brigade will hold on to them because they want to hate other races and blame them for anything they can. Just for the record, the biggest cause for the spread of AIDS in this country is unprotected heterosexual sex. In many cases, I fear, by patriotic BNP-supporting white British hooligans who shag around without a condom and then brag about it on hoolie websites while blaming 'pakis' and 'wogs' for the decline of this country.

[Heydrich]

Actually, its not that hard to immigrate to India. And yes, non-british indians do. Ethnic integrity in the UK is unjustified.

Demonstrate to me evidence that it is "quite easy" to immigrate to Indian.

The population of Britain is aging, and although increasing at the moment it is predicted to begin to fall by 2032 after which the new immigrants will be supporting our pensions.

Yes, I am well aware of the demographic deterioration of the British population, no doubt a symptom of a dying population and instability of the current culture in that country.

Fact is, many BRITISH industries would die if it werent for immigrants from all over the world.

British industries ARE going to die unless the demographic decline is reversed and the hedonism of the degernate culture that dominates in Britain today is erradicated. Britain will become more and more of a totalitarian society, a third world country of wealthy old people surrounded by teaming impoverished third world immigrants. That is a prescription if there ever was one for disaster.

AIDS is also exploding due to certain religious communities, including the catholic church - whats your point?

It is specifically the importation of large numbers of foreigners that are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the jump in infectious diseases.

[Heydrich]

What a sad thread this is... I've never seen such concentration of racist garbage.

:rolleyes:

Anyone who actually believes the BNP speaks the "truth" is beyond salvation.

The EXAMPLES of South Africa, Haiti, Rhodesia, and Indonesia speak VOLUMES about the sheer madness, the insanity of the present immigration policy pursued by the British Government. History speaks for itself in that regard.

With regard to British 'identity' and other such nonsense

That is Britain's primary problem - Nihilism. The British do not know who they are anymore - just like the Romans. Just like the Romans who deployed thousands of troops across the world they are failing to maintain their own sense of identity and their own borders in the FALSE assumption that immigrants will always "assimilate" and "enrich" their society.

if anything, multiculturalism enriches a nation.

Yes, multiculturalism sure enriched Yugoslavia which disintegrated into genocide. Multicutluralism enriched India as well which broke apart. Where is the Soviet Union today? Multiculturalism just a few years ago almost broke apart Canada. We see multiculturalism everyday in the gang warfare we have in Los Angeles or even in the streets of YOUR capital London. We see the strength of Multiculturalism in the massive riots in Antwerp all the time now. No one IMO can speak with experience about precisely this sort of problem than the American South which has been CURSED by racial conflict for centuries now. South Africa is another great rainbow nation - the AIDs, murder, and rape capital of the world which becomes more of an impoverished hellhole every single year. Surely the white Rhodesians who are being exterminated by the maniac Mugabe can say multiculturalism has been a strength for that country.

What could be better than celebrate your heritage whilst embracing the best other cultures have to offer?

Being rid FOREVER of such a curse, such a source of eternal FACTION. Being free of such race riots and possibly even racial war as is the case of Rhodesia. What happens when jobs become scarce, when economies falter in such societies? The factions increasingly come to blame each other, chaos in society, ethnic strife.

Besides, many citizens of Asian, African or Middle Eastern origin are British.

Yes, and instead of having quarreling Welsh, quarreling Scots and English, quarrelling religious factions in Ireland which is enough diveristy for ANYONE you simply MAGNIFY all those problems and sources of division exponentially by importing groups who come from even more radically different backgrounds. You ACTUALLY encourage these people to remain distinct - to assert that identity. The result is the gang warfare we saw not to long ago on the streets of London. The result is another Johannasburg in the making - an impoverished hellhole of quarreling factions.

Why is this sort of thing promoted? For many reasons, among them, the capitalist desire for CHEAP labour, the liberal hatred of Britain's Western European identity, the central government who tramples over more and more individual liberties in order to hold the factions together, the tolerance industry which enriches itself upon the disintegration of British society. . .the end result being chaos, poverty, ethnic conflict, and totalitarianism.

If anything, 'patriotic' BNP supporters should celebrate Asian culture for it is as British as fish and chips, or indeed as a curry.

ROFL - give the birthright of future generations away for CURRY! Set yourself up for a century of internal ethnic chaos, quarreling and resentment as one group benefits more than another, one huge Northern Ireland or another Bosnia for CURRY!

Ignorant and moronic remarks about the spread of AIDS and so forth are so stupid they should not need explaining.

It is a FACT that the importation of so many foreigners is causing AIDs to explode in Britain, that unlike the ideal mixed race perposterous argument above, just the opposite is true. The health of society deteriorates.

The racist brigade will hold on to them because they want to hate other races

Racial seperatism has NOTHING whatsoever to do with hatred of other races. It has everything to do with EXPERIENCE. It is the experience of countless nations who have dealt with this experiment before that warrants caution. A healthy government DISCOURAGES sources of DIVISION within a society for faction is a curse of nations. Throwing groups from radically different racial and cultural backgrounds together in the same society, making them compete for scarcer and scarcer resources, and telling them to accent the sources of division between them is nothing short of madness. It is a nation's deathwish. Just look at South Africa today.

and blame them for anything they can.

Britain's racial diversity is 100% responsible for the race riots it is just not getting accustomed to.

Just for the record, the biggest cause for the spread of AIDS in this country is unprotected heterosexual sex.

Anonymous Authority.

In many cases, I fear, by patriotic BNP-supporting white British hooligans who shag around without a condom and then brag about it on hoolie websites while blaming 'pakis' and 'wogs' for the decline of this country.

The EXPERIENCE of South Africa and Rhodesia, the bizarre ridiculous rainbow nations that are notorious failures, is exactly why the BNP is the ONLY party to vote for in Britain. Faction is a curse of nations. The majority of bloodbaths we have seen in this world have been over racial, ethnic, and religious differences. To actually PURSUE such a policy, with the intention of actually promoting such divisions within a polity, is quite frankly INSANE.

[monocrat]

The majority population of South Africa are black. Blacks have inhabited South Africa LONG before the first whites went there. By your rationale, shouldn't white people be repatriated?

As for the USA, well the whole 'ethos' of that countrry is based on the notion of a melting pot. Nearly everyone is descended from an immigrant in some context in that nation.

[perfect***day]

Whooooooaa, Heydrich is scaring me. I know that's not a very 'intelligent' post but eek. :eek:

How can you be so blinkered and so convinced that you're right when you're being so discriminatory and closed-minded? There's a point in civilised politics beyond which you do not go, and I think you are doing so. Plain racism is inexcusable.

Anyone else slightly shocked?

[Heydrich]

The majority population of South Africa are black.

Yes this is true. Why are you equating a person and a citizen to be the same thing?

Blacks have inhabited South Africa LONG before the first whites went there.

In all of African history before the European arrival in that area there was no country EVER known as a "South Africa." Such an entity DID NOT exist.

By your rationale, shouldn't white people be repatriated?

Absolutely not. What should have happened, the logical solution, would have been a partition of the country into a seperate white nation and a seperate black nation. The same is true in Rhodesia.

As for the USA, well the whole 'ethos' of that countrry is based on the notion of a melting pot.

This is 100% absolutely false. The whole "ethos" of America was built upon the fact accepted for centuries that America was to be a WHITE nation composed of sovereign and independent states. The naturalization act of 1790 - the law - was quite clear about this, establishing citizenship ONLY for "free white persons." This remained the case all the way up until the 1950s. The idea of an "American Melting Pot" did not come about until the 20th Century and even then it was in reference to the TOTAL assimilation of EUROPEAN immigrants. Theodore Roosevelt who signed the Gentlemen's Agreement with Japan to keep prohibit Asiatic immigration would have been APPALED at the ludicrous immigration policy we have today, which is not even a "Melting Pot" but a "Tossed Salad" of factions of alien nationalities.

Nearly everyone is descended from an immigrant in some context in that nation.

Every nation in the WORLD starts out as a nation of immigrants. Such nations then mature into high cultures and become a "nation of natives" who exclude foreigners. You also overrepresent the effect immigration has had on the United States. The vast majority of white Americans are descended from the original colonists and natural increase of already established populations. Now here is a treat for you.

President Theodore Roosevelt on Multiculturalism


There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.

[Heydrich]

Whooooooaa, Heydrich is scaring me. I know that's not a very 'intelligent' post but eek.

Yes, surely it is indeed SHOCKING that I hold the same opinions that Americans and Southerners have held throughout the vast majority of their own history.

How can you be so blinkered and so convinced that you're right when you're being so discriminatory and closed-minded?

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with discrimination as a moral principle. A nation that does not discriminate against those who are not members of its population is not a nation at all - for a nation defines itself in opposition to what it is not. What you support is an ABSENCE of discrimination, an ABSENCE of value. It is not immoral or moral - it is amoroal. It is NIHILISM.

There's a point in civilised politics beyond which you do not go, and I think you are doing so. Plain racism is inexcusable.

Discrimination and Racism are two DIFFERENT things entirely. What you despise is the concept of value itself. You despise the ability of individuals, on a superpersonal scale nations, to use their own minds, to hold values, and discriminate between values and nonvalues. The ability of individuals to value is essential to life itself - the ability to choose between alternative choices and actions.

Anyone else slightly shocked?

What is truly shocking is how nihilism is promoted as MORAL principle.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Heydrich
[B]


In all of African history before the European arrival in that area there was no country EVER known as a "South Africa." Such an entity DID NOT exist.

Not my point. Blacks inhabited what is now South Africa long before whites.



Absolutely not. What should have happened, the logical solution, would have been a partition of the country into a seperate white nation and a seperate black nation. The same is true in Rhodesia.



Why not? By your reasoning, what is now South Africa was a black country. For that to be maintained, whites should have been repatriated.



Every nation in the WORLD starts out as a nation of immigrants. Such nations then mature into high cultures and become a "nation of natives" who exclude foreigners. You also overrepresent the effect immigration has had on the United States. The vast majority of white Americans are descended from the original colonists and natural increase of already established populations. Now here is a treat for you.



That's false. Only 15% of US citizens can trace their ancestry back to the original English settlers (or at the least people who fought against the British during the War of Independene). You fail to take into account Irish and German Americans (as well as Italians and Eastern Europeans). If anything, the majority of white Americans are either of Irish or German descent.

[perfect***day]

Heydrich everything isn't black and white. Just because I don't like the idea of discriminating as much as you seem to against people who aren't of my nationality, it doesn't mean I'm at the complete opposite end of the scale and have no patriotic feelings or pride, nor does it mean that I don't care about us Brits. Things don't have to be either one extreme or the other.

I understand that it's important for a country's people to feel unity and to look after themselves first and foremost - if we gave everyone who wanted to enter and live in our country just as much rights as people whose roots have been here for ages, the country's economy and society wouldn't survive. BUT I still believe we should welcome others with open arms, adapt to demographic changes and learn to accept that things won't always be the same, nations won't always be solely 'white' and cultural diversity is what helps us learn about others.

You have to compromise.

[Aladdin]

I don't think why we should compromise with racists. They take advantage of freedom of speech and tolerance to spread their hatred-filled racist shit all over. And everyone knows very well that whenever such people gain power democracy goes out of the window.

Here's a thought: deport all racists, strip them of their British citizenship and drop them in a desert island. There they can carry on their way of life uncontaminated from lesser races. Perhaps they can call their island New Britannia or something like that, and live in racial purity for ever after. And the rest of us can get on with our lives free of such vermin.

[perfect***day]

Originally posted by Heydrich
What you despise is the concept of value itself.
I resent that. You don't know me, I said nothing about 'despising' anything and I think that comment goes to show you're dramatising an awful lot of this. Get your facts straight before you criticise, please. :)

[Heydrich]

Heydrich everything isn't black and white.

Individuals who MORALLY CONDEMN discrimination, the ability of human beings to VALUE and act in accordance with values, are the most IMMORAL people in the entire world. The essence of MORALITY itself is the ability to value - morality presupposing values. Those that CONDEMN value based discrimination condemn morality as a concept by denying its very antecedent, they REJECT life itself and the ability of human beings to make choices - not to mention logic and reason - out of NIHILISM.

Just because I don't like the idea of discriminating as much as you seem to against people who aren't of my nationality, it doesn't mean I'm at the complete opposite end of the scale and have no patriotic feelings or pride, nor does it mean that I don't care about us Brits. Things don't have to be either one extreme or the other.

Those that CONDEMN discrimination are the SCOURGE of humanity - the most IMMORAL people in the entire world. The ability of human beings to value and discriminate amongst non-values and values is what seperates human beings from animals. There is no principle that is more MORAL than discrimination. If human beings could not discriminate amongst courses of action it would be IMPOSSIBLE to maintain human life. Likewise the essence of nationality is just that - discrimination. A nation is distinguished from other nations by what it is not. In other words, those who CONDEMN discrimination side with DEATH over LIFE, with DECAY over PROGRESS, with IMMORALITY over MORALITY.

I am a white male. When I walk down the street every day I DISCRIMINATE amongst females I see in accordance with my value based preferences. Is that immoral?

Is it immoral for a man to love his wife more than any other woman because it is discriminatory?

Is it immoral for a man in a desert to be able to make a choice between a sand dune and an oasis because it is discriminatory?

Is it immoral for a man to say 2 + 2 = 4 because it is discriminatory amongst a range of possible responses?

LOL!

[monocrat]

Morality is subective in nature and absolute (as you seem to state). In that sense, who is to state that discrimination is right or wrong?

Read your philosophy books again. :D

[Heydrich]

I resent that. You don't know me, I said nothing about 'despising' anything and I think that comment goes to show you're dramatising an awful lot of this. Get your facts straight before you criticise, please.

You stated the following. . .

How can you be so blinkered and so convinced that you're right when you're being so discriminatory and closed-minded?

Where you MORALLY CONDEMN discrimination. . .

There's a point in civilised politics beyond which you do not go, and I think you are doing so.

Going so far as to equate anti-discrimination with “civilized politics”

Anyone else slightly shocked?

Which you found to be “shocking.”

There is NOTHING immoral whatsoever about the concept of discrimination. Morality by its very nature is discriminatory and by rejecting discrimination you REJECT morality. Your tirade against discrimination and morality is shocking. Without the ability to discriminate amongst values human life would cease to exist. Civilization would cease to exist and only the savagery of animals would grace the face of the earth. .

[Heydrich]

Morality is subective in nature and absolute (as you seem to state). In that sense, who is to state that discrimination is right or wrong? Read your philosophy books again.

Morality presupposes values, a standard of value. A value is defined in opposition to what it is not and thus is discriminatory. Discrimination is the ONLY thing that makes morality even possible, it is in fact one of its antecedents. By condemning discrimination you CONDEMN morality.

[Heydrich]

I don't think why we should compromise with racists.

:rolleyes:

They take advantage of freedom of speech

There is NO “free speech” in the UK.

and tolerance to spread their hatred-filled racist shit all over.

The only reason “tolerance” is promoted is because there are so many factions with little in common it becomes necessary. The more factions in a society the more government has to step all over individual liberty in order to hold society together. We have the same sort of “tolerance” industry over in the United States, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, run by the child molester, telemarketer, and wife beater Morris Dees who has defrauded the public of millions of dollars. Such individuals - such degenerates - are a modern day mafia.

And everyone knows very well that whenever such people gain power democracy goes out of the window.

ROFL a democracy is a “form of government.” Those who REJECT the concept of the people, which government presupposes anyway, in favour of a political principle which is only a consequent are out of their mind.

Here's a thought: deport all racists, strip them of their British citizenship and drop them in a desert island.

That desert island will end up being a much more prosperous nation than the shithole found in South Africa and Rhodesia today.

There they can carry on their way of life uncontaminated from lesser races.

A much better alternative than living under the third world savagery that prevails in Rhodesia and South Africa today.

Perhaps they can call their island New Britannia or something like that

New Brittannia would be preferable to Great Britainstan.

and live in racial purity for ever after. And the rest of us can get on with our lives free of such vermin.

We already have one Rainbow Nation disaster in South Africa today. Perhaps cosmopolitan egalitarians like yourself should be deported there to live in utopian savagery.

[Heydrich]

Not my point. Blacks inhabited what is now South Africa long before whites.

Indeed, and that is entirely 100% irrelevent to the fact that a nation is primarily a cultural idea and that no such nation known as "South Africa" ever existed there prior to the European arrival. A person is not always a citizen either. If I traveled to the UK, as a foreign citizen, I cannot vote in British elections. I am not a member of that polity - of that nation. Simply residing in an area for some reason or another IS NOT an automatic guarantee to sufferage.

Why not? By your reasoning, what is now South Africa was a black country.

Once again you continue to ignore the ENORMOUS difference between a person and citizen of a polity. No nation known as "South Africa" ever existed prior to the European arrival there. South Africa in fact is a national idea of white europeans who colonized the area so South Africa is hardly was hardly a "black nation" at all.

For that to be maintained, whites should have been repatriated.

No nation called "South Africa" ever arose in that area during the black residency there. That is about as ridiculous as calling the Indian aboriginies in America the "Native Americans." It is simply FALSE and ignores entirely specifically what a nation is in the first place - a cultural idea of a specific people. South Africa, like America, was the creation of white Europeans. No nation called "United States of America" ever existed in the new world amongst the hunter gather tribes of North America, the majority of whom did not even have the slightest clue as to each others own existence.

That's false. Only 15% of US citizens can trace their ancestry back to the original English settlers (or at the least people who fought against the British during the War of Independene).

Anonymous authority.

You fail to take into account Irish and German Americans (as well as Italians and Eastern Europeans).

There were already huge populations of Germans and Scots Irish in America prior to the Revolutionary War.

If anything, the majority of white Americans are either of Irish or German descent.

Once again you IGNORE entirely the composition of the colonial population which was in large part German and Scot-Irish.

[Sanj33v]

Demonstrate to me evidence that it is "quite easy" to immigrate to Indian

Demonstrate to me that it isnt.

Yes, I am well aware of the demographic deterioration of the British population, no doubt a symptom of a dying population and instability of the current culture in that country.

"that country" Why, do you not live in Britain?

British industries ARE going to die unless the demographic decline is reversed and the hedonism of the degernate culture that dominates in Britain today is erradicated. Britain will become more and more of a totalitarian society, a third world country of wealthy old people surrounded by teaming impoverished third world immigrants. That is a prescription if there ever was one for disaster.

British industries wont die, their international competiveness will increase. There is no "degenerate culture", that is merely a buzz-term.
How will Britain become more totalitarian by enriching its ethnic foundations?

Answer - it wont.

[Heydrich]

Demonstrate to me that it isnt.

It is impossible - not to mention illogical - to prove a negative, to provide positive existence of non-existence. You have asserted that is “quite easy” to immigrate to India. The burden of proof is on he who asserts a positive, and thus, it is incumbant upon you to *prove* your allegations or have them dismissed as arbitrary.

"that country" Why, do you not live in Britain?

I am not a resident of the UK.

British industries wont die, their international competiveness will increase.

Yes I have heard the Germans make the same argument about “skilled workers” only to see unemployment in Germany skyrocket and immigrants go on welfare.

There is no "degenerate culture", that is merely a buzz-term.

There is a system of shared values in Britain that are causing its population to age and deteriorate. That culture is degenerate. It is only temporary - which pleases me - it is unsustainable.

How will Britain become more totalitarian by enriching its ethnic foundations? Answer - it wont.

It is very simple. The more “diversity” there is in your society the more factions there are. As your economy continues to degenerate such factions will compete more and more for scarcer resources. In the name of “tolerance” and “anti-racism” the government will increasingly trample on individual liberty in order to hold society together. In fact, this is already happening. In the UK you can actually be prosecuted now under European law for “racist” comments. For “hate speech” - a citizen can be thrown in PRISON. That is a clear usurption by the government of individual liberty, made necessary by the incoherence of your own population. With each passing year the UK becomes even more of an Orwellian despotic police state.

Just one recent example. . . .

UK police investigate journalist over racist comments

04:02 PM +1000, Nov 21 2002

A journalist for the Daily Telegraph has been arrested and questioned over alleged racist comments made at a fox hunting rally. The Telegraph has the original article, but it's not accessible without a subscription.

Robin Page, 61, who has since been released, was questioned Monday about remarks he allegedly made at a country fair at Frampton-upon-Severn in southwestern England on Sept. 6.

The newspaper said Page asked the gathering why, if Londoners had the right to run events, such as the Brixton carnival and gay pride marches, which celebrate black and gay culture, countryside people should not have the right to do what they liked at home, including fox hunting. The British government has promised to outlaw fox hunting with hounds, an issue that has polarized Britain.

Gloucestershire Police, without using Page's name, said they had received a number of complaints after the speech and had arrested a "man" on suspicion of committing public order offenses. The arrested man -- presumably Page -- was not charged.

- AP, British Newspaper Columnist Questioned: Police Look Into Allegation Of Hate Speech.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by Heydrich




Once again you continue to ignore the ENORMOUS difference between a person and citizen of a polity. No nation known as "South Africa" ever existed prior to the European arrival there. South Africa in fact is a national idea of white europeans who colonized the area so South Africa is hardly was hardly a "black nation" at all.

That's irrelevant. The area which is now called South Africa was first settled by blacks.









There were already huge populations of Germans and Scots Irish in America prior to the Revolutionary War.



So you concede that few white Americans can trace their ancestry directly to Britain.

Once again you IGNORE entirely the composition of the colonial population which was in large part German and Scot-Irish.

Your debating skills are very circular in nature. 40 million white Americans can trace their ancestry to Ireland. Few white Americans are truly of British descent.

[Amon Goeth]

Is land for whom first sticks his flag into the ground? Does some people have some "preferencial" rights on some choice of land just for being "first"?

Could Heydrich please explain me what happened with Rome as he said on his earlier posts?
He says inmigration amongst cultural/ethnically close populations causes no harm (Celtic, Germanic, even Roman impact upon the British isles) yet that very same incidence upon Rome makes her crumble. Do you sustain that Rome was filled with non-white inmigrants?

[Heydrich]

Is land for whom first sticks his flag into the ground?

This is a question of politics not morality. Politics is activity in relation to power. The answer is the land belongs to he who has the will and the power to establish his sovereignty over it.

Does some people have some "preferencial" rights on some choice of land just for being "first"?

No.

Could Heydrich please explain me what happened with Rome as he said on his earlier posts?

Rome is the perfect example of an empire that ignored its own borders while pursuing imperialism abroad.

He says inmigration amongst cultural/ethnically close populations causes no harm (Celtic, Germanic, even Roman impact upon the British isles)

I did not say that at all. Nice straw man. What has changed in America, just like it changed in Rome, is the attitude towards immigration.

yet that very same incidence upon Rome makes her crumble.

The principal reason Rome fell was because of its own arrogance, the belief that the Goths would simply recognize the *obvious* superiority of Roman culture and assimilate. Rome failed to take seriously the possibility that this may not be the case. Just like America it traded in the melting pot for the tossed salad - two totally different ideas entirely.

Do you sustain that Rome was filled with non-white inmigrants?

If you scan through my previous posts you will recognize that I stated I would be absolutely opposed to ethnic European immigrants migrating to the UK if they decided to bring their own culture with them. The difference between ethnicities and racial divisions is one of degree of the ability to assimilate such populations (to lose distinctiveness). Negroes will ALWAYS remain an obvious distinct minority and will ALWAYS be self conscious of this fact. So will the vast majority of other nonwhites because they are more distinct from the white population at large. I have NEVER discounted ethnic division. I have ABSOLUTELY maintained however that is obviously of a much lesser degree and is therefore a false analogy.


-------

That's irrelevant. The area which is now called South Africa was first settled by blacks.

Which is absolutely 100% totally irrelevent. Once again you IGNORE entirely what a nation is - a cultural idea of a population. There was NEVER any South Africa prior to the European arrival there. The native South Africans are white Europeans. The area was sparsely inhabited for the most part by Africans who had slaughtered the Khosians of Central Africa for centuries driving them into areas inhospitable to their agriculture.

So you concede that few white Americans can trace their ancestry directly to Britain.

Your argument is based on the FALSE assumption that the colonial population was simply British, and therefore, those Americans of Irish and German descent are all descendents of immigrants who came later in American history. That is not the case. There were substantial populations of Germans and Scot-Irish in the colonial population who as the original American population grew predominantly by natural increase.

Your debating skills are very circular in nature. 40 million white Americans can trace their ancestry to Ireland. Few white Americans are truly of British descent.

Obviously that is the case. What is not the case however is that the majority of these Americans trace their ancestry to post-colonial Irish immigrants. The original American population was never simply British, and thus your statistic does not represent in anyway whatsoever the descendents of the colonial era.

[Amon Goeth]

Mhhh...

I do agree completely with you on the "Will & Power" to claim anything as the basic premise to land ownership.

Lets see, you claimed that Rome did fall due to outside influx of allien population. Now you qualify that by saying that any impact upon a host population is harmful, even when from the same racial background.
So, when did Rome´s policy become harmful to herself? With the expansion into the Italian penisnula already? By the anexation of the Etruscans, the southern Italian Greek colonies? All those moves changed in fact Rome´s own culture.
So, where does the "harm" begin in your eyes? With the barbaric, yet racialy similar Goths, or with the conquest of Egypt or Carthage?
Maybe my grasp of the English language is not too good, yet I have the impression that you seem to imply that Rome fell to racial micegenation with non-white inmigrants/slaves.
For then the whole harm of the barbarian invasions, if you are just looking for a harmful influence, is that they did not become romanized enought (or at all).

[Heydrich]

Mhhh...I do agree completely with you on the "Will & Power" to claim anything as the basic premise to land ownership.

Agreed.

Lets see, you claimed that Rome did fall due to outside influx of allien population.

I said Rome fell because of the Romans themselves. The same is true of the Americans today. America will fall because of Americans themselves.

Now you qualify that by saying that any impact upon a host population is harmful, even when from the same racial background.

My argument is that diversity is in no way whatsoever a strength - but a curse upon nations. Faction is not something to be celebrated - it is a source of national weakness. There is more than enough ethnic and religious division in places like the British Isles and the Balkans to last a lifetime. To inject populations from even more divergent and radical backgrounds - to encourage them to accent their differences - especially as these populations compete more and more for scarcer resources is nothing less than madness. It is a bad public policy. There is a difference between a "Melting Pot" and a "Tossed Salad."

So, when did Rome´s policy become harmful to herself?

Rome's policy became harmful to itself when the Romans began to lose their own sense of identity - just like Americans and other Europeans have today. This was about the time when the Stoics were preaching world citizenship and globalization before the last Dark Age.

With the expansion into the Italian penisnula already? By the anexation of the Etruscans, the southern Italian Greek colonies?

This was before the Greek/Latin schism. The Romans may have conquered the Greeks but they never absorbed them.

All those moves changed in fact Rome´s own culture.

Rome fell precisely because of the degeneracy of Roman culture and the assertion of other identities with the Roman Empire - faction.

So, where does the "harm" begin in your eyes? With the barbaric, yet racialy similar Goths, or with the conquest of Egypt or Carthage?

Harm begins when a source of faction is absorbed within the national body. Indifference to such sores is not a wise policy.

Maybe my grasp of the English language is not too good, yet I have the impression that you seem to imply that Rome fell to racial micegenation with non-white inmigrants/slaves.

That is not my argument at all. My argument is that Rome fell because of Romans and America will fall because of Americans.

For then the whole harm of the barbarian invasions, if you are just looking for a harmful influence, is that they did not become romanized enought (or at all).

The Romans lost their own sense of identity over the ages - the sense of identity which maintained their civilization. They also became extremely hedonistic and arrogant - full of their own superiority. They let an alien population within their boundries which remained distinctive. They became more and more reliant on such populations as time went by - as labourers and soldiers. These populations however were not absorbed as populations had been in previous ages. They maintained a strong sense of their own identity and ultimately that identity prevailed and Rome ceased to exist.

[Amon Goeth]

You are one slippery eel Heydrich :D

Let me try again....
Ok, sure enough the underlying reason of Rome´s decay comes from their own degeneracy...No problems here..lets move on.

As a secondary effect to this degeneracy we see the lack of will to absorve the conquered nations correctly. Now, I understand that you mean that.

1- Total absobtion of racialy similar subjects will cause minimal harm if they adapt culturally to the new masters.

Now, when does the Roman will end? Every conquest brought them in contact with new people, from whom sometimes they learned and sometimes copied things. We can safely asume that every conquest made the Romans different from what they were before. The Etruscans basically made what we understand under classic republicans (law, Toga, architecture, etc..) The Celts in North Italy gave them the chainmail, the Greek colonies in south Italy put them in contact with Greek Philosophy way before the Romans even thought about taking over Greece. The various wars with Carthage made them a maritime nation, the conquest of Hispania made them true colonial masters.

All this before we can even begin to think about Empire and centuries before we can talk about Roman downward spiral.

When did they begin to fail? With te conquest of the East? Anatolia? Egypt?

And how does this all equal to the modern US? Are you talking about the loss of identity in the so called States? by non-white inmigration brought by the degenerate US system?

Can we say also that most European "nations" have experienced one time or another being taken over by a different culture, be it through the sword or population wise.
You do seem to like the Classic English concept yet it would never have existed in the first place if the Celts would not have been subjugated by the Romans, and then by Anglos and Saxons, and they by the Normands, etc...You do like the end result of that melting pot (since we talk about more or less racially similar groups) but you do not like the product of Rome..why? Because something went wrong with the "melting pot" and it became a "tossed salad"?

[Heydrich]

You are one slippery eel Heydrich

Thanx.

Let me try again....Ok, sure enough the underlying reason of Rome´s decay comes from their own degeneracy...No problems here..lets move on.

Absolutely.

As a secondary effect to this degeneracy we see the lack of will to absorve the conquered nations correctly. Now, I understand that you mean that.

I view a nation to be similar to a living organism. Over the course of its history it can catch infections which are not apparent at first only later to begin to display period symptoms of sickness. It takes an extended period of time for HIV to morph into full blown AIDS for example.

1- Total absobtion of racialy similar subjects will cause minimal harm if they adapt culturally to the new masters.

My argument is a political one - that faction is a source of weakness in a polity. It is difficult for a nation to absorb alien material of any character as it stands, especially when it behaves in a manner similar to the UK or the USA where it ACTUALLY renounces such a policy of assimilation. In prior history, the USA and the UK had a specific national identity and these nations tenaciously held to this ideal. Newcomers were FORCED to assimilate (to lose distinctiveness) and highly distinct groups were excluded entirely. The difference between white Europeans and other races in the context of immigration is that whereas Irish in America for example melted into simply the “white” population that is IMPOSSIBLE for groups like Negroes. In the hundreds of years Negroes have resided in America they have always been distinct and have always remained *conscious* of their own distinctiveness, the us vs. them mentality. This distinctiveness is a source of division within the political organism, a source of faction, an Achilles Heal so to speak. It is unwise to actually PROMOTE such divisiveness, to encourage sickness within a polity. In many cases such faction can lead to the death of nations or the creation of new ones.

Now, when does the Roman will end?

The Stoics did an absolutely remarkable job of weakening the Roman character and diluting it to the point where it was meaningless. It was an extended gradual process.

Every conquest brought them in contact with new people, from whom sometimes they learned and sometimes copied things. We can safely asume that every conquest made the Romans different from what they were before.

Every conquest brought with it the burden of absorbing populations with divergent identities. Every conquest that was not total was a sore. Eventually these sores wore down the health of the empire, occasionally festering into eruptions of rebellion (sickness within the political organism). The Roman Empire was in itself always artificial for the most part.

The Etruscans basically made what we understand under classic republicans (law, Toga, architecture, etc..)

The closer populations were not as divergent as the Germans and Goths in the North, the Greeks in the East, not to mention the Britons who to an extent always resisted.

The Celts in North Italy gave them the chainmail, the Greek colonies in south Italy put them in contact with Greek Philosophy way before the Romans even thought about taking over Greece. The various wars with Carthage made them a maritime nation, the conquest of Hispania made them true colonial masters.

The conquest of the Greeks put them in control of a population with its own HIGHLY established identity. Carthage was virtually annihilated. The conquest of the Celts was never total.

All this before we can even begin to think about Empire and centuries before we can talk about Roman downward spiral.

One of the *primary* reasons the Roman Empire fell was because its conquests were artificial - especially in the case of the division of the empire between Byzantium and Rome which was one of the primary reasons the Western Empire was overrun. In many cases, the Greeks in particular, the conquest was always artificial. It was simply a matter of time before the Greek identity reasserted itself.

When did they begin to fail? With te conquest of the East? Anatolia? Egypt?

All of the above.

And how does this all equal to the modern US?

Because like the Romans, the Americans send tens of thousands of troops to the far corners of their empire yet have neglected their OWN border which will be their downfall. Whereas the Romans ignored the Danube to their own peril the Americans have ignored the Rio Grande. Just like the Romans - and even the British - throughout their history the Americans have made many conquests that were never total, which remain sources of faction and division within. America’s disease manifests itself in its foreign and domestic policy, which reflects its own incoherent population. The national character of the Americans is rapidly dissolving.

E Pluribus Unum somewhere in the past 50 years became E Unum Pluribus.

Are you talking about the loss of identity in the so called States? by non-white inmigration brought by the degenerate US system?

Absolutely. We are now Theodore Roosevelt’s entanglement of “quarreling nationalities.”

Can we say also that most European "nations" have experienced one time or another being taken over by a different culture, be it through the sword or population wise.

Which is ABSOLUTELY 100% different to the sort of café au lait attitude that persists today where the CONQUERER has actually renounced its own identity, where the conquerer has lost the will to enforce that identity, going so far as to actually encourage from the standpoint of public policy faction and dual loyalties.

You do seem to like the Classic English concept yet it would never have existed in the first place if the Celts would not have been subjugated by the Romans, and then by Anglos and Saxons, and they by the Normands, etc…

There never would have been a Great Britain if the ancient English did not encourage every other ethnicity in the British Isles to assert its own identity, going so far as to welcome the importation of alien identities and subsidizing the demographic explosion of such populations.

You do like the end result of that melting pot (since we talk about more or less racially similar groups)

We are talking about racially similar groups whose barriers are primarily cultural melting into a new national identity. This is different from the case of the following:

1. Instead of encouraging unity, which should be public policy in a healthy state, going so far as to actually promote the dissolution of the national population by promoting alternative and in many cases competitive ethnic and racial loyalities. That is 100% the opposite the melting pot idea.

2. Promoting the importation of aliens from radically divergent racial and cultural backgrounds who will always remain distinct and aware of their own distinctiveness, which are more divergent than even the already pre-existing ethnic divisions which have been in their own right a constant source of faction.

but you do not like the product of Rome..why?

The Roman Empire is both similar and different to the case of America. The Roman Empire was largely an artificial construction where the Romans conquered other peoples with established national identities and ruled over them until their political will and military power degenerated to the point where they could no longer maintain order. In the case of America, a virgin continent was largely colonized by European immigrants who were forced to assimilate into a new national identity (to lose their distinctiveness). The most divergent elements, nonwhites, were held in check. It would have been impossible for America to even come into its present existence if from the beginning it had pursued such a foolish and suicidal policy of “diversity.” If Germans came to America and remained Germans, if French came to America and remained French, if Irish came to America and spoke Gaelic and remained Irish we would have seen the American experiment fail as a repeat of the Balkans. The history of this continent would have repeated the bloodbaths of the Europeans.

Gradually overtime America did come to conquer or import alien populations who retained their own distinctiveness. Throughout all of American history there has been no greater source of division and bitter struggle. In the 20th Century the American national identity began to break down. A grotesque sort of racial federalism began to take hold in the 1960s. Whereas in previous ages the “true American” had been either the “white anglo saxon protestant” or the “judeo-christian white European” after the 1960s the “true American” became anything. William Lind writes extensively about this in his book The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution.

Because something went wrong with the "melting pot" and it became a "tossed salad"?

America is a nation that has gone through 4 separate identities.

1. Colonial America (1603-1776) - Ends with American Revolution.

2. Anglo America (1783-1865) - Ends with the Conclusion of the War Between the States

3. Euro America (1877-1962) - Ends in the Cultural Revolution

4. Multicultural America (1970-Present)

The latest America - a grotesque sort of racial federalism - is the most unstable of all. It will end in the dissolution of the United States similar to the breakup of the former Soviet Union.