Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by akickinthebutt)
    Dude seriously, all humans originated from the plains of Africa
    Debatable, and not at all relevant to a present day immigration debate.

    (Original post by akickinthebutt)
    and all are immigrants.
    BS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Was Britain ever really a mono-cultural place? Probably only when the first indigenous people arrived on this island and they were allegedly from The Basque Country anyway.
    Yeah you're right - but really I was trying to get across the point that Britain is now a lot more diverse than it was further back in time. And it's not a bad thing
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Broderss)
    The problem with this is, as you seem to be unable to comprehend this, is, for one, the violence between true white British as these (majority) ethnic 'minorities' as you refer to them increase in size in this country destroying the culture we have grown up in forcing our kids to grow up in a new, unstable and possibly dangerous culture.

    Also, this can only bring the downfall of Britain as these foreign or alternate ethnicity people (or at least the majority of them) will not have any pride in Britain and thus feel more inclined to leave Britain, in the process stealing our education and our economy.

    Moreover, most of these foreigners are Muslim and, believe it or not, Muslims follow Islam which states anyone who doesn't follow Islam should be murdered (true fact, look it up). Now, with the inevitable rise of organisations like Islam4UK there will me ever more influential Islam extremists until eventually we will be forced to abide Sharia Law, over our very popular British Law, which attracted them in the first place. Now I don't know about you but I don't particularly like Islam at the best of times and do not wish myself, my family and my children to have to live under the torment of Sharia Law or anything Muslim related.

    This is only the second stage people, there are a total of five, and by the end true British people will be extinct or at least forced to emigrate to a safe country.

    You can fix this. We just need to realise the correct course of action and take it.

    I sincerely hope you understand what to do, before it's too late.
    Just to let you know. The largest ethnic minority in the UK is Indian, most of whom don't follow Islam.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barden)
    OP was obviously raped by a black man and is compensating for the fact that she quite enjoyed it.


    FACT
    Or she was rejected by a black man :yep:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0d1a2n3n4y)
    Just to let you know. The largest ethnic minority in the UK is Indian, most of whom don't follow Islam.
    Are you sure it isn't Irish people?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olli!)
    Yeah you're right - but really I was trying to get across the point that Britain is now a lot more diverse than it was further back in time. And it's not a bad thing
    Certainly. My only issue with topics like this is the lack of full integration by people from various backgrounds. I'm not a PC gone mad person but I've never felt comfortable with instances of informal segregation, often being labelled as communities. I think, at times, it can hinder 'social progress'. I mainly bring up the historical settings to show up people's lack of knowledge of British history, who are often the bigots etc.

    I see the situation of Birmingham being no different to London. Who's a real Londoner? Birmingham was always going to have a large ethnic demography because all large cities tend to attract minority ethnic groups. Half of the black population in Britain live in London alone etc.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arthur11)
    EDL are in no way connected to any political party. Please watch this and then tell me that we are racist and violent.

    http://www.edlmedia.com/

    We are a working class movement, we are the forgotten in this country, left to rot by the cotton wool wrapped middle classes.

    Arthur.
    I cba to write an intelligable response as its late...and you have already been told what I would have said by others.....to say the EDL is not racist...is similar to saying that Anjem and Co. are the most liberal and modern thinking muslims in the country and that they are bieng assulted and held back the extremist terrorists that we normal muslims are....

    (I was bieng sarcastic...just in case your underdeveloped and primitive mind did not realise..anjem is a douchebag :rolleyes: )
    Offline

    14
    It's not to clear why the ethnicity of an individual should be of any concern to us. So someone has different physical characteristics from you. What of it? Of all the things that affect your life, the physical characteristics of others seem far, far down on the importance list.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by akickinthebutt)
    Dude seriously, all humans originated from the plains of Africa, so I guess we are all African, and all are immigrants.

    Go get educated, man.
    That is a Communist half-truth.

    Humans left Africa 4 MILLION years ago. Just 200 years ago we didn't have elecricity. 30 MILLION years ago Humans were still apes living in the African basin. 450 million MILLION years ago, when the Earth was geologically unrecognisable , Humans were fish crawling up onto the beach and developing legs from our fins.

    How far do you want to go back? The 'out of Africa' arguement for the colonisation of welfare friendly Britain is ludicrous. That's how desperate they are for reasons to justify colonisation of rich western countries.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kickflip)
    That is a Communist half-truth.

    Humans left Africa 4 MILLION years ago. Just 200 years ago we didn't have elecricity. 30 MILLION years ago Humans were still apes living in the African basin. 450 million MILLION years ago, when the Earth was geologically unrecognisable , Humans were fish crawling up onto the beach and developing legs from our fins.

    How far do you want to go back? The 'out of Africa' arguement for the colonisation of welfare friendly Britain is ludicrous. That's how desperate they are for reasons to justify colonisation of rich western countries.


    funnily enough racism was prretty much invented to justify the 'scramble for africa' colonisation.....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by effofex)
    Are you sure it isn't Irish people?
    hmm, it could be... Does the census count Irish as a minority?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0d1a2n3n4y)
    hmm, it could be... Does the census count Irish as a minority?
    Everyone who isn't 'white British' is an ethnic minority, as far as I'm aware.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kickflip)
    So if a dog's born in a stable it's a horse is it?
    No, they are different species.

    Sorry to break it to you but black people and white people are the same species.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bananaslug77)
    No, they are different species.

    Sorry to break it to you but black people and white people are the same species.
    Humans are split into different races and ethnicities within those races. Whilst you can debate the importance of the issue, one cannot change their genetics or ancestry simply by birth in another nation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Humans are split into different races and ethnicities within those races. Whilst you can debate the importance of the issue, one cannot change their genetics or ancestry simply by birth in another nation.
    What 'race' do most inhabitants of Pakistan belong to then?

    And for that matter, what 'ethnicity' are the inhabitants of Pakistan?

    Do let us know!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by effofex)
    What 'race' do most inhabitants of Pakistan belong to then?

    And for that matter, what 'ethnicity' are the inhabitants of Pakistan?

    Do let us know!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Pakistan

    There is no pakistani ethnicity, although I suppose that term would belong to those who lived there before the partition?

    I'm no expert on Pakistan, and I fail to see it's relevance to the topic at hand. I never said that the nations of the world were split along ethnic lines, although this is how many nations and ethnicities have come to develop.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Pakistan

    There is no pakistani ethnicity, although I suppose that term would belong to those who lived there before the partition?

    I'm no expert on Pakistan, and I fail to see it's relevance to the topic at hand. I never said that the nations of the world were split along ethnic lines, although this is how many nations and ethnicities have come to develop.
    Surely as a result of migrations over the course of human history the likelihood is that a huge proportion of people are of mixed ethnicity.

    I'm pretty sure that ethnicity is a social constsruct and whilst there are certain genetic markers that correlate with certain regions of the world, this does not mean that people can be discretely divided into x or y ethnic group in an empirical manner.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I didn't expect you to be capable of understanding.
    I think this article more or less sums up where you are coming from...

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1126/print

    You are what Roger Scruton would call an "oikophobe"

    Again, however, there is a double standard that affects the description. Members of our liberal élite may be immune to xenophobia, but there is an equal fault which they exhibit in abundance, which is the repudiation of, and aversion to, home. Each country exhibits this vice in its own domestic version. Nobody brought up in post-war England can fail to be aware of the educated derision that has been directed at our national loyalty by those whose freedom to criticize would have been extinguished years ago, had the English not been prepared to die for their country. The loyalty that people need in their daily lives, and which they affirm in their unconsidered and spontaneous social actions, is now habitually ridiculed or even demonized by the dominant media and the education system. National history is taught as a tale of shame and degradation. The art, literature and religion of our nation have been more or less excised from the curriculum, and folkways, local traditions and national ceremonies are routinely rubbished.

    This repudiation of the national idea is the result of a peculiar frame of mind that has arisen throughout the Western world since the Second World War, and which is particularly prevalent among the intellectual and political elites. No adequate word exists for this attitude, though its symptoms are instantly recognized: namely, the disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us’, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours’. I call the attitude oikophobia – the aversion to home – by way of emphasizing its deep relation to xenophobia, of which it is the mirror image. Oikophobia is a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes. But it is a stage in which intellectuals tend to become arrested. As George Orwell pointed out, intellectuals on the Left are especially prone to it, and this has often made them willing agents of foreign powers. The Cambridge spies – educated people who penetrated our foreign service during the war and betrayed our Eastern European allies to Stalin – offer a telling illustration of what oikophobia has meant for my country and for the Western alliance. And it is interesting to note that a recent BBC ‘docudrama’ constructed around the Cambridge spies neither examined the realities of their treason nor addressed the suffering of the millions of their East European victims, but merely endorsed the oikophobia that had caused them to act as they did.

    Nor is oikophobia a specifically English, still less specifically British tendency. When Sartre and Foucault draw their picture of the ‘bourgeois’ mentality, the mentality of the Other in his Otherness, they are describing the ordinary decent Frenchman, and expressing their contempt for his national culture. A chronic form of oikophobia has spread through the American universities, in the guise of political correctness, and loudly surfaced in the aftermath of September 11th, to pour scorn on the culture that allegedly provoked the attacks, and to side by implication with the terrorists. And oikophobia can be everywhere read in the attacks levelled against the Vlaams Belang.

    The domination of our national Parliaments and the EU machinery by oikophobes is partly responsible for the acceptance of subsidised immigration, and for the attacks on customs and institutions associated with traditional and native forms of life. The oikophobe repudiates national loyalties and defines his goals and ideals against the nation, promoting transnational institutions over national governments, accepting and endorsing laws that are imposed from on high by the EU or the UN, and defining his political vision in terms of cosmopolitan values that have been purified of all reference to the particular attachments of a real historical community. The oikophobe is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against local chauvinism. And it is the rise of oikophobia that has led to the growing crisis of legitimacy in the nation states of Europe. For we are seeing a massive expansion of the legislative burden on the people of Europe, and a relentless assault on the only loyalties that would enable them voluntarily to bear it. The explosive effect of this has already been felt in Holland and France, and of course it is now being felt in Belgium too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    I think this article more or less sums up where you are coming from...

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1126/print

    You are what Roger Scruton would call an "oikophobe"

    I feel you are trying to accuse me of cowardice, or that just because i feel no national pride, and am not a slave to nationalistic fervour, i would not fight in the same way that those who died in the great war did, those we are told died for their country. (Which i think many people agree was a complete waste of life, fought for ridiculous, petty and above all, evil nationalistic reasons. A war which you would be correct in assuming that, given the choice, i would not have fought in)

    However i do think you and Roger Scruton betray an accute insecurity in your beliefs and your accusations. Which i will get to.

    I have in fact served in the armed forces, and in an operational warzone. It is what i have been doing for the past five years of my life. Yet it was not queen and country which drove me to do so. It was not blind nationalistic pride, nor was it patriotism. Just before i signed up, we had invaded Iraq, which att he time i thought a just and noble thing to do (The act of which alone i still do). Although we had invaded for questionable reasons, i supported it because we were toppling an abhorrent dictatorship, a regime which went against every moral fibre in my body. So i signed up to serve and suppport directly this war. Eventually the regime would give way to Islamic extremism and religious brutality. Something i still agreed should be fought.

    Not once did i imagine i was serving because i was British. Not once did i choose to put my life in danger for queen and country. I voluntarily put myself in danger in the cause of what i thought was right and wrong, what was evil and what was good, my own personal judgement, not that which someone had told me was right. Something which would eventually lead me to leave the armed forces as i began to question the reasons we were fighting and the consequences of our presence.

    Scruton mentions the second world war in the article and how it was the willingness of the soldiers to die for their country which helped us win. Considering the amount of mind numbing propoganda circulated by the home office during the war, i am not surprised so many fought so hard for their country or King etc.. But that doesn not in any way mean it is a good or admirable thing. The same can most definately be said for the Japanese who fought far more viciously and mindlessly for their country. To the point in fact where it was feared the entire population would commit suicide if their Emporer God was imprisoned or killed by the USA. An attitude and outlook bred and developed by nationalism and it's great ally, propaganda and control of opinion.

    I would have most definitely have fought in WWII, voluntarily and willinglly. Not for some absurd and dangerous idea of King and country. But because of what it was Britain was fighting. Like Japan, the Third reich was the epitome of nationalism and belief in the 'motherland' and the 'volk'. I would have fought for my own personal reasons, my own moral sensibility and ideological belief. Something which i feel is infinitely superior to blind, nationalistic patriotism.

    Which then brings us to the insecurity which i believe exists within yourself and Mr Scruton. Your love and insistence of the nation and on 'home' and on blind loyalty to these things. Whilst shunning all others on the basis of imagined borders and lines drawn in the dirt. Create segregation even between other human beings who hold exactly the same views as yours. Your ideologies as simple ideas are universal. Yet you let the state and what you imagine as home to seperate you from your brethren. As if you cannot exist without it.

    I on the other hand do not let such petty things as lines in the mud or pigment in the skin affect my beliefs in such a way, and have infact met and served with those of different 'nationalities' who share my views, and our loyalties are firmly with each other before they are with those who demand our subservience on the basis of birth or the nation state.

    I think this moral and ideological independence and responsibility is far superior to the blind loyalty to borders or skin colour which almost every nationalist demands. Thus i describe myself among other things as a transnationalist and am rightly proud to do so. If yourself and roger scruton wish to interpret this as a simple hate and aversion to certain sects and imagined groups of their fellow human beings, and label them 'oikophobes', so be it.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I feel you are trying to accuse me of cowardice, or that just because i feel no national pride, and am not a slave to nationalistic fervour, i would not fight in the same way that those who died in the great war did, those we are told died for their country. (Which i think many people agree was a complete waste of life, fought for ridiculous, petty and above all, evil nationalistic reasons. A war which you would be correct in assuming that, given the choice, i would not have fought in)

    However i do think you and Roger Scruton betray an accute insecurity in your beliefs and your accusations. Which i will get to.

    I have in fact served in the armed forces, and in an operational warzone. It is what i have been doing for the past five years of my life. Yet it was not queen and country which drove me to do so. It was not blind nationalistic pride, nor was it patriotism. Just before i signed up, we had invaded Iraq, which att he time i thought a just and noble thing to do (The act of which alone i still do). Although we had invaded for questionable reasons, i supported it because we were toppling an abhorrent dictatorship, a regime which went against every moral fibre in my body. So i signed up to serve and suppport directly this war. Eventually the regime would give way to Islamic extremism and religious brutality. Something i still agreed should be fought.

    Not once did i imagine i was serving because i was British. Not once did i choose to put my life in danger for queen and country. I voluntarily put myself in danger in the cause of what i thought was right and wrong, what was evil and what was good, my own personal judgement, not that which someone had told me was right. Something which would eventually lead me to leave the armed forces as i began to question the reasons we were fighting and the consequences of our presence.

    Scruton mentions the second world war in the article and how it was the willingness of the soldiers to die for their country which helped us win. Considering the amount of mind numbing propoganda circulated by the home office during the war, i am not surprised so many fought so hard for their country or King etc.. But that doesn not in any way mean it is a good or admirable thing. The same can most definitely be said for the Japanese who fought far more viciously and mindlessly for their country. To the point in fact where it was feared the entire population would commit suicide if their Emporer God was imprisoned or killed by the USA. An attitude and outlook bred and developed by nationalism and it's great ally, propaganda and control of opinion.

    I would have most definitely have fought in WWII, voluntarily and willinglly. Not for some absurd and dangerous idea of King and country. But because of what it was Britain was fighting. Like Japan, the Third reich was the epitome of nationalism and belief in the 'motherland' and the 'volk'. I would have fought for my own personal reasons, my own moral sensibility and ideological belief. Something which i feel is infinitely superior to blind, nationalistic patriotism.

    Which then brings us to the insecurity which i believe exists within yourself and Mr Scruton. Your love and insistence of the nation and on 'home' and on blind loyalty to these things. Whilst shunning all others on the basis of imagined borders and lines drawn in the dirt. Create segregation even between other human beings who hold exactly the same views as yours. Your ideologies as simple ideas are universal. Yet you let the state and what you imagine as home to seperate you from your brethren. As if you cannot exist without it.

    I on the other hand do not let such petty things as lines in the mud or pigment in the skin affect my beliefs in such a way, and have infact met and served with those of different 'nationalities' who share my views, and our loyalties are firmly with each other before they are with those who demand our subservience on the basis of birth or the nation state.

    I think this moral and ideological independence and responsibility is far superior to the blind loyalty to borders or skin colour which almost every nationalist demands. Thus i describe myself among other things as a transnationalist and am rightly proud to do so. If yourself and roger scruton wish to interpret this as a simple hate and aversion to certain sects and imagined groups of their fellow human beings, and label them 'oikophobes', so be it.
    Your reply is very interesting Aeolus - I havn't time to fully respond at the moment, but I will later.
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.