|
|
Post by sandypine on May 5, 2023 17:06:59 GMT
I accept, and said, it is an evolving thing. What counts is whether it is a natural evolution or an imposed evolution. Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians had their cultures effectively overwhelmed. Largely this was a deliberate plan. We accept that being a deliberate act it was intrinsically wrong. It is no less wrong when it is imposed on English people against their will and it is most certainly against their will as over the last 80 years they have voted as regards immigration for almost the exact opposite of what has been enacted. They repeatedly do something and are repeatedly ignored or when some try to make it an issue they are subject to cancelling, or to intimidation or to legal action. The narrative is strictly controlled and in the end the only result will either be subjugation or violent fightback. It would be a tragedy either way but the control of our democratic process to block the actual will of the people is very strong. I advocate democracy but I can see it is being usurped. The premise being (I presume) that politicians lie to the electorate? And yet the electorate keep voting for the same teams time after time after time so what does that say about their thoughts on immigration? Anything? Apathy? Who knows!
There have been various iterations of political movements wanting to actively stop immigration and/or remove immigrants. The latest movements having been either co-opted by/or been based upon disastrous policies or philosophical outlooks or odious characters and ultimately they've withered and died. What does that imply about the overall feeling within British society regarding the question of immigration and what to do with immigrants? Anything? Apathy? Who knows.
There has been a (seemingly) middle class rebellion against big oil recently, fueled by the green movement (pun intended) and the just stop oil protesters...without delving into the underlying insidiousness of the political motives of certain activists or the rights or wrongs of their methods, it is gaining momentum. People are making their views known - they are protesting. Point being they are doing something that they feel strongly about.
My position is based partly on the fact that I don't give a shit because voters got what they voted for - which is not the most intellectually sound construct I grant you but in the face of any other more appealing alternative it's the best I can manage. That said I am still to be convinced that despite a significant influx of people over the past millennia...centuries....decades this has caused the destruction of "British culture" when there are so many influences on it; be that immigrants and European and world cultures who all have an influence upon us because we are a free and open society. So who defines and constrains and approves what constitutes the intrinsic tenets of British culture?
It is not just politicians for some reason we now see the MSM participating in naked misinformation and very selective reporting to paint a picture that realistically does not exist. Of course the big trick is to appeal to each new generation of voter. The voters who have been consistently lied to are gradually dying off and there is no long memory of the lies except in the older voters who are more and more denigrated as greedy boomers, bitter gammons, bigots, racists or worse. The younger generation are imbued by their educators with a sense of planet and how we must act to save it by a process akin to self immolation which is presented as the moral decision, and it works enough. I would argue that the political movements have withered and died, they have been actively destroyed by collusion amongst many and occasionally pandering to a policy such as Brexit, which will obviously become EU light as soon as possible again with the collusion of those in power. The BNP had many weaknesses and the fractures that these opened up were prised apart by legal action and a concerted campaign to belittle anyone in the party with straightforward lies being the main tactic. UKIP then the Brexit party were effectively neutered by cries of racism, active physical attacks and bogus agreements. Voters do not get what they voted for, what they voted for is often just cast aside as of no consequence. If British Culture was not under a concerted attack there would be no need to have the race laws within which lies the main lie that we have to value diversity. This clearly states that people are different in terms of race and all the protected characteristics and have different values to input. This is official propaganda that one can assess, and is expected to assess, different groups in a positive way but if you do it in a negative way you will face legal action. There are few options left I would not advocate violent opposition but at the end of the day if things continue in such a ridiculous anti democratic fashion where the few MPs doing their job, like Andrew Bridgen, are effectively sidelined by a collective lie then I am not clear what other options will be open I hasten to add that the process was very low level up to NewLabour and then it accelerated with a built in momentum. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2023 0:07:15 GMT
Before the advent of mass immigration how many teachers had to go into hiding for expressing that great British virtue of free speech?. don't know. It may help if you did, considering your previous post where you claimed that his position was that immigrants are nasty. He's merely stating that mass-immigation hasn't made anything better, and he's right. Everything is worse, and combined with multiculuralism it's becoming a war zone in places:
It's like those who support it only want to see the country burn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 6, 2023 8:04:34 GMT
"My position is based partly on the fact that I don't give a shit because voters got what they voted for - which is not the most intellectually sound construct I grant you but in the face of any other more appealing alternative it's the best I can manage."
No political party has ever won an election on a manifesto promise to increase the number of foreigners if elected, but every one, without exception, has presided over just such an increase. Post-war immigrants and their offspring now account for a quarter of the population which is not an outcome that the electorate ever voted for.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 6, 2023 12:07:39 GMT
I accept, and said, it is an evolving thing. What counts is whether it is a natural evolution or an imposed evolution. Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians had their cultures effectively overwhelmed. Largely this was a deliberate plan. We accept that being a deliberate act it was intrinsically wrong. It is no less wrong when it is imposed on English people against their will and it is most certainly against their will as over the last 80 years they have voted as regards immigration for almost the exact opposite of what has been enacted. They repeatedly do something and are repeatedly ignored or when some try to make it an issue they are subject to cancelling, or to intimidation or to legal action. The narrative is strictly controlled and in the end the only result will either be subjugation or violent fightback. It would be a tragedy either way but the control of our democratic process to block the actual will of the people is very strong. I advocate democracy but I can see it is being usurped. So who defines and constrains and approves what constitutes the intrinsic tenets of British culture?
Sorry just noticed this bit and could not let it go by. British culture is not constrained or needs approval or has selected tenets of how it is constituted. It exists as an ever evolving thing that is based on many aspects not least the people, their environment, their history, their family ties, their laws, their art, their literature, their international relations and how they see themselves. Scots have more descriptive terms for wet weather than the English just as Eskimos have many more words to describe snow conditions than Europeans. If a deliberate effort is made to change any of those aspects as a means to change the culture then it is best if teh people whose culture one is attempting to change agree with the process. The people are an important part of culture if a deliberate act is made to bring in as many different groups to have an effect on the existing peoples then that is one method of attack, and their little doubt that people are being brought in as a deliberate act or allowed to arrive as a deliberate act. History is being attacked as we speak, the children are being taught that their own history is full of evil and not as their parents say, their family ties are being separated, their laws are being realigned, their literature is under revision and their international relations are guided by apologies, reparations and guilt. All set to destroy, or dramatically alter, British Culture. |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on May 6, 2023 16:47:47 GMT
The premise being (I presume) that politicians lie to the electorate? And yet the electorate keep voting for the same teams time after time after time so what does that say about their thoughts on immigration? Anything? Apathy? Who knows!
There have been various iterations of political movements wanting to actively stop immigration and/or remove immigrants. The latest movements having been either co-opted by/or been based upon disastrous policies or philosophical outlooks or odious characters and ultimately they've withered and died. What does that imply about the overall feeling within British society regarding the question of immigration and what to do with immigrants? Anything? Apathy? Who knows.
There has been a (seemingly) middle class rebellion against big oil recently, fueled by the green movement (pun intended) and the just stop oil protesters...without delving into the underlying insidiousness of the political motives of certain activists or the rights or wrongs of their methods, it is gaining momentum. People are making their views known - they are protesting. Point being they are doing something that they feel strongly about.
My position is based partly on the fact that I don't give a shit because voters got what they voted for - which is not the most intellectually sound construct I grant you but in the face of any other more appealing alternative it's the best I can manage. That said I am still to be convinced that despite a significant influx of people over the past millennia...centuries....decades this has caused the destruction of "British culture" when there are so many influences on it; be that immigrants and European and world cultures who all have an influence upon us because we are a free and open society. So who defines and constrains and approves what constitutes the intrinsic tenets of British culture?
Of course the big trick is to appeal to each new generation of voter. The voters who have been consistently lied to are gradually dying off and there is no long memory of the lies except in the older voters who are more and more denigrated as greedy boomers, bitter gammons, bigots, racists or worse. The younger generation are imbued by their educators with a sense of planet and how we must act to save it by a process akin to self immolation which is presented as the moral decision, and it works enough. I would argue that the political movements have withered and died, they have been actively destroyed by collusion amongst many and occasionally pandering to a policy such as Brexit, which will obviously become EU light as soon as possible again with the collusion of those in power. The BNP had many weaknesses and the fractures that these opened up were prised apart by legal action and a concerted campaign to belittle anyone in the party with straightforward lies being the main tactic. UKIP then the Brexit party were effectively neutered by cries of racism, active physical attacks and bogus agreements. Voters do not get what they voted for, what they voted for is often just cast aside as of no consequence. If British Culture was not under a concerted attack there would be no need to have the race laws within which lies the main lie that we have to value diversity. This clearly states that people are different in terms of race and all the protected characteristics and have different values to input. This is official propaganda that one can assess, and is expected to assess, different groups in a positive way but if you do it in a negative way you will face legal action. There are few options left I would not advocate violent opposition but at the end of the day if things continue in such a ridiculous anti democratic fashion where the few MPs doing their job, like Andrew Bridgen, are effectively sidelined by a collective lie then I am not clear what other options will be open I hasten to add that the process was very low level up to NewLabour and then it accelerated with a built in momentum. Sorry for the delayed response it's mayhem at the moment. I highlighted the passage in your message as Pacifico intimated that one of the principle tenets of British culture is our freedom of speech (to which I would partially agree) and within that is a tacit acknowledgement of freedom of the press. If I have made one, please forgive my misinterpretation of your post, however, it seems to me that you are advocating an "on message" approach to information and/or speech and/or education and/or what is reported in the press, is that a fair précis? In the face of the destruction of "British culture" are you contemplating the curtailment of a freedom of certain speech in order to mimic a political theme of the day? What is MSM? Who determines what MSM is and who delineates what they should or shouldn’t say.....hmmm....maybe you can let me know as I'm not sure? I’m confused. On the one hand we have a poster saying that one of the great virtues of “British culture” is free speech (freedom of the press etc) and that it is under attack – then we have another poster expressing reservations about the state of “British culture” implying that it is under attack as a result of free speech (freedom of the press)…!? Could the two of you perhaps work this out? It’s not a huge issue as “British culture” is a shitload more than just freedom of speech…. Regarding you point about the BNP. I think that is a classic case of political Darwinianism at work. The strong survive the weak perish; they were populated by fuckwits without much in the way of intelligence or political nous or policy or message either so they perished…I don’t see any conspiracy theory or the press ganging up on them, they were just stupid and deserved to disappear. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 6, 2023 22:12:25 GMT
It is not just politicians for some reason we now see the MSM participating in naked misinformation and very selective reporting to paint a picture that realistically does not exist. Of course the big trick is to appeal to each new generation of voter. The voters who have been consistently lied to are gradually dying off and there is no long memory of the lies except in the older voters who are more and more denigrated as greedy boomers, bitter gammons, bigots, racists or worse. The younger generation are imbued by their educators with a sense of planet and how we must act to save it by a process akin to self immolation which is presented as the moral decision, and it works enough. I would argue that the political movements have withered and died, they have been actively destroyed by collusion amongst many and occasionally pandering to a policy such as Brexit, which will obviously become EU light as soon as possible again with the collusion of those in power. The BNP had many weaknesses and the fractures that these opened up were prised apart by legal action and a concerted campaign to belittle anyone in the party with straightforward lies being the main tactic. UKIP then the Brexit party were effectively neutered by cries of racism, active physical attacks and bogus agreements. Voters do not get what they voted for, what they voted for is often just cast aside as of no consequence. If British Culture was not under a concerted attack there would be no need to have the race laws within which lies the main lie that we have to value diversity. This clearly states that people are different in terms of race and all the protected characteristics and have different values to input. This is official propaganda that one can assess, and is expected to assess, different groups in a positive way but if you do it in a negative way you will face legal action. There are few options left I would not advocate violent opposition but at the end of the day if things continue in such a ridiculous anti democratic fashion where the few MPs doing their job, like Andrew Bridgen, are effectively sidelined by a collective lie then I am not clear what other options will be open I hasten to add that the process was very low level up to NewLabour and then it accelerated with a built in momentum. Sorry for the delayed response it's mayhem at the moment. I highlighted the passage in your message as Pacifico intimated that one of the principle tenets of British culture is our freedom of speech (to which I would partially agree) and within that is a tacit acknowledgement of freedom of the press. If I have made one, please forgive my misinterpretation of your post, however, it seems to me that you are advocating an "on message" approach to information and/or speech and/or education and/or what is reported in the press, is that a fair précis? In the face of the destruction of "British culture" are you contemplating the curtailment of a freedom of certain speech in order to mimic a political theme of the day? What is MSM? Who determines what MSM is and who delineates what they should or shouldn’t say.....hmmm....maybe you can let me know as I'm not sure? I’m confused. On the one hand we have a poster saying that one of the great virtues of “British culture” is free speech (freedom of the press etc) and that it is under attack – then we have another poster expressing reservations about the state of “British culture” implying that it is under attack as a result of free speech (freedom of the press)…!? Could the two of you perhaps work this out? It’s not a huge issue as “British culture” is a shitload more than just freedom of speech…. Regarding you point about the BNP. I think that is a classic case of political Darwinianism at work. The strong survive the weak perish; they were populated by fuckwits without much in the way of intelligence or political nous or policy or message either so they perished…I don’t see any conspiracy theory or the press ganging up on them, they were just stupid and deserved to disappear. The point was that it seems to matter little what you vote for there is a set direction of travel that has nothing to do with the democratic wish of the people. The MSM (defined as the news, entertainment and topical outlets that reach most of the population one way or another) seem to have been co-opted into this direction of travel. So somewhere along the line that freedom has been if not destroyed then effectively constrained. Off message commentators are denigrated and defamed. As regards British culture I would ask a question if you were set down anywhere and watched, but not listened, to people going about their daily lives could you normally guess which culture you were set down in. Any village or town in India or city suburb would present not much of a problem, any village or town or city suburb in China would also be fairly easy, It is only when you get to Western style countries that it becomes a potential problem and you have to use architecture as a major clue. Yet a British Culture, along with almost any culture you care to name is quite easily identifiable yet you could confuse places in Britain for India, or China, or Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or Somalia, or Ethiopia, or Israel, or Palestine, or Albania, or Sri Lanka, or Nigeria, or Tunisia, or Poland, or Lithuania, or Egypt, or Brazil or almost any place on earth. The variance is overwhelming and it is that overwhelming variance that is, and seemingly is intended to, destroy or change British culture,. As regards teh BNP I acknowledge they were easy meat for those opposed to them but it is not the position of the main political parties or the legal system or the MSM to set out to destroy by concerted action a political party and/or its leadership once it starts to win electoral support. They all seem to have the political system arse about tit. It is a case of politicians are not there to tell everyone that what the others do is bad, they are there to tell the electorate that what they will do is good and they have to win support not destroy the support of others. The legal profession should be apolitical and the BBC as the broadcaster of the people should most certainly not have editorial policies other than to relay news and facts by way of reporting and comment the two being distinctly separate. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 11, 2023 7:39:13 GMT
Culturally enriching....
|
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on May 11, 2023 8:20:07 GMT
As regards teh BNP I acknowledge they were easy meat for those opposed to them but it is not the position of the main political parties or the legal system or the MSM to set out to destroy by concerted action a political party and/or its leadership once it starts to win electoral support. Why not? If a group promotes ideas so toxic and detrimental to society, they should be crushed by any and all means available. Wouldn't it have been a fair result for all concerned if a small party in Germany had been snuffed out at birth? Or the Party of Democratic Kampuchea? Or the FET y de las JONS? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 11, 2023 11:35:04 GMT
As regards teh BNP I acknowledge they were easy meat for those opposed to them but it is not the position of the main political parties or the legal system or the MSM to set out to destroy by concerted action a political party and/or its leadership once it starts to win electoral support. Why not? If a group promotes ideas so toxic and detrimental to society, they should be crushed by any and all means available. Wouldn't it have been a fair result for all concerned if a small party in Germany had been snuffed out at birth? Or the Party of Democratic Kampuchea? Or the FET y de las JONS? Would you have destroyed the Fabians when they went though their supporting Eugenics phase? |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on May 11, 2023 13:05:22 GMT
Absolutely - had they stood as a political party in their own right, and eugenics had formed a manifesto pledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 11, 2023 13:41:29 GMT
"If a group promotes ideas so toxic and detrimental to society, they should be crushed by any and all means available." What did you find toxic and detrimental about the BNP's platform? Here's a link to the Party Manifesto so you won't need to make anything up. general-election-2010.co.uk/bnp-manifesto-2010-general-election/ |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on May 11, 2023 14:02:37 GMT
Seems like voters saw through the BNP. Each of the 338 candidates in 2010 received 1668 votes (in 2005, the 119 candidates got 1620 votes).
In 2015, 2017 and 2019, votes per candidate (8, 10 and 1 respectively) were in the low hundreds.
It seems strange that the manifesto, which listed all those areas and proposed taking action that a reasonable population might welcome, dismissed the BNP. No doubt the news media's negative stance played a part, but it might also have been the activities and words of BNP activists...
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on May 11, 2023 14:13:46 GMT
If a group promotes ideas so toxic and detrimental to society... And who is to be the arbiter of that? ...they should be crushed by any and all means available... So you support political violence. Tell me, did you support Thomas Mair when he killed Jo Cox? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 11, 2023 14:29:13 GMT
Seems like voters saw through the BNP. Each of the 338 candidates in 2010 received 1668 votes (in 2005, the 119 candidates got 1620 votes). In 2015, 2017 and 2019, votes per candidate (8, 10 and 1 respectively) were in the low hundreds. It seems strange that the manifesto, which listed all those areas and proposed taking action that a reasonable population might welcome, dismissed the BNP. No doubt the news media's negative stance played a part, but it might also have been the activities and words of BNP activists... There's little question that the BNP's policy platform had greater popular appeal than the party itself. The two reasons you cite were certainly contributory factors, as was the active collaboration between the 'old gang' parties to keep the BNP out. Not to mention the EHRC litigation designed to de-legitimise the party constitution, which had been started after specifically anti-BNP provisions had been included in the Equality Bill then going through Parliament.
But let's wait and see what Wally is able to come up with from the manifesto. He seems quite certain that the BNP's ideas - which you infer reflected popular opinion - were 'toxic and detrimental to society'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 11, 2023 14:52:17 GMT
Reported.
|
|
