|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 29, 2023 8:47:06 GMT
Zany said: "I n the last decade about 3.5 million migrants have made Britain their home. And while I'm against further immigration 3.5 out of 70 million is by no ones imagination overwhelming." It's not 3.5 million out of 70 million, it's (at least) 15 million out of 67 million, not counting the additional couple of million who have arrived since the census. The last decade's influx comes on top of that of several earlier decades, and against the background of a declining native population.
When seeking to minimise or trivialise others' concerns about colonisation and usurpation you should at least try to get the numbers right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 29, 2023 8:49:43 GMT
Orac said " As Dan notes, 'white British' have now become minority status in (what was) their own capital city and in several other cities. We could usefully change that label to 'white English', because England is really the place being hammered and having its populations displaced by this persistent policy (which they keep voting against btw)."
I made the same point in 'Demographics is Destiny'.
The fact that the population of Scotland and, to a lesser extent that of Wales and NI are still overwhelmingly 'white British' obscures the fact that England been overrun and its native population displaced from large areas of the country.
This may not be obvious to a casual observer in Zanyville or dappyland but it is to a dispassionate observer in any major urban area except for a handful in the Northeast and Merseyside. But even there the process is now well underway and on the same trajectory if a little retarded compared to the 'leaders' in the replacement race.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 29, 2023 8:52:29 GMT
You do not have to kill people as one definition is "deliberately inflicted conditions “calculated to bring about its...destruction,” One of the conditions is enforcing upon a group within their native area large scale immigration and creating laws and circumstances that prevent opposition to this. If the Scots were subject by any group to large scale English immigration and prevented by law to object or discriminate in their own favour as well as enduring laws that forced them to include the English at all levels of state and government then there would be a bundle of Scots who would object to that as it would lead to their ethnic demise. The problem with answering other peoples posts is you lose the nuances. Orac was claiming its genocide, a ridiculous exaggeration. But then politicians have known the outcome for decades so have the people who still get convinced to vote for them, then get ignored. Constantly voting for your own downfall has never made any sense in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 9:00:53 GMT
I didn't need to I'd already understood it from you, I just think its a ridiculous over exaggeration. As Dan notes, 'white British' have now become minority status in (what was) their own capital city and in several other cities. We could usefully change that label to 'white English', because England is really the place being hammered and having its populations displaced by this persistent policy (which they keep voting against btw). In any case - I have clarified this several times , but i'm happy to do this again from a different angle. I don't think any /all immigration is necessarily genocidal (ie motivated by a wish to remove a people), but i think what we are seeing presently and parts of the political position that underlie that policy, are. Specifically - when i talked about genocide, I highlighted a political position that makes one group in particular morally liable to continually hand out its territory to others. - ie they are inhuman if they pass their territory to their own children. This is a position you seem to hold. In my view this is a genocidal memetic / belief system. How many survivors of the Holocaust or Rwanda do you think would recognise what's happening to you as being more or less identical as what happened to them? The thing is you may well have some very valid points about the negative impact of large scale immigration but by ridiculously over stating your case and using words like "genocide" you lose all credibility. It's also an insult to victims of genuine genocides. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2023 9:36:01 GMT
Good luck killing people with social engineering. But then by killing people you mean having funny coloured children. Can't somehow imagine you being over concerned if Scotland lost its red hair through marrying English folk. Its genocide, the purity of the Scotsman is gone forever. Lol. If humans starting willingly mating with dolphins there would be nothing wrong with the resulting Dolphmen. (Other than the ridiculousness of your argument of course) You do not have to kill people as one definition is "deliberately inflicted conditions “calculated to bring about its...destruction,” One of the conditions is enforcing upon a group within their native area large scale immigration and creating laws and circumstances that prevent opposition to this. If the Scots were subject by any group to large scale English immigration and prevented by law to object or discriminate in their own favour as well as enduring laws that forced them to include the English at all levels of state and government then there would be a bundle of Scots who would object to that as it would lead to their ethnic demise. The only response I am seeing from the genocidal is denial of the facts, and that's when they're not screaming racist and demanding preferential treatment. Time is on their side so all they have to do is maintain momentum. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 29, 2023 9:36:58 GMT
The UN Convention on Genocide defines genocide as meaning any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Note that 'killing' is only one act of several covered under the definition; mental harm is another
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 9:43:26 GMT
As Dan notes, 'white British' have now become minority status in (what was) their own capital city and in several other cities. We could usefully change that label to 'white English', because England is really the place being hammered and having its populations displaced by this persistent policy (which they keep voting against btw). In any case - I have clarified this several times , but i'm happy to do this again from a different angle. I don't think any /all immigration is necessarily genocidal (ie motivated by a wish to remove a people), but i think what we are seeing presently and parts of the political position that underlie that policy, are. Specifically - when i talked about genocide, I highlighted a political position that makes one group in particular morally liable to continually hand out its territory to others. - ie they are inhuman if they pass their territory to their own children. This is a position you seem to hold. In my view this is a genocidal memetic / belief system. How many survivors of the Holocaust or Rwanda do you think would recognise what's happening to you as being more or less identical as what happened to them? The thing is you may well have some very valid points about the negative impact of large scale immigration but by ridiculously over stating your case and using words like "genocide" you lose all credibility. It's also an insult to victims of genuine genocides. As Dan points out the UN definition of genocide is quite clear, you may not like it or accept it but it is clear. All that remains is to show that that is what has happened to the English and no matter how you look at it those conditions have been thrust upon the English and quite often by Scots I am sorry to say. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 10:13:11 GMT
The UN Convention on Genocide defines genocide as meaning any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Note that 'killing' is only one act of several covered under the definition; mental harm is another None of those things are happening to British people. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 29, 2023 10:22:54 GMT
I didn't need to I'd already understood it from you, I just think its a ridiculous over exaggeration. As Dan notes, 'white British' have now become minority status in (what was) their own capital city and in several other cities. We could usefully change that label to 'white English', because England is really the place being hammered and having its populations displaced by this persistent policy (which they keep voting against btw). In any case - I have clarified this several times , but i'm happy to do this again from a different angle. I don't think any /all immigration is necessarily genocidal (ie motivated by a wish to remove a people), but i think what we are seeing presently and parts of the political position that underlie that policy, are. Specifically - when i talked about genocide, I highlighted a political position that makes one group in particular morally liable to continually hand out its territory to others. - ie they are inhuman if they pass their territory to their own children. This is a position you seem to hold. In my view this is a genocidal memetic / belief system. What difference does your colour make? You are either British of not. Further its disingenuous to pick the place most immigrants live as your base line. I have understood your point every time you have stated it. My response came in two forms. 1, mocking the gross and frankly disgusting exaggeration in comparing it to genocide. 2, Disagreeing with the premise that immigration is being done specifically to wipe out the White British race. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 29, 2023 10:24:23 GMT
Zany said: "I n the last decade about 3.5 million migrants have made Britain their home. And while I'm against further immigration 3.5 out of 70 million is by no ones imagination overwhelming." It's not 3.5 million out of 70 million, it's (at least) 15 million out of 67 million, not counting the additional couple of million who have arrived since the census. The last decade's influx comes on top of that of several earlier decades, and against the background of a declining native population.
When seeking to minimise or trivialise others' concerns about colonisation and usurpation you should at least try to get the numbers right.
Only if you assume the 12 million already living here are not British. But even taking your figures I see no genocide. Q: Will you ever see a different ethnicity/colour person as being British? Or are you one of those who asks the great grand daughter of a migrant where she comes from? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 11:17:28 GMT
As Dan notes, 'white British' have now become minority status in (what was) their own capital city and in several other cities. We could usefully change that label to 'white English', because England is really the place being hammered and having its populations displaced by this persistent policy (which they keep voting against btw). In any case - I have clarified this several times , but i'm happy to do this again from a different angle. I don't think any /all immigration is necessarily genocidal (ie motivated by a wish to remove a people), but i think what we are seeing presently and parts of the political position that underlie that policy, are. Specifically - when i talked about genocide, I highlighted a political position that makes one group in particular morally liable to continually hand out its territory to others. - ie they are inhuman if they pass their territory to their own children. This is a position you seem to hold. In my view this is a genocidal memetic / belief system. What difference does your colour make? The white British live in Britain and don't live (in significant numbers) anywhere else. They can't import more of themselves to act as replacements for some other group present in the British isles, so the broad rule that the British must import outsiders is effectively suicidal for that group - it is insisting that white British have a moral duty to replace themselves in their homeland with another group and this rule will always act to reduce their relative numbers. If you look at the results of the policy, you can see that this is (quite predictably) exactly what has happened. If you apply the same rule to anyone (ie target their homeland), you will get the same entirely predictable result. This is all by-the-by and a pretty obvious corollary. My central point is that the notion that some group has a persistent and special moral duty to hand over its territorial inheritance to people other than their children, is genocidal |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 13:18:23 GMT
Zany said: "I n the last decade about 3.5 million migrants have made Britain their home. And while I'm against further immigration 3.5 out of 70 million is by no ones imagination overwhelming." It's not 3.5 million out of 70 million, it's (at least) 15 million out of 67 million, not counting the additional couple of million who have arrived since the census. The last decade's influx comes on top of that of several earlier decades, and against the background of a declining native population.
When seeking to minimise or trivialise others' concerns about colonisation and usurpation you should at least try to get the numbers right.
Only if you assume the 12 million already living here are not British. But even taking your figures I see no genocide. Q: Will you ever see a different ethnicity/colour person as being British? Or are you one of those who asks the great grand daughter of a migrant where she comes from? But there is an ethnic difference which is the point and the race laws do not work unless you recognise a difference in ethnicity. British is a Nationality come broader Commonwealth perception poorly defined and a special entity in NI. Within Britain there are clearly defined ethnic groups and the English, Scots and Welsh are the ones broadly living in their ethnic origin homelands. The race laws that you support demand differences are noted if there is any accusation of discrimination. Once you place into law that need it is divisive and means that any group and individual has a right to self define and be defined as a specific ethnicity. Asking someone where they or their antecedents hail from is just being interested. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 13:19:24 GMT
What difference does your colour make? The white British live in Britain and don't live (in significant numbers) anywhere else. They can't import more of themselves to act as replacements for some other group present in the British isles, so the broad rule that the British must import outsiders is effectively suicidal for that group - it is insisting that white British have a moral duty to replace themselves in their homeland with another group and this rule will always act to reduce their relative numbers. If you look at the results of the policy, you can see that this is (quite predictably) exactly what has happened. If you apply the same rule to anyone (ie target their homeland), you will get the same entirely predictable result. This is all by-the-by and a pretty obvious corollary. My central point is that the notion that some group has a persistent and special moral duty to hand over its territorial inheritance to people other than their children, is genocidal It isn't replacement because white people aren't being removed. You can't replace someone who hasn't left. Nobody is being forced to hand over territory,British people are continuing to live alongside other British people, some of whom happen to have different skin tone. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 13:24:42 GMT
Only if you assume the 12 million already living here are not British. But even taking your figures I see no genocide. Q: Will you ever see a different ethnicity/colour person as being British? Or are you one of those who asks the great grand daughter of a migrant where she comes from? But there is an ethnic difference which is the point and the race laws do not work unless you recognise a difference in ethnicity. British is a Nationality come broader Commonwealth perception poorly defined and a special entity in NI. Within Britain there are clearly defined ethnic groups and the English, Scots and Welsh are the ones broadly living in their ethnic origin homelands. The race laws that you support demand differences are noted if there is any accusation of discrimination. Once you place into law that need it is divisive and means that any group and individual has a right to self define and be defined as a specific ethnicity. Asking someone where they or their antecedents hail from is just being interested. "Asking someone where they or their antecedents hail from is just being interested." Singling them out for special treatment by asking them to justify their presence in their own country, or suggesting that their mere presence is a form of genocide isn't just being interested, it's divisive bullying. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 13:44:29 GMT
The white British live in Britain and don't live (in significant numbers) anywhere else. They can't import more of themselves to act as replacements for some other group present in the British isles, so the broad rule that the British must import outsiders is effectively suicidal for that group - it is insisting that white British have a moral duty to replace themselves in their homeland with another group and this rule will always act to reduce their relative numbers. If you look at the results of the policy, you can see that this is (quite predictably) exactly what has happened. If you apply the same rule to anyone (ie target their homeland), you will get the same entirely predictable result. This is all by-the-by and a pretty obvious corollary. My central point is that the notion that some group has a persistent and special moral duty to hand over its territorial inheritance to people other than their children, is genocidal It isn't replacement because white people aren't being removed. You can't replace someone who hasn't left. Nobody is being forced to hand over territory,British people are continuing to live alongside other British people, some of whom happen to have different skin tone. Bad semantics and a failed attempt at pedantry - See the ' replacement of red squirrels' in the UK to give a guide to English usage. The immigration policy is forced on the British public, despite their well known wishes on the matter. This policy amounts to a continuous re-routing of territorial inheritance from the children of resident British people, to others. My broader point is that, persistently applied and in sufficient degree, such a policy is essentially genocidal in its effects. |
|
