|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 14:08:06 GMT
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. No, resident British people continue to inherit British territory. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 14:12:25 GMT
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. No, resident British people continue to inherit British territory. No - they become resident when they take the inheritance and these people are almost by definition not the children of residents |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 14:23:39 GMT
No, resident British people continue to inherit British territory. No - they become resident when they take the inheritance and these people are almost by definition not the children of residents No British person is being denied heritage of British territory. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 14:30:17 GMT
No - they become resident when they take the inheritance and these people are almost by definition not the children of residents No British person is being denied heritage of British territory. The policy means some part of that inheritance is taken off them and given to others. This is simple conservation of x logic btw. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 14:32:09 GMT
As for the 'white target' dimension of this policy, i think the simplest demonstration is to listen to those who most adamantly support it.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 14:40:27 GMT
No British person is being denied heritage of British territory. The policy means some part of that inheritance is taken off them and given to others. This is simple conservation of x logic btw. No, the children of white, indegenous British citizens will continue to inherit British territory. Name me one who is being denied this. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 14:42:05 GMT
The policy means some part of that inheritance is taken off them and given to others. This is simple conservation of x logic btw. No, the children of white, indegenous British citizens will continue to inherit British territory. Name me one who is being denied this. again - the policy necessarily means a reduction. The policy means some part of that inheritance is taken off them and given to others. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 29, 2023 14:51:55 GMT
As long as persons of migration background are allowed to own real property in England the amount of territory available to the indigenous population as their collective inheritance is reduced accordingly.
Many countries, including several of those which have contributed most to the incoming migrant stream in the last sixty years, have laws in effect to restrict or even disallow such ownership. India being a very prominent example.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 14:57:10 GMT
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. Once the race laws came in it was bound to happen and became even worse with the attempt at creating a multicultural society. A recognised ethnic difference is demanded by many when challenging any authority, when seeking employment, when expressing cultural proclivities, when living in the same society. Making law that says that anyone is indigenous is just so much nonsense and is seen to be exactly that when complaints are made as regards discrimination by one whose antecedents and cultural affectations are clearly not British. A Scotsman in full highland regalia will not be asked that question in England, a Welshman at a rugby match with a giant leek and monstrous daffodil will not be asked that question because natively it is obvious. Within the larger bracket of Africa and the Caribbean no one knows but everyone, including you know that some cultural affectations are hard to pin down. However it can become an insult when some one asks in all innocence and that is when the person so questioned needs to exercise that British attribute that they are supposed to value so highly, namely tolerance |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 15:10:49 GMT
As long as persons of migration background are allowed to own real property in England the amount of territory available to the indigenous population as their collective inheritance is reduced accordingly. Many countries, including several of those which have contributed most to the incoming migrant stream in the last sixty years, have laws in effect to restrict or even disallow such ownership. India being a very prominent example. And it's not just a matter of territory. Our system means each child inherits a portion of the ability to decide what society is, what laws we have and what direction the country goes in. The policy means some part of this discretion is taken off them and handed to someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 29, 2023 15:19:04 GMT
Yes indeed, the political dimension to the demographic transformation is rarely if ever discussed. It's the ultimate elephant behind the sofa which everybody professes not to see.
I've often observed that if we wish to understand what happens when a majority population becomes just another ethnic minority we have only to examine the experience of California which went 'majority-minority' in 2001.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 15:27:38 GMT
No, the children of white, indegenous British citizens will continue to inherit British territory. Name me one who is being denied this. again - the policy necessarily means a reduction. The policy means some part of that inheritance is taken off them and given to others. No it isn't, my house wasn't taken away from an indegenous British person. Every British citizen retains all of the same rights and opportunities they had before I was born. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 29, 2023 15:31:41 GMT
"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. Once the race laws came in it was bound to happen and became even worse with the attempt at creating a multicultural society. A recognised ethnic difference is demanded by many when challenging any authority, when seeking employment, when expressing cultural proclivities, when living in the same society. Making law that says that anyone is indigenous is just so much nonsense and is seen to be exactly that when complaints are made as regards discrimination by one whose antecedents and cultural affectations are clearly not British. A Scotsman in full highland regalia will not be asked that question in England, a Welshman at a rugby match with a giant leek and monstrous daffodil will not be asked that question because natively it is obvious. Within the larger bracket of Africa and the Caribbean no one knows but everyone, including you know that some cultural affectations are hard to pin down. However it can become an insult when some one asks in all innocence and that is when the person so questioned needs to exercise that British attribute that they are supposed to value so highly, namely tolerance Racial equality laws were passed in response to racism against ethnic minorities. Asking people their ancestral background can be perfectly innocent but singling out people of immigrant extraction for special treatment by asking them to justify their right to live in their own country or telling them their mere presence or them having children is an act of genocide is divisive bullying. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 29, 2023 15:43:46 GMT
again - the policy necessarily means a reduction. The policy means some part of that inheritance is taken off them and given to others. No it isn't, my house wasn't taken away from an indegenous British person. I didn't say your house was specifically taken off anyone (ie transferred forcibly). I said that your added presence means the territorial inheritance of the children of those already resident was reduced. Options and freedoms that would have been theirs, are occupied by you instead. To illustrate the principle examine it in extremis - instead of looking at a single added person, Imagine 100 million. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 15:45:04 GMT
Once the race laws came in it was bound to happen and became even worse with the attempt at creating a multicultural society. A recognised ethnic difference is demanded by many when challenging any authority, when seeking employment, when expressing cultural proclivities, when living in the same society. Making law that says that anyone is indigenous is just so much nonsense and is seen to be exactly that when complaints are made as regards discrimination by one whose antecedents and cultural affectations are clearly not British. A Scotsman in full highland regalia will not be asked that question in England, a Welshman at a rugby match with a giant leek and monstrous daffodil will not be asked that question because natively it is obvious. Within the larger bracket of Africa and the Caribbean no one knows but everyone, including you know that some cultural affectations are hard to pin down. However it can become an insult when some one asks in all innocence and that is when the person so questioned needs to exercise that British attribute that they are supposed to value so highly, namely tolerance Racial equality laws were passed in response to racism against ethnic minorities. Asking people their ancestral background can be perfectly innocent but singling out people of immigrant extraction for special treatment by asking them to justify their right to live in their own country or telling them their mere presence or them having children is an act of genocide is divisive bullying. Which kind of illustrates the point being made. It is a matter of historical political record that the electorate have been opposed to any large scale immigration for at least 60 years and probably even longer. It is also in the historical record that government after government ignored this desire by the electorate from whom they had actively sought votes by saying they would limit immigration. In light of this it was also demanded of teh electorate by law that they not only had to accept as equal partners all incomers and children of incomers but that they could not discriminate in their own favour in any way. To pile insult on injury it was demanded that preference should be given to these incomers in law to ensure a proportionality of representation irrespective of general ability and to the exclusion of the children of the original residents. This is clearly evidenced by the educational attainment of young working class white men who are no cast off as of no consequence. Let us say you voted to be in the EU and the government and the opposition continually said we would join over dozens of years and kept not joining would you feel aggrieved and that democracy was not working? |
|
