|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 30, 2023 9:27:07 GMT
This may surprise you but my preferred long-term solution for the demographic crisis would be a territorial one, a two-state solution if you like.
Interestingly enough, one may already be getting underway if only in a subconscious rather than a deliberately planned fashion. Just this week several metropolitan museums and galleries have announced an intention to remove large parts of their collections beyond the M25.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 30, 2023 9:32:55 GMT
This may surprise you but my preferred long-term solution for the demographic crisis would be a territorial one, a two-state solution if you like. Interestingly enough, one may already be getting underway if only in a subconscious rather than a deliberately planned fashion. Just this week several metropolitan museums and galleries have announced an intention to remove large parts of their collections beyond the M25. You would just end with another 'refugee crises' and then the same pattern again. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 30, 2023 9:35:32 GMT
I'm assuming that stout governments and stout fencing will be the norm, at least in the part of England not ceded to a new Rainbow Nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 30, 2023 9:47:37 GMT
In the UK 50% of the land is owned by 1% of the population. There is no collective inheritance, the bit of the UK you can have as a White Brit is the bit you can afford to buy. If you are a White Brit who can't afford any then you get none. This is of course yet another desperate attempt to conflate the use of the word 'inheritance' with a specific will or an individual ownership - and therefore deny it exists at all. If the UK population were to vote for land / tenure reform and give each citizen an allotment, it would still be the UK and they would still have a form of collective ownership. This collective possession will exist as long as the UK is a nation (on current course perhaps another decade before it splits into ethnic enclaves) Its not a desperate attempt at anything, its pointing out the lie of Inherited land. If each of us could claim our share of "inherited land" we could have 3,600 sq mtrs each, at the moment we average 200 sq mtrs Here's your bit.  The idea of nationhood is not about how much of it you own its about shared brotherhood and laws traditions etc. You might claim we are diluting that, though I doubt many Brits have given up their traditions just because some migrants have moved in close by. What you cannot claim is that we are disappearing because of those migrants. We are disappearing (if at all) because we have less children than the sustainable population needs. That might in part be due to expensive housing, but that's due to artificially restricting building land, not immigration. I remind the reader at this point that I am like most Brits against further immigration. I just don't like the people who don't like immigrants because they are immigrants. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 30, 2023 9:49:20 GMT
I'm assuming that stout governments and stout fencing will be the norm, at least in the part of England not ceded to a new Rainbow Nation. Oh the humanity. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 30, 2023 9:53:02 GMT
Not to be discriminated against requires the indulgence of others but it is still a right as agreed in a signed contract by our government, to the UN, with the British electorate. An ethnic minority can claim that right a white person cannot in the specific circumstances I outlined. Employers can choose to award it, ethnic minorities have no right to it anymore than they have the right to a celebrity's autograph. But say a celebrity can refuse to give a white man an autograph because he is a white man but cannot refuse to give a black man an autograph because he is a black man. That means the act of another towards you in law is dependant on your rights. That is identical to the right not to be discriminated against becasue of your colour which is exactly how that right is worded in the UNHDR. It is due to that right that we have the race laws as they are supposed to ensure that that right is enshrined in law. It would be best not to be idiotic and try and deny that. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Nov 30, 2023 9:53:45 GMT
This is of course yet another desperate attempt to conflate the use of the word 'inheritance' with a specific will or an individual ownership - and therefore deny it exists at all. If the UK population were to vote for land / tenure reform and give each citizen an allotment, it would still be the UK and they would still have a form of collective ownership. This collective possession will exist as long as the UK is a nation (on current course perhaps another decade before it splits into ethnic enclaves) Its not a desperate attempt at anything, its pointing out the lie of Inherited land. If each of us could claim our share of "inherited land" we could have 3,600 sq mtrs each, at the moment we average 200 sq mtrs Here's your bit. The idea of nationhood is not about how much of it you own its about shared brotherhood and laws traditions etc. ..and those laws etc apply across (in) a (their) territory. This is why English laws do not apply in (say) France. The English (as a collective) do not own France in the same way they own England. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 30, 2023 9:58:02 GMT
This is of course yet another desperate attempt to conflate the use of the word 'inheritance' with a specific will or an individual ownership - and therefore deny it exists at all. The notion that (say) the UK people, in some sense and collectively, own the United Kingdom territory, would under normal circumstances pass without comment. However, for some reason it is now suddenly causing hiccups. If the UK population were to vote for land / tenure reform and give each citizen an allotment, it would still be the UK and they would still have a form of collective ownership. This collective possession will exist as long as the UK is a nation (on current course perhaps another decade before it splits into ethnic enclaves) Non-white British people would have as much collective ownership as anyone else then. You will lfind that is exactly the point he is making but the colour is largely irrelevant it is the level of immigration that dilutes the collective ownership/overlordship/democratic will of those whose lands it is. Being enforced to allow others to come and join in is what has happened that in any other historical event is seen as just plain wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 30, 2023 9:58:42 GMT
Employers can choose to award it, ethnic minorities have no right to it anymore than they have the right to a celebrity's autograph. But say a celebrity can refuse to give a white man an autograph because he is a white man but cannot refuse to give a black man an autograph because he is a black man. That means the act of another towards you in law is dependant on your rights. That is identical to the right not to be discriminated against becasue of your colour which is exactly how that right is worded in the UNHDR. It is due to that right that we have the race laws as they are supposed to ensure that that right is enshrined in law. It would be best not to be idiotic and try and deny that. I'm not aware of any laws relating to autographs. It's up to the celebrity if they want to give someone an autograph, it's up to an employer if they want to activate positive action, neither are a legal right ethnic minorities can claim. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Nov 30, 2023 9:59:45 GMT
Non-white British people would have as much collective ownership as anyone else then. You will lfind that is exactly the point he is making but the colour is largely irrelevant it is the level of immigration that dilutes the collective ownership/overlordship/democratic will of those whose lands it is. Being enforced to allow others to come and join in is what has happened that in any other historical event is seen as just plain wrong. The colour doesn't seem to be irrelevant to him,far from it. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 30, 2023 9:59:49 GMT
This may surprise you but my preferred long-term solution for the demographic crisis would be a territorial one, a two-state solution if you like. Interestingly enough, one may already be getting underway if only in a subconscious rather than a deliberately planned fashion. Just this week several metropolitan museums and galleries have announced an intention to remove large parts of their collections beyond the M25. Did they say why? Was it because 'we don't want funny coloured people spoiling the look of our galleries'? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 30, 2023 10:01:49 GMT
Employers can choose to award it, ethnic minorities have no right to it anymore than they have the right to a celebrity's autograph. That means the act of another towards you in law is dependant on your rights. That is identical to the right not to be discriminated against because of your colour which is exactly how that right is worded in the UNHDR. It is due to that right that we have the race laws as they are supposed to ensure that that right is enshrined in law. It would be best not to be idiotic and try and deny that. Can he? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 30, 2023 10:04:42 GMT
But say a celebrity can refuse to give a white man an autograph because he is a white man but cannot refuse to give a black man an autograph because he is a black man. That means the act of another towards you in law is dependant on your rights. That is identical to the right not to be discriminated against because of your colour which is exactly how that right is worded in the UNHDR. It is due to that right that we have the race laws as they are supposed to ensure that that right is enshrined in law. It would be best not to be idiotic and try and deny that. Can he? Oh for goodness sake, no he cannot if he states that is the reason it was an analogy to show what the offering of employment is in line with his rather stupid reply in the first instance. He is very confused as regards what are rights. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Nov 30, 2023 10:05:40 GMT
We are disappearing (if at all) because we have less children than the sustainable population needs. That might in part be due to expensive housing, but that's due to artificially restricting building land, not immigration. I pick up that it's also down to some people (possibly a small number, but still far more than previous decades) simply not wanting the hassle of kids getting in the way of a lifestyle. Both of my sons (30 & 26), their respective partners, and a small number of their friends, are examples of this. Obviously, this can change with age.. (Which is fine by me - but I still let them know that I'm in absolutely no hurry to enter grandparenthood..) |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Nov 30, 2023 10:07:47 GMT
This may surprise you but my preferred long-term solution for the demographic crisis would be a territorial one, a two-state solution if you like. Interestingly enough, one may already be getting underway if only in a subconscious rather than a deliberately planned fashion. Just this week several metropolitan museums and galleries have announced an intention to remove large parts of their collections beyond the M25. Did they say why? Was it because 'we don't want funny coloured people spoiling the look of our galleries'? As I understood the reports it was for security reasons.
But whatever the reasons, these collections are part of our national patrimony (did you like how I avoided the 'I'-word?) and deserve to be shared with the rest of the country, not reserved for the exclusive use of 'Londoners'.
Hopefully the beginning of a major trend, next being the Crown Jewels?
|
|
