|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 9, 2023 15:01:28 GMT
Ben wants it. Anyone else ?  Yup. Britains foremost black dead poet wanted to eradicate UK ethnic groups . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 9, 2023 15:03:50 GMT
Redefining a noun is absurd ? lol What? absurdism /əbˈsəːdɪz(ə)m/ noun 1. intentionally ridiculous or bizarre behaviour or character. "the absurdism of the Dada movement" It has to be intentionally absurd to be absurd darling ? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2023 15:05:05 GMT
What? absurdism /əbˈsəːdɪz(ə)m/ noun 1. intentionally ridiculous or bizarre behaviour or character. "the absurdism of the Dada movement" It has to be intentionally absurd to be absurd darling ? Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about. You said last night that you don't believe genocide is occurring. Have you changed your mind again? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 9, 2023 15:05:32 GMT
Some of above, globalists, opportunists. Name names. No Borders spring easily to mind. Many of the old NewLabour were at best fellow travellers. We will not see change from Starmer should he come to power, Sunak seems to be a puppet of sorts and would be interesting to see how many go to Davos next time around. The point is that the actuality of what is unfolding indicates a concerted effort to bring about large scael demographic change in the UK and it has done. Now we can argue if that is good or bad or indifferent but several things are very clear, it has resulted in the reduction in the English in their homeland by some 10% in a couple of decades and the large scale immigration that is being carried out is directly opposite to what the electorate have voted for in recent elections and in historic elections going back to WW2. So go figure. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 9, 2023 15:05:45 GMT
Somebody holding genocidal intent is unlikely to admit such in public. You could reasonably assume such a motive if someone (say) celebrates reducing numbers and supports policy that is likely to result in a reduction. For instance, both celebrating a reduction in the numbers of white British and supporting large scale immigration into Britain. Genocide's a crime. If you have proof, proceed to the courts. If you don't have proof, you're involved in a conspiracy theory. And an extraordinarily absurd one, at that. Isn't that a bit like asking the Jews to prove Nazi crimes in early 1940s German courts? You have defined it as a matter of intent, and so you have to accept a reasonable computation of intent |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2023 15:06:52 GMT
Genocide's a crime. If you have proof, proceed to the courts. If you don't have proof, you're involved in a conspiracy theory. And an extraordinarily absurd one, at that. Isn't that a bit like asking the Jews to prove Nazi crimes in early 1940s German courts? No. At least, not obviously so. Maybe, you could expand. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2023 15:08:35 GMT
No Borders spring easily to mind. Many of the old NewLabour were at best fellow travellers. We will not see change from Starmer should he come to power, Sunak seems to be a puppet of sorts and would be interesting to see how many go to Davos next time around. The point is that the actuality of what is unfolding indicates a concerted effort to bring about large scael demographic change in the UK and it has done. Now we can argue if that is good or bad or indifferent but several things are very clear, it has resulted in the reduction in the English in their homeland by some 10% in a couple of decades and the large scale immigration that is being carried out is directly opposite to what the electorate have voted for in recent elections and in historic elections going back to WW2. So go figure. I would suggest that the intention of refugee groups is to save lives. It's quite a leap to say their objective is genocide. An absurd leap, in fact. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 9, 2023 15:11:24 GMT
Somebody holding genocidal intent is unlikely to admit such in public. You could reasonably assume such a motive if someone (say) celebrates reducing numbers and supports policy that is likely to result in a reduction. For instance, both celebrating a reduction in the numbers of white British and supporting large scale immigration into Britain. Genocide's a crime. If you have proof, proceed to the courts. If you don't have proof, you're involved in a conspiracy theory. And an extraordinarily absurd one, at that. When genocides occur the subject population rarely have power to take to court, to stop it and find that laws, justice and the establishment are stacked against them. You seem to be in paid employ to disrupt and ridicule any thread that smacks of such discussions. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Dec 9, 2023 15:15:03 GMT
Isn't that a bit like asking the Jews to prove Nazi crimes in early 1940s German courts? No. At least, not obviously so. Maybe, you could expand. Obviously, if the UK government has had long term genocidal policies, those policies must be legal (ie backed by the courts) However, you can use common sense to infer here. If someone celebrates reducing numbers and supports actions likely to reduce numbers, their intent very likely includes reducing numbers...just extend that reasoning. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2023 15:16:21 GMT
Yup. Britains foremost black dead poet wanted to eradicate UK ethnic groups . He clearly has a lot of support and no doubt held in high regard by the Marxists. If he were white and offered that to a non-white or even non-English nation and culture it would be a completely different story.
It's just a matter of their personal preferences.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 9, 2023 15:21:17 GMT
No Borders spring easily to mind. Many of the old NewLabour were at best fellow travellers. We will not see change from Starmer should he come to power, Sunak seems to be a puppet of sorts and would be interesting to see how many go to Davos next time around. The point is that the actuality of what is unfolding indicates a concerted effort to bring about large scael demographic change in the UK and it has done. Now we can argue if that is good or bad or indifferent but several things are very clear, it has resulted in the reduction in the English in their homeland by some 10% in a couple of decades and the large scale immigration that is being carried out is directly opposite to what the electorate have voted for in recent elections and in historic elections going back to WW2. So go figure. I would suggest that the intention of refugee groups is to save lives. It's quite a leap to say their objective is genocide. An absurd leap, in fact. No Borders is not specifically a refugee group. Extending the EU to a multitude of members was not a refugee situation, refusing to limit the influx from new members was not a refugee decision. Changing the demographics at such levels is not a refugee decision. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2023 15:25:43 GMT
I would suggest that the intention of refugee groups is to save lives. It's quite a leap to say their objective is genocide. An absurd leap, in fact. No Borders is not specifically a refugee group. Extending the EU to a multitude of members was not a refugee situation, refusing to limit the influx from new members was not a refugee decision. Changing the demographics at such levels is not a refugee decision. I see. So a group of people got together in a room and decided to wipe out the 'ethnic English', then? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2023 15:29:07 GMT
No. At least, not obviously so. Maybe, you could expand. Obviously, if the UK government has had long term genocidal policies, those policies must be legal (ie backed by the courts) What? Are you asking us to believe that a predominantly white cabinet decided to wipe out the 'ethnic English'? That would have been one weird cabinet meeting! Try to picture it in your mind. I'm sure you'll agree. And no, the UK government is separate from the courts. It's called the separation of powers. You might have noticed that the courts frequently intervene to forestall the government. I can't believe we're even having this discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 9, 2023 15:31:39 GMT
Genocide's a crime. If you have proof, proceed to the courts. If you don't have proof, you're involved in a conspiracy theory. And an extraordinarily absurd one, at that. When genocides occur the subject population rarely have power to take to court, to stop it and find that laws, justice and the establishment are stacked against them. You seem to be in paid employ to disrupt and ridicule any thread that smacks of such discussions. As I said, it's difficult to counter absurdity without resorting to absurdism. You have brought the discussion to a surreal place with what can only be described as an odd-ball conspiracy theory. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Dec 9, 2023 15:37:32 GMT
I am not a defeatist just a realist. I must admit I don't quite get this position. If the inevitable will still happen whether i am realistic or not, then there is no advantage to 'realistic' and no disadvantage to optimism. I would do my realism in private and try to keep people's chin's up with a few jokes. Oh I see lie to myself and everyone else, very politico. |
|
