Sunday, 29 April 2012

Some Refutations 2





I recently thought I would test the water by throwing my hat into the 'mainstream' newspaper debating ring once again. 

I have not bothered for quite a long time, especially on some particular papers where there is heavy moderation and a near 'mission impossible' situation to ever get it through the moderator filters. (Some have not - as of yet  - made it).

Just for the sake of it, I thought I would share them here in case anybody would ever find them useful or a starting point for their own battles. 

The site had a reply limit of 500 words......which, of course, I struggled to squeeze my replies into! In fact, whilst it only took me 15 to 20 minutes to construct the contents of what I wanted to say as a reply, it then took me about an hour and a quarter to squash them down to the 500 limit!

I deeply suspect that nobody tends to read this site because their jaw drops in fear at the pile of text scrolled before their eyes. (Eg, the recent five-parter has had virtually no views at all - so I might have to re-package it to something smaller).

Anyway, without further waffle, here's how it went so far:
(Some names have been removed to protect the innocent!)


Maybe {the author of the article} would like to explain this?:

"The migrants have come here voluntarily. While they are welcome to follow their faith and maintain their culture, by seeking and continuing to live here, they and their descendants have accepted that our culture should remain dominant, our religion remain established and our language and laws remain supreme."



Really? Is that what you think is happening? What a load of delusional 'wishful thinking'.

I put it to you that they have accepted no such thing, and furthermore, maybe you would like to
explain how and why (when this country is predominantly non-indigenous) you expect those groups to still uphold our traditional cultures, systems and outlooks?

Do you think they will do it out of a favour, or through some kind of 'gratitude' for allowing ourselves to be colonised?

When you replace the population like this, you eventually replace the nation, what it feels like, looks like and operates like. Demographics equals destiny and the indigenous people are, thanks to both the Labour and the Conservatives, on their collective way out before the end of the century.

It is already the case that 33% of the under-five age group in England and Wales are of "non-White" origin, by parents who were themselves born overseas. The Muslim population is growing the fastest of all, but in general, whole swathes of this country are no longer recognisably British at all, for all sorts of reasons.

How do you square the circle of expecting this changed demographic to uphold what little remains of our heritage when they form bloc majorities in the meantime and eventual majorities in the long term, when we supposedly live in a "democracy"? If they want Sharia, or other fundamental changes, who do you think will be able to deny them those changes in a democratic system?


The fact is that this country is being "race replaced", "religiously supplanted" as well as dismantled by the ideological "left" to destroy national identities and nation states as a system itself.


That means this country is going to change even further in all ways. You may scorn the BNP, but at least they are sensible enough to not completely dismiss the importance of homogeneity and the legitimate protection of the ethnic integrity of this land mass and its people. It is a 'just cause', not "hate".


You were perhaps brought up to believe these things had no importance, or 'shouldn't' have importance. But you’re wrong; they are important and remain important, on all sides. Tomorrow is another country and I think it is about time you gained the insight and maturity to deal with some of the more 'thorny' issues which you go to great lengths not to discuss, think about, or give credence to.


You are absolutely right that the idea of deporting this man {Abu Qatada} is a charade, but you partake in a charade yourself because you seem too afraid to investigate or acknowledge matters you currently find unpalatable.
In reply:
{British Activism} writes: 'You may scorn the BNP, but they are sensible enough to not completely dismiss the importance of homogeneity and the legitimate protection of the ethnic integrity of this land mass and its people.'
I accept that a cohesive society can't exist without certain shared values, and that multiculturalism is often inimical to this. But might I ask what the importance is of 'ethnic integrity', which, I suspect, means racial homogeneity?

In reply:
Without knowing your wider thoughts, I must firstly put it to you that every nation of people deserves the right to a homeland, to preserve their ethnic group and the right of self determination.

It is a basic right, one declared in the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It shouldn’t be shocking or odd to believe this, nor should it really need defending. It is a traditional 'given' position throughout most of history. We used to send off our sons to their deaths for something that we are now handing over on a plate.

It’s a just and noble cause from the outset, one without malice, 'bigotry', 'prejudice' or 'hate'.

To give a sense of scale of how we are not witnessing a little 'immigration' or just dealing with a matter of 'race relations' or being simply civil or fair handed, in 1951 this nation was 99.8% 'White British', yet between the middle to end of this current century, the host population are to be the absolute minority.

At no point was this situation asked for or voted for by the people of this country. Things have only ever gone against their wishes, according to consistent polls about immigration levels since the 1940s, in contrast with ever rising immigration to the point the host society is already becoming a minority in many cities and large towns.

Preserving your people, living amongst your own people, is a legitimate and natural desire of almost all peoples on Earth - unless of course they happen to be in favour of the 'progressive' soft-genocide programme we are witnessing today, which masquerades as promoting 'diversity' and 'tolerance' whilst actively creating the exact opposites - ie, the absolute destruction of human bio diversity and increased sources of tension within nations.

This legitimate right aside, homogeneity is also important for how a nation functions. There are numerous studies on this, the most well known probably being Robert Putnam’s intensive study on ethnic homogeneity and the nature of society in the U.S.

Although Robert was loathed to publish his work (and tried for several years to disprove his findings), it was concluded that "social capital" worked best in ethnically homogenous societies rather than ethnically mixed societies.

People felt safer, charity giving and volunteering was higher, there was a tendency for more social events, increased vote participation, higher happiness rates, plus other indicators of a more caring and peaceful society. That's the uncomfortable truth for many liberals.

Even our very own Trevor Phillips had to conclude so, when his own separate research (and additional research by the Home Office) in 2006 also drew the same conclusions here.

The question isn’t really 'what the importance is' - it is more the question of why people are happy (sometimes determined) to destroy it, and why they believe they are on the moral and just side via their promotion/acceptance of doing such a thing.
In reply:

{British Activism} – thanks for the reply.

As I see it, the main problem with the idea of self-determination for the indigenous people of this country is how to determine who the indigenous people are.

Given that this island has at various times been ruled by Celts, Scandinavians, Romans, Normans and so on, at what point should we say that the inhabitants were indigenous? And why think that ethnicity is the most important aspect of the indigenous people's identity? After all, it's just historical coincidence that all of our invaders were white.

'between the middle to end of this current century, the host population are to be the absolute minority.' - I'd be interested to know how you came to this conclusion. Alarmist claims like this one often seem to be based on pretty spurious projections from current demographic trends. Perhaps yours isn't, but I still don't think you can make that prediction with such confidence.

'it was concluded that "social capital" worked best in ethnically homogenous societies rather than ethnically mixed societies' – that may well be true, but how can we be certain that it wasn't culture, rather than ethnicity, that accounted for the conclusions of the study? Cultures are, after all, very often divided along racial lines. I don't understand why a fully integrated ethnic group would have any effect on the wellbeing of a nation. Does Robert Putnam advance any theories as to why skin colour is significant?

My views, if you're interested, are that we need tighter immigration controls than we have at the moment – at least for the time being – but that a major step towards controlling our borders would be to leave the EU, from which a large proportion of (predominantly white) immigrants arrive.

I have little problem with those who are genuinely seeking asylum, and in fact I would be in favour of allowing more of these people to come to our shores, provided that we had less economic migration.
In reply:

Without investigating the exact apparatus of Robert's work (or indeed, Trevor Phillips' CRE studies) I cannot be 100% sure how the configurations were split.

However, race was an important part of the studies. It was one of the reasons why Robert didn’t want to publish and spent years looking for every other possible combination of factors to disprove his results.

Although not your fault, I do get tired of having to explain and prove that there is (or was) such a thing as the indigenous people of Britain...

The whole rigmarole of me having to prove it through DNA evidence, history, proportions of immigration, etc (with nearly a thousand years of ethnic integrity since the last major invasion) is a tedious affair which I cannot fit in 500 words - as is batting away those quips people say about being "a nation of immigrants" and a "mongrel breed" - or proving that we are demographically ‘under threat’.

I will leave the study up to yourself, but we can be classified as an indigenous people - and yes, that does equate to being ‘white’ in our instance, whether by accident or not.

It’s also pretty obvious to me that, if anything, we are going to have a better allegiance and much more in common with our virtually indistinguishable close European neighbours of the same race and similar heritage than we will do with conurbations of Bantu people or Muslim Pakistani.

Historically, we have seen only around a 2% intake of racially and culturally assimilable people from Northern Europe over many, many centuries, so it is also extremely disingenuous for anybody to suggest it is the same thing now or somehow just a continuation of 'what has always happened before'.

I also wish to regain control of our borders, however, I do not agree with ‘Muscular Liberalism’ etc as being enough for a stable national identity, even aside from that thorny issue of our ‘race replacement’. The idea is to once again ‘assimilate’ us all upon notions of “values” and “universal human rights” – but it’s deeply flawed.


Such abstract ideas of liberalism, universalism and egalitarianism cannot do anything but result in a multicultural society, as a sincere belief in human rights and equality before the law makes it impossible to exclude from a society the kind of people who are incompatible with a strong national identity.

It makes it impossible to deny them entry on the basis of their ethnic background; access to employment; citizenship; public office; etc and it’s therefore impossible in the long run to prevent them from changing their hosts’ indigenous society until it is fractured by fundamental differences on the issues that are most important to each group’s most committed members.

A strong national identity is perforce traditionalist, particularistic, and inegalitarian. It is dependent on localisation, specificity, and uniqueness - which when stabilised into a tradition over many generations is what differentiates the indigenous from the alien, then native from the foreigner.
In reply:


{British Activism said} - 'The whole rigmarole of me having to prove it... is a tedious affair which I cannot fit in 500 words'. Well, it would help if you could give me some explanation of it, even if not an entirely comprehensive one. Or perhaps you could post a link in the URL box under your name if there's a webpage somewhere that explains it.



'It’s also pretty obvious to me that, if anything, we are going to have a better allegiance and much more in common with our virtually indistinguishable close European neighbours... [than with] Bantu people or Muslim Pakistani'. Speaking for myself, I think I have a lot more in common with a secular second generation Indian immigrant (for example) than a Polish Catholic. Or indeed with a largely Westernised Muslim Pakistani. As it happens, I have a close friend who's an Egyptian Muslim.


I also come from a part of the country that has a fairly large Eastern European community relative to its size, and in my experience Eastern Europeans (whom I have nothing against, incidentally) don't make as much effort to integrate as some ethnic groups. Which leads me to wonder why you're so preoccupied with race, an issue that seems fairly trivial.

Your apparent opposition to equality before the law concerns me too. Ethnic background should be no basis for denying access to employment, because it has no bearing whatsoever on a person's attitudes or ability. We are of course right to treat differently those who break the law (Islamic hate clerics, for instance), and to restrict immigration. But an authoritarian state with arbitrary and capricious powers is not the answer.

I'm not a fan of multiculturalism, as I've said. But I can't see any other means to a cohesive society than one that has a shared commitment to tolerance of difference, and intolerance of the intolerant. You can call it 'muscular liberalism' if you like. What I would like to know is how you would achieve your ideal society – specifically, what would happen to existing immigrant communities.

I wouldn't call myself anti-immigration, but I do feel that we have to be practical about it. And until we leave the EU, we can't really have a sensible discussion about restricting immigration.
 In reply (Part 1):

{....}, unfortunately, it appears that I'm dealing with a bit of relativist and (self confessing) racial nihilist. I therefore suspect having any worthwhile debate over such matters is going to be impossible, as one cannot have a serious debate with somebody who admittedly does not care about or place any value on something which many others find important.

For example, in an earlier reply you mentioned it usually being scaremongering 'alarmist' when it comes to the racial shift I proposed. Why would it be deemed "alarmist" if it was such a non-issue to many people? Already, that is two tell tale signs of how I suspect this debate might go on.

It seems like you seem perfectly happy to (passively) advocate the ongoing ethnocide of the indigenous 'white' population because you’ve already stated you see it as a triviality and a trait that bears little importance. Therefore why on Earth should I spend many hours finding material for you to just cursorily dismiss the whole premise as being unimportant anyway?!

Maybe the books 'A Nation of Immigrants?' by David Conway and 'The Origins of the British' by Stephen Oppenheimer might be worth you reading as a starter course.

Even on cursorily based research grounds, if historic immigration has been extremely minimal (which it has), that alone should beg the question of just who they were therefore ‘invading’, immigrating and assimilated into, if not an established indigenous population.

I am unwilling to fall into usual tricks of the 'left', such as them asking people to prove things they do not need to prove (and what they wouldn't dream of asking non-white populations to prove), or providing them with endless technical information or in depth data from reports, links and documents - whilst they sit back and ‘bat back’ with their personal anecdotal experiences.

The next stage of course would then be to question the validity of the sources or just change tact and 'selectively' pick and pike over replies because deep down they are being disingenuous from the outset. I unfortunately suspect that this might be the ultimate game that is going to be played out here.

For example, already from your own words, it would not matter to you whether I did provide evidence of there being an indigenous population OR whether I could show that this same said 'white' population was demonstrably under threat before the end of the century.

Therefore, it would have meant me running around as an errand boy for completely nothing. That’s why I am not prepared to do it. Maybe I should just ask you to find the political cartoon “how whites took over America” on YouTube and let you watch some of your own kinds of ‘well intentioned’ arguments come straight back at you!

It may not be historically accurate, but it’s not meant to be - it’s there to highlight the methodology and double-standard arguments so often made in these kinds of discussions.
In reply (Part 2):

Regarding the other part of my reply, I didn’t actually suggest or advocate anything. I merely stated the fallacy of 'muscular liberalism' and the obvious point that in order to have a strong sense of national identity, by sheer definition, it needs to be exclusive of others and other nations - otherwise it is rendered meaningless and thus not a strong sense of unique national identity at all.

There has to be a more distinct in-group and an out-group otherwise there would be no defined nationhood beyond that of mere geography. Therefore, if you push your 'value' concept to the maximum, if it is a belief in liberal political values which makes me ‘British’, then why can't people everywhere who believe in the same values also be considered a part of my nation? It is not a trick question.

 
If being British is based on liberal political ideals, then surely membership of the national identity should include those living outside of Britain who agreed with those ideals? If not, why would it be deemed acceptable to discriminate this way on parochial grounds or tolerate such unequal, discriminatory or exclusionary treatment?


And if it’s a belief in liberal political values that defines a nation, and this is shared by other nations in the same way, then why shouldn't nations become merged together if there’s an economic or diplomatic advantage? Eg.Why not abandon the traditional nations of Europe in order to build a European Union?

 
This is where this kind of civic nationalism leads if applied everywhere: to membership of an ever globalist run world with no definable differences or borders. So much for ‘diversity’ then, because that kind of ‘equality’ only leads to increased uniformity and sameness both inside -and between- nations.
 

You propose abandonment of multiculturalism for some kind of civic assimilation, but wasn’t the failure of such integration exactly what led to Roy Jenkins etc experimenting with multiculturalism in the first place?! (Also such ‘assimilation’ is the failed model of France, as their theoretically applied model was never that of multiculturalism).

Although people may find it uncomfortable, the ties that truly bind are ones that plug into our evolved psychology—our various ethno-cultural roots built around a healthy in-group/out-group psychology, attuned to differences in race and religion. Abstractions like 'freedom' and 'democracy' just don’t cut it at the root level.
 

I was also trying to point out the 'circular logic' of attempting to enforce some kind of assimilation via values (like 'equality and tolerance of difference') - the very kind of values which prevent and undermine that desired assimilation process ever fully taking place!!
 

 Without constructing your own version of "authoritarianism" of enforcement, the applying of exclusivity and specificity, etc, I do not believe it can never be truly met.
In reply:
{.....} – you accuse me of being a 'relativist and (self confessing) racial nihilist'. The former accusation is completely untrue, and is as baseless as the charge of racism that's often levelled against those who want to restrict immigration. My opposition to multiculturalism stems largely from my concern that it promotes a kind of soggy, relativistic non-judgmentalism.

As for being a racial nihilist, well, I can't affirm or deny that, because it seems to me to be little more than a meaningless term of abuse. (I could, I'm sure, join in with the name-calling, but that would no doubt confirm your perception of me as a 'racial nihilist').

I never said that race was a non-issue to many people; I said it was a non-issue for me. Of course, I do feel a vague sense of unease at the idea of such a radical 'racial shift'. But for me, and, I suspect, for most people who share that feeling, that's probably because a change on that scale is unimaginable without radical cultural and societal change, not necessarily for the better. If the country became predominantly black or Asian, but otherwise remained the same, I can't really see what would be lost.

Obviously to you this would be 'ethnocide' – a pretty misleading description, since no-one would actually be killed. Still, if you think that our ongoing 'ethnocide' should concern me, how about you tell me why it's an issue of such importance that it's appropriate to equate it with genocide, homicide and so on (assuming that it's not just a cack-handed metaphor)?

This is surely the crux of the issue, rather than whether there was ever an indigenous population; I have my doubts about that, but I'm perfectly prepared to accept that there was since, as you say, it doesn't really matter to me, except insofar as it's central to your spurious ideas about racial self-determination.

Incidentally, it may be true that immigration has historically been extremely minimal, but when mass immigration began in earnest, the indigenous population (if indigenous it was) still wasn't entirely white. So again, how can you say that race is the most important issue?

I watched as much of that video as I could bear, by the way. The comparison it makes between the colonisation of America and modern immigration is rather facile, since the latter hasn't so far led to slavery. I also struggled to take it seriously given that the top-rated comment is a bit of disgusting anti-semitic nonsense – more evidence, I suppose, of my racial nihilism.
In reply - {not yet published!}

You seemed to be a relativist because you’d previously indicated that in your opinion, in terms of what comprises a nationhood, some things are interchangeable or equivalent to each other.
That’s the impression I’d received, anyway. A 'pick and mix' collection of differences, which you claim you’d then treat equally and non-discriminatory - but which are things that would all be simultaneously bracketed under your own senses of uniformity and conformity.

The use of the term nihilist, when it comes to your views on race, isn't all that misjudged. You say again (below) that race means nothing to you, it is of no value. It is a 'non-issue' - to use your own words. That’s pretty unambiguous to me.
Saying you’re a racial nihilist therefore isn't a 'meaningless term of abuse’; it's a pretty accurate description, more precise than the reverse term of calling somebody 'racist'.

You plainly say it has no importance to you, and even that it ultimately doesn't matter about the quota or, by extension therefore, if it was even present in this country or not - albeit by benign or non-violent means. That sounds pretty nihilistic to me.

Genocide doesn’t necessarily mean mass killing. What constitutes genocide is far more variable than the image people paint of machine guns and Pol-Pot like mass graves - or specific acts like Communists/Bolsheviks purposefully starving 7 million Ukrainians to death.

The UN Resolution states that it includes many acts ‘committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group’. This includes things such as ‘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’, etc.

It has two elements: intent and action. Intent can be proven from statements or orders, but more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts – perhaps like mass immigration, promotion of miscegenation, psychological manipulation to act against your own group interests.

Whatever may be the motive for the crime (such as constructing a ‘multicultural’, ‘multi-racial’ international socialist utopia) - if the perpetrators commit acts that will ultimately destroy a group, even part of a group, or transfer a landmass to other groups, it’s still genocide.

As for the non-white demographic of Britain before mass-immigration, the estimated figure based on census data for 1951 was 94,500. That’s less than 0.2% of the total demographic – a percentage we could have easily assimilated by now - probably to the point of them being near indistinguishable in all ways after three or four generations.

Suggestions that what’s happening now is the same, or could result in the same society, or that we could have a similar society with a different population - or that we have always been some kind of 'multiracial' country (excusing the situation today) are the spurious claims, not mine.
In response in the meantime:

You misunderstand me if you think I'm saying that the British identity consists just of a certain set of liberal political values. Certainly those are essential, and in fact are central to most free, prosperous societies. But they're not all. There is a British temperament, I think, that's markedly different from that of other nations, even our close European neighbours (of the countries I've visited, the people who seem most similar to us in that respect are the Dutch, although it probably helps that most of them speak fluent English).

I'm not sure why, anyway, if race is so integral to the British identity, our white European neighbours couldn't be considered part of our nation. Presumably you also think there's more to Britishness than 'racial integrity'. Geography of course has something to do with it. The importance of national identity is surely its contribution to cohesiveness within a society that shares the same land, not whether it makes us entirely distinct ethnically or culturally from other peoples.

The failure of integration – if it has been a failure – is a cultural one, not an ethnic one. This is obvious from the fact that certain ethnic groups have assimilated much better than others. Is there the same degree of ghettoisation with Hindus as there is with some Muslim communities, for instance? I don't believe so.

Anyhow, I'm well aware that you haven't suggested or advocated any measure, which is why I asked. Presumably you would stop all immigration (I personally wouldn't go that far; as you seem to have conceded yourself, minimal immigration poses little threat to national cohesion). But what else? If the immigrants are breeding at the rate at which you say they are, and if they'll soon overtake us, what do you propose we do to prevent 'ethnocide'?

Another - as yet - unpublished response:

Perhaps we‘ve been talking slight cross purposes on some things.

It’s often hard to tell exact positions or groundings people have when using short bursts of text, especially here- which take an age -and pot-luck - for a (word restricted!) reply to ever get through.

It’s rather tedious here, so I doubt I will be staying around much longer, it’s like having teeth pulled with all the limitations, non-editability, non-real-time publication, moderation scrutiny, etc.

Some things did seem pretty clear though, so if my latest one gets through, it’s based on those prior perceptions and not mindful of your latest response.

Muscular Liberalism (the latest societal engineering wheeze), just does not really stack up to me as something which can truly bind and unite a society, or provide a unique identity, if the same things are applied globally.

This is in addition to simultaneously being wholly detrimental to the indigenous ethnic population, and further, if you like, to the wider world demographic of the white racial group - who are, at this rate, not going to have any homeland anywhere in which they can prosper and survive as a continued majority.

Muscular liberalism (brought about by the 'shock' that multiculturalism is a failed ideology), is still based on the same kind of (aforementioned) socio-political hegemony of the current establishment.

Concepts such as 'equality' only ever being a good pursuit, some quite radical egalitarianism theories, whilst also attempting to be definitive of a what constitutes a unique nation at the same time, in some cases need to be either ironed out or rejected.

I believe in true global diversity, including human bio-diversity, preservation of cultures and nation states and for them to develop on their own and be governed and managed for the interests of their own populace, etc.

What we are witnessing today is globalisation for vested interests, destruction of human bio-diversity, destruction of unique cultures, increased tensions, caps on our freedoms in order to prevent things bubbling over, ridiculous immigration level problems, burdens that make no sane sense to perpetuate, plus an ever more supranational framework that’s getting to be a fledgling precursor to some kind of future global governance.

We are increasingly tied to policies and viewpoints for which we cannot elect out of (or physically escape), every viable political party seems to have the same international treatise to comply with, same general ideological groundings, same global finance institutions pulling their strings, the same societal values (or indeed lack of them).

I think it is bad news for freedom, peace, national stability and democracy.

Yes, I’d pretty much halt all further immigration, remove all the illegal immigrants we can find, deport any others with no right to be here, offer higher incentives for return to native countries (that’s current government policy), try and sort as much out as we can - rather than continue with what is a situation of sheer unadulterated madness.
Well, there you go. They may be far from perfect, but it was hopefully a fairly decent stab at it. Has anybody got any advice how to make these things better? Is there anything I missed out, or could have been called up on?


5 comments:

  1. I take my hat off to you for trying. You certainly put your (our) case very well. I doubt you had much chance of success with someone who can state that, "if the country became predominantly black or Asian, but otherwise remained the same, I can't really see what would be lost." A truly incredible statement.

    My view of things is probably far more 'conspiratorial' than yours. As such I'm more than acutely aware of the immense amount of psychological persuasion and 'perception management' (aka brainwashing) that the British have been subjected to over the recent decades. A process that results in the mind-set of the commenter above.

    Keep up the good work. I must pass by more often.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thankyou very much for passing by and dropping me a reply Revolution Harry.

    I do not seem to get many replies or that many views, so it is always pleasant to get a new message in the inbox.

    I have to admit I haven't been to your place for a while. I thought you had stopped blogging as it seemed to go quiet for a while.

    I still have your article "Mass Immigration And The New Tower Of Babel" saved to disk somewhere, and your thoughts on the kind of Brian Gerrish/New Age movement not necessarily being all it seems (and that it could, perhaps, be ultimately quite the opposite end result) did give me food for thought inparticular.

    Yes, you are probably right about me being rather less conspiritorial than yourself. I suppose I tinker around the edges of it more than immerse myself fully. I think I can only go 'so far' with some of that stuff before I lose myself - if that makes any sense.

    A bit weak of me, I suppose, but if I have a purpose in mind, I think I need to stick to it.

    I wouldn't say I was an expert on it, but nor am I completely non-aufait with the concepts and fundamentals of what we suspect to be going on, or at least, some of the tools of the trade being used.

    The purpose of the blog, I suppose, is to bear some of that in mind yet at the same time trying to be a bridge between people like I jousted with above, and the people who are a bit more down the line like myself and further beyond that to people who have researched and studied much more than me.

    It also aims at trying to raise the standard a bit, from the usual 'nationalist' discourse. lol.

    Yeah, that guy was throwing out some wild curve-balls as comments. It can get hard to "reach back" to people like that, to a completely zero-point awakening stage. I was probably once like that myself!

    Arguing with a nihilistic and brainwashed person is very hard work. Cheers for the support.

    ReplyDelete
  3. BA, how did you find yourself in such a futile, time consuming, argument in the sense your opponent will never concede the point? Quibbling over semantics (who is or is not a member of the indigenous population) seems unimportant.

    As posted previously, I prefer the Bible which says "I dwell among mine own people", and wish more people would use this quote.

    It allows each person to describe "mine own" without fear of contradiction, but more importantly to define who is not their own people. No need for DNA, skin colour nor the date their fore-farthers landed in Britain to be considered.

    Nationalists will know instinctively who is "mine own" without further explanation.

    Furthermore, if we do not want the whole indigenous population as "mine own" some can be excluded (in my case, say, communists, queers, muslims, for starters).

    Why should I be constrained to support those anti-nationalists because they fall within the parameters of the indigenous population.

    I do not think people will become nationalists on being reluctantly identified as members of the indigenous population, but you may just persuade them to become "mine own". And asking an opponent to describe "his own" will put them on the defensive and probably defeat their arguments.

    Keep trying.

    Cheers

    Mike O.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cheers Mike.

    It started when I had replied to a newspaper blog column and chose to question their insane logic - then somebody comes along in the comments to 'test me' with the usual liberal lines of questioning - although they may have been genuine brainwashed conservatives who are completely unfamiliar with our views.

    I try to test the water a bit first, before I go all guns blazing. If they are malleable or winnable, then going in like a bull in a china shop about liberals and marxists and lefties and such might not be a good strategy, lol.

    As can be seen, I tried not to fall into the traps that were set - such as defining indigenous too precisely, and like my opponent, I chose to ignore what I did not wish to answer, in order to spread our concepts in a wider sphere.

    I think with somebody like that, all they would likely do is question your Bible quote, derail the argument onto religious quotes, or just ask who you define as your own....then we may be back to having to quantify and qualify who is included and who isn't. These people are very slippery.

    I think you are right though, that in a wider context, especially amongst ourselves as a people, we know what we mean by "mine own" - including that of different groups within our own ethnicity. As you say, on the ideological and societal level, communists and such are not "mine own" and not who I seek to live with or be around.

    However, I suppose in the long-term, even if people are homosexuals or militant communists, they are still 'my own' compared to wider groups.

    I do not entirely give up on them, or a defence of their presence here, because although the logic may seem daft, their children and grandchildren (in the case of straight people opposed to our views obviously!) may not be the same way out as they are, and we need to survive as a people, so I see a bit of a longer term thing with them.

    That being said, I think you make a point about people not necessarily becoming won over or nationalists because they get identified as the indigenous population.

    I should perhaps watch out for that in the future, because I should not assume that they will suddenly side with us even if we win the argument that we do exist and that we are under threat. They may not want to be included into this group.

    Asking them who is in 'their own' will probably lead to a "we are the world" song coming back at you, lol. Anything to put them on the back-foot is good though.

    Let them do some footwork and research, let them be defensive.

    Eg. As I wrote to this chap, the question is not 'what does it matter', the question is 'why do people seek to destroy it for no good reason'?

    The moral high ground has to be made ours. Let them justify their actions, to justify the unjustifiable. As far as I am concerned, we have valid rights and valid reasons to oppose what is being done - especially when none of it was ever in need of being done to us.

    ReplyDelete
  5. '' I like curry, but now that we've got the recipe, there isn't any reason for them to remain, is there ?''

    That little joke got me banned and blocked from a newspaper site. Questioning diversity is the new heresy. We truly are living in a Multicultural Inquisition.

    ReplyDelete