UK General Election 2010

Post Reply New Topic

So I'm guessing there will be another election in about a year or so? That was probably the worst possible outcome.

I don't think kids under 18 should vote, apart from most not being mature enough to have their own political views but younger than that and they've probably never left home before either and parents could just use their kid as an extra vote.

Then you'd have a lack of vote because of the discrimination against young people. And once all the old people die out, no one will have faith enough to vote. <.< Anyways, not very democratic. -.- Almost like saying that people above 75 shouldn't vote.

How old do you think the voting age should be? It sounds like you don't think there should be one at all. 18 is a pretty good age I think, the age you're considered legally an adult in America. Maybe it's different in other countries. I wouldn't want to have slimball politicians trying to win kids votes in high school tho or parents making their kids vote for so and so candidate or else since they live in their house.

Now the drinking age here in the US...

Well, I think my post gives some clues as to what I would prefer. I would prefer the politics of nationalism to the politics of liberal internationalism. I'd prefer a complete halt to immigration (except perhaps for people of Anglo/Celtic/European descent in Zimbabwe, South Africa, Australia). I'd prefer an end to pointless foreign wars, an end to politically correct indoctrination in schools, and a withdrawal from the EU.

I don't really see that I've expressed a dislike for the 'statist agenda' above. Perhaps you are referring to some of my earlier posts? Certainly I'd like to see the state's army of diversity consultants and social workers drastically reduced. But I'm not someone who wants to minimise the size of the state as a matter of principle. With respect, I oppose the extreme individualism and free market worship that some on the "right" advocate (including yourself, it seems) just as I oppose the Marxist egalitarianism of the left.

So... basically you want Britain to pretty much withdraw from the international community and become more like North Korea and Saudi Arabia, only with some added racism on top of it as well?

There are plenty of countries in the world that are doing fine without being in the EU (or without being a part of any supranational entity). Why did you choose Saudi Arabia and North Korea? How about Switzerland, Norway or New Zealand?

And you're yet another person who doesn't understand what the word racism really is. In the context of Britain, the word racism is just a political tool to smear any desire on the part of Britain's indigenous people not to be dispossessed, marginalised and eventually driven out of existence. If it were some Amazonian tribe witnessing foreigners colonizing their living space, you wouldn't call them "racist" for resisting it.

Judging by your name (Chris Morris fan, huh? ), I can't help wondering whether or not this is a wind up. However, the knee-jerk liberalism of your post is unfortunately all too common these days.

Yes but you wanted a lot more then just out of the EU. Also note that Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand are among the most globalised nations in the world.



Racism is the belief one race is somehow superior to another, to tell me that it would have been better that my parents where not allowed to immigrate to Britain because they weren't white is racism because you are saying there is something inherently wrong with non-whiteness. Your definition of the term is frankly astounding.

Also, put down the Daily Mail - white people make up the clear and vast majority of people in Britain despite fifty years of immigration from all around the world.



Difference is that the people who by and large make up the immigrant class in the UK are not pushing our languages on everyone else, forcing you adopt our religious practices or deliberately spreading smallpox and slaughtering the natives by the thousands. The comparison is frankly laughable.



It's called living in the modern world, perhaps you catch up with the rest of us soon .

And yes, massive Chris Morris fan, can't wait to see Four Lions!

That is not the sense in which the word racism is used in the real world. And you use the word “better”, but you don’t want the readers to ask “better for whom?” The situation whereby Third Worlders immigrate to Britain might make things “better” for the Third Worlders in question, but it makes things worse for a great many of Britain’s indigenous people. Similarly, Chinese people expanding their numbers into Tibet might make things “better” for Chinese people as a group, but it makes things worse for a great many Tibetans. Similarly, the founding of Israel might have made things “better” for Jews, but it made things worse for a great many Palestinian Arabs.

You want the readers to think that there is some universal moral code that you are abiding by but that I am violating, but this universal moral code you are appealing to does not exist. What we have here is simply a conflict of interest. I don't see how the "right" of non-whites to expand their numbers into white nations is more moral than the right of whites to be left alone.



Swipes at the Daily Mail are a standard tactic of the pro-multicult crowd. I actually consider the Daily Mail to be an establishment safety valve. Continuing immigration and differential birth whites are bound to drive whites in Britain towards minority status in the near future unless something is done. Anyone who denies this is either dishonest, misinformed or hard of thinking. It won’t be long before most of the people denying what is happening stop denying it and instead start wallowing in triumphalism and telling us to accept it and celebrate it.

The not-very-right-wing Guardian newspaper wrote back in 2000 that whites were projected to become a minority in Britain by 2100. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world1 ). Of course that was before Labour really started to get going (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... viser.html ).



Thank you for illustrating my point. All I proposed was a hypothetical situation. Who said anything about smallpox? I can only assume your reference to smallpox is an attempt to guilt trip me as a European. The racial transformation of a host population’s living space is what is fundamental here. You want people to think the two situations are different because you don’t want native British people thinking about what is happening to them. And the racial transformation of Britain has directly contributed to the deaths of a great many native Britons: see http://www.iamanenglishman.com/rogues_gallery.php .



What a nice variety of tactics you have employed to try to stop me talking about the demographic future of my own country, and to stop readers from thinking about it.

1. It’s racist! I'm astounded!
2. Relax, whites are still a majority anyway
3. Your ancestors killed the Amerindians!
4. Get with the modern world, it’s the 21st century, you can’t stop progress etc etc etc

I’ve heard them all before.

Really? Because I can find plenty of dictionaries with a definition more approximate to mines then yours.

I think you are hiding behind your definition because you cannot admit the clear and obvious fact that what you suggested was both horrendously ugly and racist.



In the context of my post, my parents were engineers, they were offered a job in Britain in the 70's and took it. Positive sum gain for all parties: new contributing tax-paying citizens, company found employees to fill a gap that could not fill and my parents improved their living standards.



Erm, you do realise that not every country predominately filled with people of a darker skin tone aren't "third world". In fact, what do you mean by "third world"? Did you mean in it in the original context with countries that aren't aligned with either the USSR or the US? Or did you mean the few developing countries left in the world that are stagnating in growth? Because the last I checked migrants were coming in from all across the world and no just sub-Saharan Africa.

Actually, come to think of it, do you reserve a special dislike or disdain only for Africans or those who original come from what we may call "the third" or "developing world". I mean, I didn't mention it in my last response.



Look at the NHS, it would collapse without skills coming from outside Britain. Look at universities that offer "hard" subjects like the natural sciences, engineering or mathematics - they wouldn't survive without foreign students, foreign investment or non-native born educators.

If immigration was only a terrible thing, why haven't they simply upped the drawbridge a long time ago? Clearly the public want it, but they also want the benefits it brings.



Again with the random and senseless comparisons. The Han Chinese moved in displacing Tibetan laws, customs and governance at gun point whilst claiming their land as their own - sorry but how is your comparison even comparable? Last I checked the Church of England is still the official religion, Westminster still largely make the laws and the house I live in wasn't taken from a previous white occupant with deaththreats.



How did any talk of an 'universal moral code' come into this? I don't think racism is necessarily immoral, just repugnant and the sign of a bad character.



Guess what, white people have just as much right to move into other countries too you know...



What a Scotsman would consider British culture would differ greatly from the opinions of a Welshman, Yorkshire-man, Brummie, Cockney, Scouser or the Cornish. Clearly we have ALWAYS been living in a multi-cultural nation.



...Yet the fifty years of immigration hasn't stopped Britain from remaining largely homogeneous nation.



Only after ignoring the torrent of new laws and trends of regulations against immigration and the decline of birth-rates of settled descendants of "immigrant" families could this projection come even anywhere close to reality in the next 100 years. I mean crikey, 100 years? None of the bright sparks in the Bank of England would be able to predict accurately something as simple as the Pound's value in the next 10 years, let alone the next 100 years worth of immigration policies, economic challenges, recessions, global job market and political situations!



That I proved you had no point with your comparison?



Isn't that what the Spanish did to the Native Americans? Yes or no?



Sorry but that was no where NEAR the scale or force in any of your examples! You aren't trolling with that are you?



Me thinks you are reading a little too much in a little playful reply.... Are you really that humourless?



1) You seem to choose to ignore any suggestion that you might be. You don't think that discrimination on race is racism?
2) And they will very likely be in the next 100 years, not that you or the "Grauniad" offered anything that will make me think otherwise.
3) I hadn't realised your ancestors were Spanish, not that I care to play the guilt card because none of my ancestors were South American.
4) Yes, the no country in the world can survive on it's own. In case you haven't realised, people, skills, currency and jobs have been moving across the globe for a long time now. It's called globalism, embrace it or fall behind. No wannabe tin-pot dictator from the fringe far-right could stop it. We could argue until we are blue in the face but the fact remains TINA: There Is No Alternative.

There are always alternatives. Malaysia was told there was no alternative to accepting IMF medicine and were told to forget about currency controls. They didn't do as they were told, foreign leaders showed up there to call for the government's overthrow, they tried through George Soros to launch a coup d'etat to that end and howled with outrage when their chosen one was locked up. Malaysia got through the crisis far better than its neighbours did who did things the IMF way. There was quite a lot of violence and killings in Indonesia because they believed that "there is no alternative". It's very interesting to see those gangsters that call themselves the bond rating agencies, who stuck AAA ratings on junk and governments and pension funds ended up being stuck with them, now demanding policies that they say will cause riots, social breakdown, deaths. Why they are allowed to live is beyond me. The Chinese would take care of such scum to make sure they can't harm anyone ever again.