The truth...

Post Reply New Topic

True but the liberal/conservative divide was never as strong as it is today in America. Before 9/11 there were a lot more people who fell somewhere in the middle (people who embraced common since). There were also more young people who actually gave a s**t what was going on, rather than today's "generation Mtv" who are blissfully and PURPOSELY stupid, overly materialistic, and apathetic as they are now.... That stuff existed before 9/11, but 9/11 just pumped it full of steroids.

To be honest, today's issues back before 9/11 would be considered pretty hair-brained issues by most people, most of them are common since, it's just that society has been systematically dumbed down to the point of near retardation through s**t like Mtv and reality TV and fashion and entertainment, and have been blindly lead around by their emotions to the point where people just forgot how to think critically. Now I'm not gonna say everyone would have agreed on today's issues prior to 9/11, but most of them probably would have. Theyr not difficult issues to figure out, really, they just took people by their emotions after the 9/11 crisis.

Sentient thought is dying as we conversate about all this, but people are slowly beginning to awaken..... I think there may not be enough people awakening until it's too late though, and that is very unfortunate.

Your mind is, Anubis:


Although you don't say so directly, your writing suggests that you believe it's essential to measure everything against the leftist yardsticks for "racism" or "intolerance". If the idea, opinion or concept measures up, then it immediately becomes completely unacceptable. This kind of mentality has got us where we are now: we accept boat-loads of sub-Saharan Africans, and wonder why our country is rife with AIDs. We fill our cities with Muslims and wonder why we get dozens of people fried and mutilated on public transport. There are eastern Europeans coming out the wordwork and we wonder why we see an increase in people-trafficking.

There are worse things than racism and intolerance. If someone can sort out the mess this country is now in, I really don't care if they're a little racist and intolerant to people who don't belong here. If you can't accept anything that is a degree racist and intolerant then you accept that this country is no longer ours. You accept that it is up for grabs and will go to the fastest-breeding group of immigrants.

There is always some intolerance in a society. But the rate at which it's displayed in certain communities is unsettling. However, the amount of and invasion of immigrants is also an aggravating factor.

Any first-generation immigrants who commit crime should be deported, don't more scum. But no matter what the race, I don't think that we should be prejudiced on that basis, but on their actions, character, and sometimes their potential effect on society.

Unfortunately, what are we supposed to do with people who come here with AIDS? Deport them to back to their nation, where they will not be treated? That's the moral choice. Do we condemn them to death? Or are they just worthless nobodies anyway? I think that such things should be brought into consideration. Some degree of discrimination is bound to happen, but unfair discrimination based purely on race is wrong except in certain specific matters. You can't choose your subspecies, not yet.

Of course there are worse things such as racism and intolerance, such as corruption. apathy, social degeneracy, extreme poverty, and the extreme form of racism, nazism.

How moral is it to let vast numbers of people into our country from another where up to 30% of the adults have AIDs, without screening those people first?

I would be interested in your answer, btw.

All asylum seekers should be screened for contagious diseases, and if they have certain diseases, they should be treated or dealt with. Not only that, but every asylum seeker should be forced to learn British laws and some basic standards of etiquette, as should all schoolkids. It annoys me so much that people don't have manners or respect, make too many babies, and don't give a toss about personal space.

I would support forcing vastectomies on all males with HIV/AIDS to reduce the risk to others. That isn't a matter of discrimination, it's a matter of disease control. Especially when immigrants from certain places believe the myth that they will be cured of it if they have sex with a virgin. Not sure how that works out, but if it prevents the spread of HIV, then I'm all for it. But forcing them away is inhumane. If there was sufficient treatment available in their own countries, then they could be deported back to where they came from. I'm wondering which is more humane myself. Turn back millions to their death, or possibly cause many more deaths from the strain on the NHS? Perhaps a compromise could be made.
If they happen to be criminals, then they should be deported with utmost haste.
Political refuge, now what do you think of that?

But why should people from places like Sierra Leonne, Afghanistan and Somalia come to Britain at all when there are several safe countries in between?

There are plenty of people all over the world who want a better life. The native people of Britain have no obligation to provide it to them by opening the doors of their homeland since by doing so they are sacrificing the futures of their own kin.

The main reason they come to places like Britain instead of sane countries like Japan is that as far as the traitors who run Britain are concerned, the dispossession of the native people cannot happen quickly enough.

That doesn't stop them spreading AIDS. They will still have a sex drive, and still have sex. It will still involve bodily fluids that can transmit the infection. We shouldn't allow any sub-Saharan Africans in to the country.


No. Codarac has outlined several reasons above. We need to put a complete stop to immigration except in exceptional circumstances. Our country is just not big enough, and the way things are going we will soon have created a carbon copy of the third world dumps those people are fleeing, right here in the UK.

In addition, I think encouraging certain of the ones already here to go home is a necessary step to securing our future. With the muslim population breeding at four times the rate of the native one, what sort of country do you think this will be in 40 years time?

Introduce a child tax for all new births in excess of 2 babies, even forced sterilisation beyond a certain point if the situation becomes extreme.

Hmmm, I'm still questioning which is more moral. You could deport a hundred thousand AIDS sufferers, and few would give a damn or even know, because they're likely ill-educated and worthless to Britain. But at the same time, they're still human.

Also, reject and deport all asylum seekers once the yearly quota has been fulfilled.

They're ruining our country, yes, but so are the corrupt, useless scum in power at the moment.

You should read some of the BNP literature, Anubis, and a few of the nationalist blogs that are floating around. You'll probably be surprised with how much of it you agree with.

Have read it, agree with some, don't agree with alot of the comments made by many BNP supporters and politicians.

I touched on this in a previous thread of yours



http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf41175-0-15.html

I'd say if they had the legal paperwork and necessary forms to immigrate legally, then all you should have to do is screen them for AIDS. I don't think it's right to geogrphically or racially profile them and shut them out though... Not every single person from S. Africa has AIDS.

Screening them for AIDS, TB etc should be a minimum. Perhaps they should get an IQ test, too, as I don't want the tax I pay keeping them on benefit.

As for the profiling you mention, I really don't see anything wrong with using things such as race, religion or geographical origin as filters for other less readily-identified correlated attributes when dealing with foreigners wanting to come here. Afterall, we are talking about foreigners who are looking for us to do them a favour, not British citizens.

However, it's cheaper, and for the general good in many other ways, to just stop all of them coming here, unless there are exceptional circumstances.