rauscher said:
rivers of blood
- Thread starter big footed fred
- Start date
big footed fred said:
This is a completely different question (which you've answered for yourself). I am against race being a factor in how people are treated. If someone is trying to blow up a passenger plane in mid air their ethnicity or religion is of no importance - as far as determining the punishment goes. I don't think a terrorist of Pakistani origin should be treated any differently than one of white British origin (or any other).
rauscher said:
I stick by my words.....Racism is poison a cancer in our society.....But do i hate people with cancer? Calling yourself an Anti Racist is bollocks.....A lot of people i might describe as having Racist views or being subconciously Racist are not people i would ever want to write off...........
If you really want to stop Racism.......You want to win people away from Racist views....You wont do that by writing them off.......
treelover said:
(((treelover))) what i love about you and your posts is not just that they are very clear well written unabusive and human but that you almost never get reponses!!
.. your very real reality does not fit into the very UNreal S-WORLD
you are no doubt one of Bolshieboys racists ..
tbaldwin said:
Did I say anything about writing people off? Did I say anything about hating people? You are ascribing views to me I don't have. I really don't see the difference between saying I am an extreme anti-racist and saying 'I hate racism'. Of course people have to be won away from racism. I really have no idea what this argument is about. Maybe you could explain but try to be a little more patient.
rauscher said:
rauscher........Calling yourself anti racist to me is fundamentally wrong.....Racism is poison and Being ANTI somebody you might think has racist views is shit too.....
It does very little to change their views? Racist views spread thru influence and experience and have to be countered by both...
How do you define someone as Racist? I think that people who back free market migration policies that lead to poor countries losing skilled workers are a bit Racist.....What do you think?
rauscher said:
True. They are not to be treatred as muslims, pakistannis or whatever. Just treat them as bastards
Those who support, commit, attempt mass murder are not fit to live with the rest of us.
I will repeat that if someone hates this country they should sod off to a place they do like. That's not a racist thing as it works just as well for me (a white anglo saxon male) just as well as it does for these UK born of pakistanni families or Abu Abdulla. Another white anglo saxon male but one who preaches hate against others who he lives with .
A man quite happy to support mass murder against other british people on UK TV (Sky news 11 aug 2006 8:45 pm).
Perhaps if we got rid of these types we can build a true multi racial society where we can all live in peace.
My Grandad used to live in Enoch Powell's constituency. He met him a few times and thought he was a good man. My Grandad was an Indian immigrant.
JHE
.
Did he ever say that or are you just guessing that he thought that because he was strongly against mass immigration?rauscher said:
(I've read his infamous 1968 speech. There's nothing in that about superiority/inferiority of races. He believed that mass immigration would lead, inter alia, to civil strife. You do not have to believe one people is superior to another to believe that.)
tbaldwin said:
I recall an uncle of mine, way back in the sixties, arguing with my father about the immigration issue. My father was a member of the CP (very different then) and my uncle was a skilled worker (electrician). My uncle began by saying that the immigrants were taking British jobs but his bottom line was 'would you let your daughter marry one?'
So was this an argument about economics or race?
My uncle was not a bad man. He was not a fascist. He had no intention of firebombing anybody's home. Far from it. But he did believe the crap put about by Enoch Powell. Was he a racist? Yes, but had he met a few working class black people he may have thought differently.
The problem with immigration is that it is used to play on peoples' fears. Unemployment is not caused by immigrants. Who decides how many immigrants enter the country? Not the unions. Not workers. Tony Blair and friends decide in the interest of how much money is to be made out of them.
Immigrants are victims of capitalism, and need our support, I believe.
JHE said:
Logically, you are right, but the world is not a logical place. Powell's point was that the mixing of races would lead to strife. Why should it do so? Incompatability? Inferiority? I once had a long conversation on a long rail journey through Australia with a long-serving aussie Army officer who argued that the Aborigines were fine people 'in their own environment.' He said nothing about inferiority, he just didn't want them in the Australian cities (not their environment).
This was the basis for apartheid.
Powell quotes a Wolverhampton woman (maybe Birmingham) talking about grinning pikaninnies who push shit through her letterbox. Why not quote a midlands woman whose best friend is an African instead? Why choose the most inflammatory example he can?
Powell was a very intelligent man. He was also a politician. He knew how to make his point and did so very well.
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
rauscher said:
I'm not sure this is true. It is unfortunate that the left (speaking as a socialist before I get exactly the kind of abusive assumptions thrown at me that I'm about to criticise) are in such denial to the extent to which excessive political correctness has in fact undermined most notions of equality I believe in, and driven people towards groups like the BNP.
When perfectly free thinking people, are chastised and riduculed (on forums like this for instance) for using phrases which are not 100% pure according to those self-appointed 'extreme anti-racists' and are abused, shouted at, with fingers pointed at them in ways virtually identical to the film 'invasion of the body snatchers', 'extreme anti-racism' can only serve to shut down honest debate, ridicule and offend people who really didn't deserve it, and plant seeds of resentment in people's minds which were'nt there before.
Personally I'm sick of it, and a proper progressive movement fully in favour of equality for all, and capable of drawing people back way from groups like the BNP, will only be possible when the extreme politically correct amongst us are put firmly in their place, and paradoxically even, sometimes made to stfu even in the interests of a more adult, respectful dialogue.
There is a bit of Powell in an increasing proportion of British people.
Powell was a terrible Nostradamus. When I read his speech the only conclusion I come to is that he was racist to the core and a relic of the old Empire. If you look at his history, he wanted to become Viceroy of India and retain the colonies. If you then read his speech knowing his background, you come to the conclusion that he was your typical racist with the only difference being that he could articulate his racism a bit better than the average 1960s white Englishman down the pub.
He was completely wrong in his vision regarding the 'negro'. The black man has failed to 'have the whip hand over the white man'. Likewise, his agreement with the thoughts of a Labour MP on the Sikh community were absolutely unfounded. The Sikh community is one of the best integrated inferior communities in the country. Not only that, they are one of the most successful, both financially and socially. The following was pulled straight from the arse:
"The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should they say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned."
As a non-practising Sikh I look at what Powell's speech as almost total nonsense. His assertion that multi-culturalism doesn't work was also toss. It works rather well until you decide to romp around the world with no conscience. But that's exactly what Powell wanted - to romp around the world like an Imperialist. He was a relic then and he's a relic now.
But that's just my opinion.
Powell was a terrible Nostradamus. When I read his speech the only conclusion I come to is that he was racist to the core and a relic of the old Empire. If you look at his history, he wanted to become Viceroy of India and retain the colonies. If you then read his speech knowing his background, you come to the conclusion that he was your typical racist with the only difference being that he could articulate his racism a bit better than the average 1960s white Englishman down the pub.
He was completely wrong in his vision regarding the 'negro'. The black man has failed to 'have the whip hand over the white man'. Likewise, his agreement with the thoughts of a Labour MP on the Sikh community were absolutely unfounded. The Sikh community is one of the best integrated inferior communities in the country. Not only that, they are one of the most successful, both financially and socially. The following was pulled straight from the arse:
"The Sikh communities' campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should they say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned."
As a non-practising Sikh I look at what Powell's speech as almost total nonsense. His assertion that multi-culturalism doesn't work was also toss. It works rather well until you decide to romp around the world with no conscience. But that's exactly what Powell wanted - to romp around the world like an Imperialist. He was a relic then and he's a relic now.
But that's just my opinion.
I may agree with you to some extent but please show me where I have been disrespectful.
Put yourself in the place of somebody who is judged because of their ethnic origin. What chance do they have? There is a place for discussion but no place for compromise on racism. There is no sense, none at all, in which a person can be judged for their racial origins.
Put yourself in the place of somebody who is judged because of their ethnic origin. What chance do they have? There is a place for discussion but no place for compromise on racism. There is no sense, none at all, in which a person can be judged for their racial origins.
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
rauscher said:
I wasn't referring to you personally. Apologies. Just generally letting off steam. I agree we most be ever vigilant, and always willing to challenge prejudice, but there are sometimes better ways of doing it, like over a pint and a chat.
EDIT: There are also other times when fascists have to be literally beaten off the streets, like in the 70's, but I believe there is still time to pull away from that path, which an overly antagonistic attitude in advance can and does aggravate.
rauscher said:
It was true. My Grandad arrived in Wolverhampton from India in the 1950s. Wolverhampton was Powell's constituency and my Grandad thought he was a good bloke. My Grandad was a drunk though.
I was merely pointing out the bizarre fact that the very type of person that Enoch Powell regarded as a parasite actually voted for him. It's something which confuses me to this day. Perhaps he hadn't heard the speech but as he was a student of politics I'd lke to think differently. Sadly, I just think he was a drunk. It also confuses me how many settled immigrants are now against further immigration. At first sight it appears hypocritical but on further reflection this is just capitalism and human nature.
Just been out for a little drinky and came upon a gang of lads having a session.
Pissed they may have been but the conversation was, at best, a worry.
Basic idea was to kick out/shoot all non whites. Pakis and jungle bunnies took the brunt of it but they managed to add chinks to the list later.
Problem as I see it is not a bunch of pissed up cunts ranting on but the nodding heads of the people around.
Pissed they may have been but the conversation was, at best, a worry.
Basic idea was to kick out/shoot all non whites. Pakis and jungle bunnies took the brunt of it but they managed to add chinks to the list later.
Problem as I see it is not a bunch of pissed up cunts ranting on but the nodding heads of the people around.
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
MonkeyMagic said:
Remember that Sikh in the BNP advert for the last election. I was very confused by that, but I think on the one hand if you put enough fear in people, they will sometimes join in the scaremongering so as to feel 'safe' behind the barriers.
At the same time, with the BNP, their policy does apear to be one of picking off one group at a time. First pick on the muslims, and get the Sikh's to legitimise that. Even if it's just one Sikh, and they get him on telly, the divisive impact of that can be quite significant.
JHE
.
I live in a part of the London-Essex borderland which, a recent by-election revealed, has substantial BNP support and I spend a lot of time and money (far too much of both) in pubs. There is no doubt that many people round here think there is far too much immigration and there is little doubt that many people are (rightly) wary of Islam, but I never come across rabid stuff like that.big footed fred said:
Where do you live and drink?
big footed fred said:
I walked into a pub recently with some mates and one bloke said to another, "Not more Pakis" but I don't get much trouble though down here generally. I went out in Blackpool recently and some blokes wanted to start a fight. Thankfully there were plenty of women to hide behind. I'm not sure if they had a problem with Pakistanis, muslims or non-whites in general. I find this tends to happen more up north in shit areas so I don't go there in case I get confused for a muslim.
Having said all that, I'm racist about white chavs sometimes so I probably deserve a bit of name calling.
munkeeunit said:
Since moderating their stance to become a bit more appealing to the UK voter, the BNP have concentrated on being anti-Muslim. They have no real problem with Hindus and Sikhs, if we are to believe them. They know full well that an embarassingly large number of Sikhs and Hindus have a unique hatred of muslims. Sikh BNP supporters are naive if they believe that they would be spared after kicking the muslims out. Check out the references to 'natives':
Check it out
Parties will do anything to get votes. I remember coming home from school and there was a Tory telling my Gran (hard of hearing, poor eyesight and no knowledge of or interest in politics) that all she needed to do was tick a particular box (the Conservative one). Cheeky bastard. Next election the Tories have figured out that they can't get the immigrant vote so they go back to attracting the nationalist one.
JHE
.
I've seen the interview with the old Sikh. There is a much simpler explanation than your convoluted one - namely that he was speaking sincerely and from experience and knowledge of Islam in practice. He wasn't told what to think by Griffin and Co. They just gave him an opportunity to speak to a larger audience. Wisely or otherwise, he took that opportunity.munkeeunit said:
MonkeyMagic said:
I was in a barnley pub a while back with an indian mate when some fat white prick walked past me to give Rakesh a shove.
Rakesh, being a nice guy, didn't say much. Me, being a bastard, gave the prick an ear full making it quite clear that while I was more interested in a conversation than a fight I was game if he was.
Landlord turned out to be a nice fella and gave the fat cunt a right old fucking.
You are not wrong about the crap areas up north. I love Yorkshire and am pleased to live here but things are getting fucking silly and I'm not as proud as I would wish to be any more.
Now that is a crime.
JHE
.
MonkeyMagic, sorry to be a fusspot, but giving the link another name is not breaking it. The point is that if people follow that link to the BNPs site, it will show up on their log that people have come from here. The people who run this site do not want that because they do not want to encourage people to come over from that or similar sites to cause unnecessary conflict.
Broken it would be, for example:
http://www. bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=390
People who want to see that page have the address. They can put it in the address bar and edit out the spaces. If they do that, it will not show up on that site that the visitors have come from this site.
Broken it would be, for example:
http://www. bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=390
People who want to see that page have the address. They can put it in the address bar and edit out the spaces. If they do that, it will not show up on that site that the visitors have come from this site.
Similar threads
