Home

TheSinner.net

The Muslim Immigration Debate

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby Gubbins on Sun May 29, 2011 10:21 pm

Gosh, I'd rather thought this debate had lapsed, interesting thought it has been.

jollytiddlywink wrote:
Gubbins wrote:(...) What it means to be "Scottish", or "British", or whatever, only makes sense when you take the national average which reflects a distribution of views. The likeness of this distribution to that of another nation determines how similar they are.


A fair point, but we don't spend time sitting down and going through a list of questions to determine if someone is British or Scottish, we just know. And I think that anyone arguing that immigrants have failed to assimilate should point out in which regards they want immigrants to assimilate: should they adopt proper Brummie/South London/Weegie accents, or should they subscribe to things like tea and biscuits and being vaguely dismissive of the French?


Generically speaking, I think what is at the heart of integration into the community is defined by social interaction: understanding why "natives" act the way they do (be it via language, customs, practices, etc.), and interacting with the community in a way which conforms with that. I should also have perhaps used the word integration rather than assimilation because it better reflects what must be a two-way process: the "native" population must also respect the customs and traditions that the incoming population brings.

Gubbins wrote:(...) I've mentioned what happens with lack of integration in the certain countries, but such a bimodality is at the heart of problems in South Africa, and the Israeli-Palestine and Sunni-Shia conflicts in parts of the Middle East.(...)


Unless I've managed to miss a whole load of rioting on this island, I hardly think that a lack of assimilation here can be compared with the enormous divisions caused by apartheid, 80 years (or many centuries) of ethnic/sectarian violence in the Middle East, or a nearly 1400 year old religious split. The last two of these would better apply to the relations between England (and later) Great Britain and the United Kingdom and Ireland than they would to the situation of immigrants in 21st century UK. Any nobody on the thread has yet suggested kicking out all the Irish. [/quote]

Equally, I don't think anyone is saying that these situations would not occur in a system without immigration. I am merely saying that immigration without integration exacerbates such situations and makes such situations more likely. As for modern immigration-related riots in the UK, you can start with the 1958 Notting Hill riots, progress through the 1981 and 1995 Brixton riots, pass the 1985 Handsworth riot, the 1995 Bradford riot, the 1998 rioting over the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the 2001 Oldham riots, and end with the 2009 Birmingham riot. People have a natural tendency for any difference between two populations to spark antagonism: cultural, religious or racial background is a very strong divider, mainly since it is usually immediately visibly obviously.

Gubbins wrote:
jollytiddlywink wrote:As an insular nation which has not suffered external invasion for the best part of a millenium, the concept of a native population applies better to Brtain than to most parts of the world. The majority of Britons can't name any of their ancestors who were born outside of Britain. Most probably had substantially more than half their medieval ancestors living in Britain: something that can't be said of most other European countries, certainly. We are often ridiculed on "the Continent" for our insular mentality, which the debate over immigration is bound up in, and which is why this debate has such poignancy in this country.


I'll have to call you on that one. Neither the island nor the political grouping Great Britain was a nation, at any point in history, and the label 'nation' applies even less well to the current UK, and even less well to the UK as it was prior to 1922. And as for foreign invasions, off the top of my head, there have been several French invasions and occupations, of varying sizes, on Scottish territory (it was the guns of a French fleet which levelled St Andrews castle), both before and after the Treaty of Union, various French and Spanish landings on what is now Irish territory, and Spanish, Dutch and French landings at various points on the coasts of England and Wales. For that matter, William of Orange invaded England in 1688, dispersed the garrison of London, effectively deposed James II and summoned Parliament to retrospectively issue him an invitation.


I should have said successful invasion. I'm not sure that monarchical usurpers, minor skirmishes and civil war count. They have not caused the same massive changes in population that the Ancient and Medieval invasions did. Regarding which...

jollytiddlywink wrote:If the majority of citizens in the UK can't name any of their ancestors who were born outside the UK, then a great many of them are not well versed on their family histories, and there's no need to go any farther back than about 1939. Large swathes of the population on the west coast have Irish ancestry, and there was an influx of tens of thousands of refugees from all over Europe before 1939, and then of exiles and members of governments in exile and Free Forces.


Perhaps a great many aren't, but a great many are. I am quite well versed on my own family history. None of my antecedents (who have been traced) come from outside the UK - that record is complete back to at least the 18th Century, and likely much further. It's not something I'm necessarily proud of, it's simply fact. Historically (at least between the Norman invasion and the 20th Century), it was only groups like the elite, the educated and the merchant navy that contributed significantly to population shifts. We are living through the first few generations after a uniquely isolated period in the British Isles.

And I'll stand by my point that, strict immigration controls or not, nobody has yet figured out a way to stop immigration from happening. The US may have strict immigration laws, but they've still got roughly 10 million illegal immigrants in the country, approximately 1 in 30. And they don't seem to be turning into a new South Africa or Israel-Palestine. I still don't really see what the fuss is.


The US also has a rather more porous border with Mexico (and Canada, but they seem to mind that one less). Not many people swim the Channel. Tighter controls in the UK are an option if it is deemed necessary.

The situation in the US is also rather different. It is a nation of immigrants with a very different mindset to the UK and a lot more space to move around in and lose oneself. You'll remember, however, that the aboriginal populations of the Americas didn't respond well to immigration when it was their turn to be drowned out of their own country.

The situation is different with each generation of immigration to each individual place. "The fuss" as far as I am concerned, is to prevent the UK's mild discontent at the rate of immigration and integration escalating into a much worse situation. It wouldn't be the same situation as we are seeing in the countries I mentioned, because we are not those countries, but it could nevertheless end up at a level of violence through which I would not like to live. The situation requires careful governance, and the current reactionary and often antagonistic response elicited from both the liberal and conservative arguments is not helping that process.
...then again, that is only my opinion.
Gubbins
 
Posts: 1210
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:56 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby Hennessy on Thu May 10, 2012 11:09 pm

Gosh, I'd rather thought this debate had lapsed, interesting thought it has been.



Image

Would that it had lapsed. Has anyone been following the Asian sex gang story? I first became aware of it a couple of days ago when they said the jury had gone out. I then went over to the Guardian, predicting in my head that there would be the usual silence but to my surprise the Guardian has gone and stuck it's neck out. I read the guff in the article -two sociologist phd's attempting to massage the starkest of the statistics away - and then I got to the comments section...

If 83% of charged suspects were Asian Pakistani, and if the ''over-representation of Asian offenders within this dataset certainly merits attention'', then how can you say that ''the current obsession with "Asian sex gangs" focuses too narrowly on one dimension to this crime, making the emergent profile of the "Pakistani groomer" misleading''?
Offred 8 May 2012 5.50pm
Recommend (1590)


The statistics used show that the grooming and sexual abuse of young white girls is being done predominately by Asian men. But the article also seems to assume that because the figures are high they must be wrong. Why is that?
If 83% of those currently being charged are Pakistani men then clearly there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
cymraeg147 8 May 2012 6.05pm
Recommend (1115
)


Going back 20 years ago in the area I live the perpetrators in grooming gangs were and are of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin. Only now is it being officially recognised. It was because of cultural and religious sensibilities that tiptoeing around the issue went on.
You say at the end of the piece that we should not be afraid to speak up. I trust you will be ready for what you might well have to take on board.
riseagain 8 May 2012 5.51pm
Recommend (2307)


By all means read the article and the comments together:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NTCMP=SRCH

Truth is (and anyone else who is a guardian online reader may be able to back me up) that it is rare for a single comment to get a thousand recommends before it is off the front page. These had all reached or neared that in a few hours.

Most commendably and with great spirit the Guardian again stuck its neck out to the chopping block today, this time it was Julie Bindel playing a much cleverer game by saying, modestly, that she had been saying this all along. She links through to an article about the death of a young white Blackpool girl where there is exactly one sentence, which says "There is some evidence that disproportionate numbers of men from migrant communities are involved in the abuse of girls". That's it. Despite any good journalist being able to find out in five seconds the names and backgrounds of those who had already been accused, or spot a trend, or even just, you know, tell the bloody truth - that's where she ended her enquiry.

Want some more comments?

I used to contribute to the BBC Radio 4 MB before it was closed down. There was one person on there who repeatedly posted that this was happening in northern towns. ALL his posts were deleted, time after time after time.

So it has been known about in many circles for a very long time. People DELIBERATELY turned a blind eye to it.
TheGreatRonRafferty 9 May 2012 7.28 pm
Recommend (1341)




Until the race issue is seen to be tackled how can you be surprised?

This is not the first instance of "street grooming" by "Asians"and will not be the last, the far right have been on this for years and have been shouted down and sidelined, when Mr Griffiths and his pals are your champions something is extremely rotten in the state.
tonybatt 9 May 2012 7.45 pm
Recommend (447
)


The issue is not 'race' but 'culture'.
SirBasilZarhoff 9 May 2012 7.33 pm
Recommend (511)



That last one got it spot on. It is about culture. It's about migrants to this country choosing between a backward 8th century ideology or a modern one. Looking at the barrel-scraping recidivism of our culture, I can conceive why some would wish to opt out of it, but to replace it with principles brought unmodified from the dusty, barbarous Pakistani borderlands is a mistake, and I have a distinct feeling that in allowing (and shamefully enabling it in some cases), we are all about to be aware just how much we've made these young women pay.
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby The Cellar Bar on Fri May 11, 2012 1:40 pm

aye - I read the comments on the Guardian page as well - the last comment of
This bit of troll bait was waiting at the gates for the results of the trial...
just about sums up what you have done. And like an idiot I've fallen for it!

So what are you saying? As some there have been astute to try and point out to the trolls - "Asian" is a slick and evasive terms covering a vast range of nationalities from India to Japan? Are you suggesting ALL Asians are potential paedophiles rapists and groomers. Including Japanese and Sri Lankans? That ONLY "Asians" are potential paedophiles rapists and groomers? Or are you actually arguing/implying/suggesting that you really mean Pakistanis as a memberof that particular racial category are paedophiles rapists and groomers.

Equally are you suggesting that once these inahabitants who subscribe to this 8th century culture are removed from these shores that such sex gang grooming will miraculously disappear? Because if you are then the reek of tweed is very definitely having an effect. The gross grotesque facts of life that your teachers have obviously been remiss enough to forget to educate you over is that such grooming has been going on for years. It happened in Victorian times, it happened between the wars, it happened after the war. The problem for you is that it was then perpetrated by ganglanders like the Krays and their associates in London and elsewhere and was conducted by a variety of ....heres' a word ....criminals.... from a variety of backgrounds including "English" Scottish, Irish, Jewish Catholic Protestant and very probably agnostic to boot and others. And that was only in this country.

Along with extortion, drug running, contract killings, porn clubs, "massage" parlours, paedophile rings and the whole welter of criminality that goes on in what some probably still think of as "The Underworld". What is a bonus however is that you seem to have found the source of all our ills. What you should do now is spend a constructive part of your life travelling to the likes of Germany, France, Spain, the United States, The Philipines, Hong Kong, Bangkok and elsewhere and getting the word out that it isn't in fact Italian immigrants in the US, or Russian Georgian gangsters or Chinese Triads that are responsible for their problems.....but in fact ASIANS. The Belgians in particular will probably be ecstatic to discover they were wrong and that their international paedophile rings weren't in fact run by white folk - including politicians and business men - but in fact "Asians". Bet they'll be embarassed tho over the amount of money they have spent but probably relieved now that the ringleaders can all be released on account of NOT being "Asian". At least now, we are armed with the knowledge that all we need look for are Pakistani Muslims. All we need to look out for are the distinct presence of prayer mats and suspiciious characters apparently stopping work for no "good" (ie NON-"Asian")proper reason at various times of the day!

I'm sure they will receive your counselling with the respect it deserves.
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby RedCelt69 on Fri May 11, 2012 2:11 pm

What percentage of UK paedophiles are Christian?

I'm using "Christian" as a synonym for "white" because those Asian men sound nothing like Muslims. There are (naturally) concerns and doubts about BNP claims of Asian grooming gangs, because they concentrate on the Asian element more than the grooming element. I've yet to hear the BNP railing against non-Asian paedophiles. And (in relative terms) there have been plenty of those... including grooming groups.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby Senethro on Fri May 11, 2012 2:36 pm

yah whats the implication here? that the guardian is usually part of the great liberal conspiracy to cover up how awful brown people are but somehow this tiny nugget of truth slipped through this one time?
Senethro
 
Posts: 1796
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 9:40 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby The Cellar Bar on Sat May 12, 2012 1:15 pm

Just thinking there too, that given that a sizeable proportion of the population of Pakistan and of Pakistani people here are actually Christian, and that the "reservation" seems to be against Pakistani Muslims, would it not be an idea that we ensured we weren't making an awful mistake and blaming the wrong people? I was thinking perhaps of a piece of clth cut into the shape of a crescent maybe that Pakistani Muslims should wear on their clothes so that we knew exactly who we were up against? We could make it a tasteful red or green so that it was at least tasteful.

No wait.....something similar to that has been tried in the past hasn't it? Until pretty much the rest of the world stood up against it and exposed the malignant racist bastards who supported such a scheme for what they were.

I dunno - sometimes I wonder why some people don't just stand up and tell us "I don't like Pakis"..... it would make things so much simpler!!
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby Hennessy on Sat May 12, 2012 2:09 pm

So what are you saying? As some there have been astute to try and point out to the trolls - "Asian" is a slick and evasive terms covering a vast range of nationalities from India to Japan? Are you suggesting ALL Asians are potential paedophiles rapists and groomers. Including Japanese and Sri Lankans? That ONLY "Asians" are potential paedophiles rapists and groomers? Or are you actually arguing/implying/suggesting that you really mean Pakistanis as a memberof that particular racial category are paedophiles rapists and groomers.


No, you'll be astute enough to notice that I've never used the word "asian" in my posts, only "Pakistani" or "Muslim" - that's because I'll call a spade a spade. The Guardian article referenced that first, clumsily scooping in of other nationalities thanks to their inability to tell the truth. Nice straw man though.

It happened in Victorian times, it happened between the wars, it happened after the war. The problem for you is that it was then perpetrated by ganglanders like the Krays and their associates in London and elsewhere and was conducted by a variety of ....heres' a word ....criminals.... from a variety of backgrounds including "English" Scottish, Irish, Jewish Catholic Protestant and very probably agnostic to boot and others. And that was only in this country.


Paedophilia has been going on for a while so we shouldn't bother finding out the root cause of quite a few of the cases, even when the attacks have a definite modus operandi and are systematic within one community? Thanks for that, perhaps you can sit your 13 year old daughter down in a few years and explain that she could have been raped at any minicab office or chippy, not just the one staffed by illiterate peasants from Kashmir, you know. That will make her feel a whole lot better I'm sure.


As you go on to attack it with such vigour that straw man I identified earlier the rest of your argument is meaningless, isn't it? Certainly the tosh in the last paragraph.

yah whats the implication here? that the guardian is usually part of the great liberal conspiracy to cover up how awful brown people are but somehow this tiny nugget of truth slipped through this one time?


You have a curious schitzophrenia in your posts Senethro. Sometimes you come across as a thinking person and sometimes you don't. Are you two people? Maybe one of them has his fingers stuck in his ears shouting "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

Jesus sometimes with you guys I feel like we're a bunch of Romano-British standing on a hill watching the first cohorts of Saxons tie up their boats. I'm sure one of you would say, "it's alright guys, they may be dressed in rancid bear pelt and wash their hair with piss but we can take a few of them, and look at our wonderful civilised culture inherited from the Romans, won't they just be dying to put on a toga and act like us after a while?

Please, if any of you are betting men feel free to wager against the following prediction.

This is the first of many, many cases (side bet good odds it tips 100+ in the next four years). They will be all in every major town (100,000+) in the North, and some in London. They will always involve men of muslim faith, around 80% of the time from Pakistan, the girls will always be non-muslim, 90% of the time they will be white.

In particular I bet the police, emboldened by public outcry, will suddenly magically 'discover' dozens of cases that weren't there before. Read back through this whole thread if you want the evidence you ignored or belittled before. Go on.
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby The Cellar Bar on Mon May 14, 2012 12:00 am

Paedophilia has been going on for a while so we shouldn't bother finding out the root cause of quite a few of the cases, even when the attacks have a definite modus operandi and are systematic within one community?


no - what some of us are suggesting is that it's virtually impossible - and very definitely utterly ridiculous - to suddenly decide that the two elements of "paedophilia" and "sex grooming" on the one hand and it being the current focus of attention that the gangs involved are presently from a Pakistani background are somehow inexorably linked.

And then pursue that process of "logic" by suggesting that it is the cause and effect of "choosing between a backward 8th century ideology or a modern one." No-one is suggesting that instances of crimes should not be investigated properly. But then neither is anyone except your good self suggesting that the root cause of itthis time around is a result of "culture" and (in your mind at least) a less "civilised" culture than you happily associate yourself with.

These are crimes - first and foremost. Following on from your "logic", we'd be best also employed investigating the social mores of Italians to discover just why they opted to run the likes of the Mafia or the Cosa Nostra. Or just what it is in the the Chinese psyche and culture that sees the emergence of the Triads.

And equally - Jesus!!! - do you really feel that you are part of a bunch of Romano-British standing on a hill watching the first cohorts of Saxons tie up their boats"? I mean 2,000 years after the event, that's the best example of a coming "Apocalypse" you can come up with!!!!!!!! Do you seriously - in the 21st century - feel the need and connection to hark back that far for references to what you perceive as being under "threat"? It's nice you see fit to combine Bretons and Romans to fulfill some sort of racial purity - a contradiction in terms at the very outset - but Christ man you really do need to get up to speed!!!! I mean, quite apart from the fact that those of us who actually studied the period, never came across "cohorts" used to describe the Saxons organisation - altho that'll probably be the Roman part of your racial purity speaking - what you seem to have overlooked are the Romans themselves, the Normans, the Jutes, the Angles, the Saxons, the Celts and a whole horde of others who successively miscengenated the crap out of you lot until the best you can apparently manage is "Romano-Briton"!!!!!! Not to mention a reference in itself to a 1st century religion emanating from the Middle East (shock horror) as presumably being one of the elements of your "culture" being under threat. And please - before any further revisionism kicks in - your King Arthur (of Blessed Memory) was a Breton and Hereward the Wake was a sodding Scando FFS!!!!

And you fear the diluting of the race and culture on that basis!?!?!?!?!?!

Sex grooming has nothing to do with "culture". Men and women have been exploiting men and women in the sex trade for centuries!! It's nothing to do with "culture" and everything to do with those in a position of power being able to wield it over those without any. Across the board and not just in the sex trade. In some cases, that lands up with them historically in the House of Lords and with massive estates and wealth.....and in others, with them being labelled criminals. They both are....it just depends on who the "victor" happens to be as to who is classified as what!
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby The Cellar Bar on Mon May 14, 2012 1:01 am

......... and "tosh"? Tosh?!
Jesus man - the last time I saw that word used with any seriousness was in a PG Wodehouse story. And even then, getting on for a hundred years ago now (no honestly!!) - even Bertie Wooster came across as being more amenable to the existence of "tinted cheps" being present in his green and pleasant land!!

But you got to love it - these Romano-Britains - AKA French-Italians - weren't subsumed by the Roman Empire....they "inerited a Roman culture" of togas and the rest. Didn't invent it for themselves.....just happened to come by it after a few centuries of what some trendy lefty longhairs might describe as "occupation and subservience"

I can see them all now - "gosh Gertoservobolloxtorix, not one them is wearing a toga! What on earth is Mater going to make of them!!??"

And the in-built presumptions!! - if any of us are "betting men" and Senethro mayhap occassionally have his fingers in his ears - God frobid that any women might be participating in anything as serious as a political and social discussion. Or even think of participating in a little flutter on the gee-gees or elsewhere.
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby RedCelt69 on Mon May 14, 2012 2:52 am

The Cellar Bar wrote:these Romano-Britains - AKA French-Italians

Just a wee correction to a relatively minor point, but referring to the Romans as Italians is more than a little off the mark. As the empire expanded, citizenship was within the purview of the newly-conquered... by serving time in the army. The Roman troops stationed in Britain were from all parts of the empire. If memory serves, one of the garrisons stationed on Hadrian's Wall were from (what is now) Hungary.

Let me Google that... ah yes: "Soldiers garrisoned on the wall came from as far away as Spain, Switzerland, Hungary, Germania, Romania and even North Africa."

And that was just on the wall, let alone the rest of the militarised land. So the pre-Saxon population was a mongrel-race of magnificent proportions. Indeed, as you mentioned, it could hardly be called a pedigree race even prior to Roman conquest.

The Cellar Bar wrote:And the in-built presumptions!! - if any of us are "betting men" and Senethro mayhap occassionally have his fingers in his ears - God frobid that any women might be participating in anything as serious as a political and social discussion.

Uhm... it is perfectly reasonable for a man to use such phraseology as a shorthand, with "men" referring to "people" - just as a female poster could have said "women" as a shorthand for the same thing. In an ideal world (possibly in the near-future), everyone will use gender-neutral language as a default position rather than the use of their own gender... but I think you were being a smidgen on the over-critical, picking up on that. And, AFAIK (and Hennessey would know from long communication), Senethro is a male moth, not a female moth.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby The Cellar Bar on Mon May 14, 2012 12:25 pm

aye I know RedCelt :) - but I reserve the right to "minor" distortion for the sake of a debating point :) Once the dander is up, it's kinda hard to dampen the flame!!

And yup - if nothing else, what the "Roman" experience highlights is the magnificence of the "cosmopolitan" ethic. Same goes for those who use the well-worn cliche of "when in Rome". To some it seems it means absolute adherence to the "culture" of the host country. Showing a blissful ignorance if nothing else of the fact that Rome itself was a bustling community of different races, cultures, religions and peoples and languages. And the only caveat was that any and all of them followed the laws of the Empire. Beyond that the authorities could have given a rat's ass whether you wore a toga or not, spoke Ancient Italian (;)) or not in company, when you went to visit your "god" and whether pizza was a regular item on your menu!!!!! And amazingly enough, also had no problem conferring citizenship on anyone regardless of whether or not they were born within the "Sounds of the Coliseum". Fuck me, some of them were even broon!!

They were one of the biggest and broadest mindest of all the cultures which absorbed and tolerated incomers and input from across the known world. Just a pity that remnants of the Empire and their denizens found/find it difficult to continue the process.

And yeah - maybe a tad too picky on the gender front :) I've gone in for the word "guys" as the all-embracing fit-all for a long time now. So far as I know it comes from the Yiddish "goy" or "goyem" meaning loosely a person. It still gets an effect some times when I say "hey guys" to a couple of women who object to being accused of being "blokes" - but it's meant in exactly the opposite way - sort of like "hey folks". But in an instance like this, I know I would have said "betting person" without even thinking about it. But that's probably down to my miscengenistic, trendy lefty attitude towards life

Doing ok btw?
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby Hennessy on Tue May 15, 2012 8:55 pm

And that was just on the wall, let alone the rest of the militarised land. So the pre-Saxon population was a mongrel-race of magnificent proportions. Indeed, as you mentioned, it could hardly be called a pedigree race even prior to Roman conquest.


Except I wasn't talking about race I was talking about culture. Liberals are still fighting the race-based arguments of the 20th century. Understand this: There is nothing about the insular philosophy (identified by their settlement patterns) of sections of the Muslim community that is prepared to even meet your basic values halfway:

Freedom of speech? "As long as the rest of the family votes the way the father does"
Women's rights? Sexual freedom? "As long as she doesn't sully the honour of the family"
Law and order? "As long as we get our own courts"
Democratic due process "As long as we always win"

Hey ho, another week another de jure "British" man arrested for planning a terrorist atrocity.

How many of these do you want me to keep posting up? I imagine in a year or two the evidence will have built up to such a weight it'll be like a back catalogue I can pull out and throw at you for every myopic statement you make.

Oh and just a niggling assumption you've made there that irritated me. How many people lived in the Roman province of Britannia? Conservative estimate? About a million. How many legions? Usally three at any one time, around sixteen and a half thousand men + auxilia. Let's be generous and assume around 30,000 men served for most of Roman Britain's history that were foreign born. 0.3 %. The economy was still plainly agricultural for the most part. People would have been born, lived and died without ever seeing a representative of Rome, let alone one that hadn't been born in the country. Hardly a melting pot is it? Roman rule, British administration of that rule.

It's the way that empires work - was the Punjab more British while it was in the Empire? Cultures can survive small elites overseeing things, what they cannot tolerate is mass displacement and a total rejection of their highest ideals. If sati and the thugee were integral to an Indian's very character during Empire then the running of colonial India should have been impossible. Indeed it was when the British foolishly fell foul of the 'sacred' cultural sensibilities of the majority of the population.

So that's what happens when an minority culture aggressively asserts alien principles over a much larger one it rubs shoulders with. Interesting...
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby The Cellar Bar on Wed May 16, 2012 2:26 am

Except I wasn't talking about race I was talking about culture.


aye - we know that!!! So were we!!! The only disappontment is that after having it painstakingly explained to you, you still seem to have overlooked the basic screaming fact that this "Roman culture" to which you adhere 1) embraced, accepted and tolerated other influences "from abroad" - even in the capital of the Empire itself and that 2) in fact, the self-same Roman culture was in itself a "mongrel", a multi-cultural culture which developed out of experience of other non-home borne elements. Throw in the fact that the biggest influences across Europe were in fact what is commonly known as "Greco-Roman" culture and what you seem to be suggesting is that your ancestors - whoever and wherever the Christ they came from - deprecated the arrival of this piss ridden culture which apparently was hell-bent on destroying, if the then trendy liberals had their way, this fantastical culture they enjoyed - this, in fact Brito-Roman-Greco-Spanish-Swiss-Hungarian-Germanic-Romania-North African culture to which they were wedded. It's a nonsense - a total utter nonsensical distortion of the facts of history that something "pure" and essentially original existed in the south of these islands at the time.

Equally this Britannia of which you speak? A name derived from where and whom one might ask? Pretty much a name derived from the fact of Roman discovery of Breton tribes from the North of France already occupying and controlling what they wanted. So what we are talking about is a landscape occupied by foreigners who were then subjugated under foreign rule from the Italian peninsular who in turn eventually left and were superceded by the Jutes the Celts the Angles the Saxons and a bunch of various other Germanic tribes who were in turn then invaded occupied and subjugated by the Normans!!! All bringing their cultural contributions with them, all leaving a mark on the cultural landscape and resulting in the fact that the best you can do is come up with some mythological Brito-Roman culture whose passing you seem to mourn!!!

And "Freedom of speech? "As long as the rest of the family votes the way the father does""? - yeah - like that nevr happened in pre-Muslim Christian Engerland before!!

Democratic due process "As long as we always win"- otherwise known, if one actually reads the article, as a case of suspected and/or alleged vote rigging. - see above

Women's rights? Sexual freedom? "As long as she doesn't sully the honour of the family" - see above. As if "errant" daughters" were never the object of father's and brother's wrath in Jollye Olde Engerlande before the tidal wave of corrupting Muslim influence!!

Law and order? "As long as we get our own courts" - I see the word "Law" in the article - no mention of "courts". What I do read is of the growth of councils in communities which attempt to guide and assist people in difficulty with an effort to lead that in the way of Sharia Law. Of putting in front of people, a way of tackling problems they are subject to with an "accent" on what should be expected of the perpetrators within the Islamic faith. No different basically from the sort of guidance and assistance others might receive from priests or vicars. So not Law and Order and an alleged determination to ignore the legal system in this country - in fact the article goes out of its way to point out that this is not the case - but in fact a guiding process that is probably increasingly necessary in a Brito-Roman-Greco-Spanish-Swiss-Hungarian-Germanic-Romania-North African culture which sees the dressing of its 8 year old daughters in tubes with the words "I'm A Slut" written on them and the presence of drunken 13 year old girls vomiting in the gutter outside pubs at 2 and 3 in the morning. You ever wondered why some might come up with the view that "white girls are easy" FFS? Yup - loads and loads of sexual equality and respect built into that fine Brito-Roman ethic!!

And no - please don't start issuing back catalogues of "atrocities" proving something inately cultural. Yes - there is a Muslim element ot the violence in the world today. Thirty years ago, it was an Irish element. 70 years ago it was an Aryan element. 80 years ago it was an Irish element (AGAIN!!!) 100 years ago it was a Chinese Boxer related element. (Where in the name of Christ do you think the word "xenophobia" comes from?) Before that it was French and Napoleonic threat to your "culture". Before that it was a Colonial threat as the damned peasants decided to get rid of the English King - yet another German born King of Engerland.

What they have in common is a determination to fix problems of occupation and control from abroad. And any current terrorist atrocities you care to cite I will quite happily balance out with the 900,000 "Muslim" civilians a Romano-British-Christian culture has managed to perpetrate over the past ten years in Iraq. After 60 years of subjugation and State terrorism imposed on them from abroad, the only surprise for some of us is that it has taken so long. "Terrorism" consists of civilians killing civilians. They learned that lesson after Guernica and Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed just how "the State"felt about civilians and how much easier it was to kill unarmed civilians than armed forces in the trenches.

Incidentally - on that score - two questions. Had Hitler succeded in establishing a sympathetic government of English supporters.....where do you think I would have been by the time I was old enough to climb onto a plane? And would you have joined your forebears in applauding the newcomers ability to make the horses and carts/trains run on time? And 2) this fine upstanding Aquiline-featured "culture" of which you speak so fondly. Go read what they were capable of when civilians saw fit to rise up against them - try Masada and Jerusalem for a start.

Basically - go read some history. The Daily Mail and the Telegrope can only do so much for you. Please - it'll make life so much easier for you!!!!!!
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby macgamer on Wed May 16, 2012 9:42 am

A very interesting quotation from the Guardian article is the following:

The Guardian / Comment Is Free wrote:Of these, 49% were white and 46% Asian: the proportion of Pakistani Asians remains unknown. However, in a country where Asians constitute 7% of the general population, this is a striking figure.


The victims of this sex-gang were seemingly vulnerable 'white British' girls who were either in care or subject to monitoring by social services and perhaps more available. At very least the perpetrators were 'racist' or were racial discriminating in their choice of victims.

Might this be because of their view of 'kaffirs'. That darling of the left, Mehdi Hasan and now senior editor of The New Statesman, imfamously described 'kaffirs' as, 'living as animals.'

See for yourself:


If this is a view is particularly widespread in the Muslim community, it would perhaps explain why this Muslim sex-gang selected white British girls as their victims exclusively. By seeing them as something less than fully human already, there was less de-humanising left to do before their attack.

I do not have the statistics, but it would be plausible that Muslim families experience less marriage breakdown and hold their children to stricker moral standards and tighter curfew (well purdah too for the women perhaps). Muslim culture seems much more 'homosocial' than the West today.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby RedCelt69 on Wed May 16, 2012 10:11 am

Hennessy wrote:Except I wasn't talking about race I was talking about culture. Liberals are still fighting the race-based arguments of the 20th century.

So, then. Culture. Is it a static thing or an evolving thing?

Around the same time as the Germanic warriors decided to "invade" this Romano-British land, salesmen for a Middle-Eastern religion began arriving on these shores. It took a while (with some reluctant Anglo-Saxon kings), but this Middle-Eastern religion took hold of these islands for a considerable amount of time. It took liberal thinkers to dampen the worst features of that religion, so that we are an increasingly secular nation.

And now, a tiny minority of our population prescribes to another Middle-Eastern religion... and you're complaining about their lack of liberal values, whilst also finding fault with liberals for not being up-in-arms about the mini-invasion? I'm confused. In your world view, are liberals a good thing or a bad thing?

A minority of that tiny minority hold to the precepts you describe (for things like Sharia Law). It is a self-governing relationship that they're trying to establish... in order to prevent themselves from integrating too severely with the non-theistic "natives". But it is a fight that they will lose, as their children are much happier than they are in this "new land" than their illiberal parents.

The Islamification of Britain is a lost cause, right from the outset. We've already been controlled by one Middle-Eastern religion... and we'll give a hearty "thank you, but no thank you" to a slightly less old equivalent.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby The Cellar Bar on Wed May 16, 2012 1:44 pm

I'm not sure, macgamer, why the sarcasm needs to roll in yet again and have Hasan described as "the darling of the left" To be honest, I know he ain't my darling of the left - whatever that means, or used to mean in the days when it maybe meant something. I think it's an attempted as a form of sneering, declaiming abuse to set up the views of another individual - bu I could be wrong.

First off you're confusing "kaffirs" with "kafars". "Kaffirs" being the term of abuse - no sorry form of non-abusive affection used by South African Boers - to describe people they regarded as "sub-human" or at least lesser than their good selves. You know - anyone not white, animals and therefore probably Godless to boot. Which they often did at regular intervals.

"Kafars" is/was the word that Muhamet and others used to describe "non-believers" - those who still persisted in worshipping multiple gods rather than the One God that for instance one of their Prophets declared to be the fact. That guy Jesus Christ as I recall. The guy who insisted on their being only one God as per the First Commandment and also pointed to the Second Commandment and its embargo on "graven images" You know, like Crucifixes and images of their god and statues and bracelets and necklaces and pictures - and very possibly also dinner plates and jig-saw puzzles. Kafars seemed to have this difficulty on getting their heads round this notion and were therefore described as "kafars" - non-believers - those who were incapable of understanding profound intellectual thought and felt better if they "elected" other humans as Gods despite insistent demurral on the part of the person they had in mind - even while He was alive. Polytheisists. Father Son and Holy Ghost types. And Mum too if you're up for the notion.

And so they do - after a fashion - LIVE as animals. NOT are animals - but live like animals. Incapable of sophisticated intellectual thought or rationale who move on from day to day in blissful ignorance of the power and awe involved in the notion of Creation and look no further than material gain and food on the table. Find it difficult to ascribe values to ideas such as "honour thy father and mother", "thou shalt not kill" or "not bear false witness against others" but are prepared to live by those ideas - when it suits a purpose but otherwise leave it to one side. Not LIVE by the principles and teachings of their religion but give it nodding passing acknowledgement when it suits. "bending any rule to fulfil any desire" in fact!! Recognise any particular faith perhaps?

And yes - as has been said during this wider debate in the wider world - vulnerable white girls WERE targetted. Just as vulnerable white girls were targetted by men in places like London post-war. Just as white vulnerable white girls were targetted "pre-war" by human traffickers to places from Europe to places like "Arabia" and China. Just as vulnerable white girls are being targetted right now by Russian Mafia gangs across Europe and by organised crime in the United States. The only feature that links all of those cases is the fact that other men and women recognised the "market value" of what they regarded also probably as "animals" or lumps of flesh. Nothing else linked the perpetrators - not race, not religion not culture. Just market value.

And you are absolutely right. Just as the Police and other workers involved are right. They are vulnerable because for some reason, this society doesn't seem to have any real moral compunction about "I'm A Slut" boob tubes being sold for 8 year olds, 13 year old girls being out at three in the morning puking in the gutter, "our" women walking around on the weekend looking like charicatures of hookers - as Al Murray once said..."nowadays it's difficult to tell the school girls from the hookers...makes it difficult to know whether to carry cash or sweets!!" and "popular" TV series where it seems difficult for the women characters to keep their tits in their blouses long enough to solve homicides.

"We've" suffered that for decades.....of fathers roaring "you're not going out looking like that" and mothers answering "don't be silly, it's only a bit of fun". Amd in the Muslim community, there is very probably an even greater disgust for the way in which human beings are being portrayed and seen. None of it is particularly respectful. None of it does anything except portray women sometimes as a commodity to help some lonely male out of a Saturday night. And there has been a reaction. I don't know the figures either - but it would be interesting to find out just how many lawyers doctors teachers consultants and accountants are comprised of Pakistani women as a proportion of the population compared to their white women equivalents.

Education is valued. Self respect is valued. Having a boyfriend is not seen as the be all and end all of many Pakistani Muslim women's existence. Managing to be attractive is possible without their tits being the first thing to enter a room. While on the "other" side - white folk don't seem to have the same views on their women. Certainly not in terms of aspirations or the respect for education or how to dress or behave when out or what constitutes "just a bit of fun".

So yes - in terms of blissful ignorance, self respect, respect for others, how to behave in public, when to have kids and by how many fathers - there are a legion of ways in which this society can be seen to be comprised of those who are apparently capable of only the basest of aspirations and who have no real sense of "the spiritual".

And on the grotesque flip side? Vulnerable white teenage women, ignored by their parents, left "at home" while Ma(19) goes out with Granma(37) for a night on the town. Or left with sufficient cat food to last til they get back from Ibiza. Witnesses to drive by shooting outside Manchester night clubs at 3 in the morning. You want t osee a "view" of "white" British society - watch the Jeremy Kyle Show FFS!!

And lurking in the background - a group of men (and probably women) seeing the opportunity to exploit all of that and make a living on the side. It's grotesque, it's disgusting - but it's nothing to do with the culture of only perpetrators. It's to do with the kind of world that some people on both sides actually inhabit in 21st century Britain. And basically it needs fixing.
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby The Cellar Bar on Wed May 16, 2012 2:37 pm

The religions I don't have any problem with RedCelt. Any religion, any form of belief that is there as an indicator, a referral point as to how to live in a society is a bonus for me. At least the basic principles are set down and can be debated and discussed. And despite "our" European experience, that was precisely what did happen back in the day. Stories of Jesus teaching and arguing in the Synagogue were typical of what seemed to go on - ordinary mortals engaged in debate within a religious building over how "best" to proceed when in a moral dilemma. Ordinary mortals who felt thay had a personal direct link between their God and themselves - rather than being "sheep-like" enough to need an interpreter.

Funny that - I've just used an animal reference to describe members of a Flock - sorry major religion!!

What I do have problems with is a religion that is then transplanted and suffused throughout a society. Where statement like "render under Caesar what is Caesar's" goes from meaning "he has no rights over who and what you believe in, his only right of expectation is you pay your taxes and obey the temporal law" to splendid auto-da-fes AKA human bonfires, The Spanish Inquisition, the Head of State becoming the Head of the State Religion too and massive numbers of ignorant folk being trolleyed off to kill in the name of "God King and Country" and, above all,obey your political masters' decrees on pain of pain. Don't believe I read any of that in any version of the Testaments that have come to hand.

But any religion that does give guidelines, that states that it is "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (NT) or "no rich man can sleep at peace in his bed while a poor man sleeps at his gate" (Koran) is OK by me. Any religion that offers a way of living in a society with neighbours in a civilised way is OK by me.

Basically - trust a bunch of Gentiles to fuck up a good idea.....and twist it to allow some to treat others as commodities....or perhaps I should say...animals?
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby Hennessy on Fri May 18, 2012 11:35 pm

The Cellar Bar wrote:
Except I wasn't talking about race I was talking about culture.


aye - we know that!!! So were we!!! The only disappontment is that after having it painstakingly explained to you, you still seem to have overlooked the basic screaming fact that this "Roman culture" to which you adhere 1) embraced, accepted and tolerated other influences "from abroad" - even in the capital of the Empire itself and that 2) in fact, the self-same Roman culture was in itself a "mongrel", a multi-cultural culture which developed out of experience of other non-home borne elements. Throw in the fact that the biggest influences across Europe were in fact what is commonly known as "Greco-Roman" culture and what you seem to be suggesting is that your ancestors - whoever and wherever the Christ they came from - deprecated the arrival of this piss ridden culture which apparently was hell-bent on destroying, if the then trendy liberals had their way, this fantastical culture they enjoyed - this, in fact Brito-Roman-Greco-Spanish-Swiss-Hungarian-Germanic-Romania-North African culture to which they were wedded. It's a nonsense - a total utter nonsensical distortion of the facts of history that something "pure" and essentially original existed in the south of these islands at the time.

Equally this Britannia of which you speak? A name derived from where and whom one might ask? Pretty much a name derived from the fact of Roman discovery of Breton tribes from the North of France already occupying and controlling what they wanted. So what we are talking about is a landscape occupied by foreigners who were then subjugated under foreign rule from the Italian peninsular who in turn eventually left and were superceded by the Jutes the Celts the Angles the Saxons and a bunch of various other Germanic tribes who were in turn then invaded occupied and subjugated by the Normans!!! All bringing their cultural contributions with them, all leaving a mark on the cultural landscape and resulting in the fact that the best you can do is come up with some mythological Brito-Roman culture whose passing you seem to mourn!!!

And "Freedom of speech? "As long as the rest of the family votes the way the father does""? - yeah - like that nevr happened in pre-Muslim Christian Engerland before!!

Democratic due process "As long as we always win"- otherwise known, if one actually reads the article, as a case of suspected and/or alleged vote rigging. - see above

Women's rights? Sexual freedom? "As long as she doesn't sully the honour of the family" - see above. As if "errant" daughters" were never the object of father's and brother's wrath in Jollye Olde Engerlande before the tidal wave of corrupting Muslim influence!!

Law and order? "As long as we get our own courts" - I see the word "Law" in the article - no mention of "courts". What I do read is of the growth of councils in communities which attempt to guide and assist people in difficulty with an effort to lead that in the way of Sharia Law. Of putting in front of people, a way of tackling problems they are subject to with an "accent" on what should be expected of the perpetrators within the Islamic faith. No different basically from the sort of guidance and assistance others might receive from priests or vicars. So not Law and Order and an alleged determination to ignore the legal system in this country - in fact the article goes out of its way to point out that this is not the case - but in fact a guiding process that is probably increasingly necessary in a Brito-Roman-Greco-Spanish-Swiss-Hungarian-Germanic-Romania-North African culture which sees the dressing of its 8 year old daughters in tubes with the words "I'm A Slut" written on them and the presence of drunken 13 year old girls vomiting in the gutter outside pubs at 2 and 3 in the morning. You ever wondered why some might come up with the view that "white girls are easy" FFS? Yup - loads and loads of sexual equality and respect built into that fine Brito-Roman ethic!!

And no - please don't start issuing back catalogues of "atrocities" proving something inately cultural. Yes - there is a Muslim element ot the violence in the world today. Thirty years ago, it was an Irish element. 70 years ago it was an Aryan element. 80 years ago it was an Irish element (AGAIN!!!) 100 years ago it was a Chinese Boxer related element. (Where in the name of Christ do you think the word "xenophobia" comes from?) Before that it was French and Napoleonic threat to your "culture". Before that it was a Colonial threat as the damned peasants decided to get rid of the English King - yet another German born King of Engerland.

What they have in common is a determination to fix problems of occupation and control from abroad. And any current terrorist atrocities you care to cite I will quite happily balance out with the 900,000 "Muslim" civilians a Romano-British-Christian culture has managed to perpetrate over the past ten years in Iraq. After 60 years of subjugation and State terrorism imposed on them from abroad, the only surprise for some of us is that it has taken so long. "Terrorism" consists of civilians killing civilians. They learned that lesson after Guernica and Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed just how "the State"felt about civilians and how much easier it was to kill unarmed civilians than armed forces in the trenches.

Incidentally - on that score - two questions. Had Hitler succeded in establishing a sympathetic government of English supporters.....where do you think I would have been by the time I was old enough to climb onto a plane? And would you have joined your forebears in applauding the newcomers ability to make the horses and carts/trains run on time? And 2) this fine upstanding Aquiline-featured "culture" of which you speak so fondly. Go read what they were capable of when civilians saw fit to rise up against them - try Masada and Jerusalem for a start.

Basically - go read some history. The Daily Mail and the Telegrope can only do so much for you. Please - it'll make life so much easier for you!!!!!!


I quite simply don't know where to start with you Cellar Bar...First of all - Reductio ad Hitlerum

Second of all - the exclamation mark does not increase in importance by adding frequency.

Third of all - I had to read what I actually wrote again because of the terrible epoch-blending vomit it seems to have induced you to spew forth. I've quite literally never seen an argument jump around so much and yet say so little, it was like watching the title sequence of Game of Thrones in fast forward. I cannot possibly cogitate a response because, even as I read it again, wincing this time, I could detect no argument of substance. Sorry.
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby The Cellar Bar on Sun May 20, 2012 3:56 am

Put more simply in order for you to understand then my friend -

1) you are living in some sort of partially educated dream world where you believe against all the odds that somehow you are "British" but are incapable of showing any historic background or fact to such a "claim". The "British" came from Northern France. The "English" came for Scandinavia. They were foreign invaders. But you also seem obsessed with the perception that "Roman" equals white guy from the southern Mediterranean and was in itself "pure" and uninfluenced by foreign contributions. You consider the invading Roman Empire as being a part of your "Britishness". They were foreign invaders. Yet you seem to come up qwith the notion that there is a "Britishness" that is pure and "home grown". That's as ridiculous as a Japanese person now arguing that the hamburger is a part of his culture worth defending from the ravages of Balti curries. That you don't seem to grasp that the Roman Empire was the biggest foreign threat that replaced everything that existed before is in itself is typical of your ignorance. Someone has spent an awful lot of money on your education and has failed to actually educate you.

2) none of the points which you chose to highlight in bold about cultural differences is original and existed long before you had them identified for you as being the "new threat" to your "Britishness".

3) your notion of "Britishness" seems able to ignore the elements of it that are of great concern to many outside of the Irish bogs or oak panelled gentlemen's clubs you either already inhabit or wish to inhabit. Our "society" is threatened more by its denizens and their social attitudes than anything that you might perceive as being a threat from abroad.

4) I have no idea what the notion of "ad hitlerum" consists of. You ramble from Saxon cohorts to the frontiers of India across ten centuries. And then have the audacity to accuse me of not being coherent in answering the gibberish. All I asked was just exactly what would your position have been had the bastard been at the doors of this country. Would you have stood up against it......or rolled over like so many of your esteemed ancestors did in the past. Or like the 600 known landowners, industrialists, MP's and other worthies who had already expressed a willingness to serve as his new "British" government. Predictibly - you didn't even manage an answer to that. Your perception of "invasion" and "occupation" and "subjugation" seem to be somewhat partial....not to mention delusional. Your "culture" has been invaded and subjugated by at least 10 foreign invaders - yet despite that you still persist in believing that it is still quintessentially "pure" and is only now under threat from foreign influence.

Like I said - go read some history and find out just exactly who the "British" and the "English" were before extolling virtues that didn't actually exist. Your notion of "British" is a total and absolute and threadbare myth cobbled together to convince you and others that there is something unique native and worth defending. Failing that - you seriously need to get out more often.
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: The Muslim Immigration Debate

Postby The Cellar Bar on Sun May 20, 2012 12:47 pm

Just to remind you of what you wrote Hennessey, this is a taste of it

Jesus sometimes with you guys I feel like we're a bunch of Romano-British standing on a hill watching the first cohorts of Saxons tie up their boats. I'm sure one of you would say, "it's alright guys, they may be dressed in rancid bear pelt and wash their hair with piss but we can take a few of them, and look at our wonderful civilised culture inherited from the Romans, won't they just be dying to put on a toga and act like us after a while?


21st century and you're alluding to a bunch of "Brits" in togas who apparently recognised the death knell of their "culture" but weren't listened to then and aren't being listened to now.

Altogether now .... "Keep right on to the end of the woad".... "Romano-Britons never never never shall be slaves"
The Cellar Bar
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

PreviousNext

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 22 guests

cron