Only in modern Britain can self-hating, perverse and dangerous individuals such as 'Sivispacem' exist.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how to effectively devalue your argument before you've started it.
Where I am from, thankfully people like you are marginalized and isolated.
A place where expressing inclusionist view that aren't driven by xenophobia and jingoism is looked down upon? Sounds like one of the seven circles of hell to me and probably to anyone else capable of rational thought.
The way in which you pretend to be 'shocked' when a normal Englishman with at least a stirring of love for his homeland and country suggests that there are too many Africans, Pakistanis or Arabs is quite outrageous.
People are entitled to think whatever bigoted sh*t they want. I'm not dictating how people should feel. I'm simply disputing the factual basis of many of their claims. If you want less foreign nationals and immigrants living in the UK because you're a raging xenophobe who prides the muddled, contradictory and utterly shallow crap that people like to pretend is a "cultural identity" over having a properly functioning society then be my guest. But don't be as naive and ignorant as to try and pretend there's a rational, empirical economic or social justification for your biases because there isn't.
People like you have simply never existed throughout history - you are the anomaly which welcomes the degradation and destruction of your own culture.
What culture? There's no part of British "culture" that isn't entirely inherited from other nations. Half our national dishes arrived on these shores less than 50 years ago. Our heritage is
one of immigration. I bet if you were from here you'd be one of those people who goes on about how "British" they are, ignorant of the fact that genetically, like 9/10ths of the British population, you're either majority Scandinavian, majority Gaul or a combination of both.
I don't understand your mentality - allow to provide an example. I am sure that you have read at length about the vast networks of Asians who specifically prey upon white British girls. I am also sure that you take the time to point out that 'several' white men are also involved. I am sure you point out that there are, in fact, millions of 'fantastic' Muslims, who form part of Britain's vibrant ethnic tapestry and who condemn these pedophiles. However, I am not as sure that you think about what would have happened to the whites if they had done this in Pakistan. I am not as sure that you have ever had a rush of red, masculine blood through your passive Anglo veins and wanted to protect your people.
That doesn't really have any relevance, though. I'm not making any claims to do with objective, universal moral values. It's totally irrelevant. And wrong, too. I'm not sure if you're aware of this- I doubt so because you seem to be making this bilge up as you go along- but there's historically been a great deal of issues with British people committing sexual offences against children in Southeast Asia. To the best of my knowledge there's no differential treatment for them. No, instead, you choose to use the example of a tribalist, authoritarian, third-world quasi-state that's actually more of a collection of small societies run by warlords and family dynasties and in a perpetual, Hobbesian war of all, against all, as a comparable example? I don't know about you but I don't really aspire to base my social ideology on tribalist, authoritarian, third-world quasi states run by warlords in a perpetual state of conflict.
If this happened in Serbia, we would have broken their faces and driven them into the sea.
Oh, right, because a nation with a very recent history of racial conflict is the perfect positive example to use in a discussion of racial ethics. What next, going to start quoting from The Turner Diaries?
And if you want to provide facts about race and crime in your country in that irritating, smug and cutesy way, at least be accurate about. Because, as most people believe, foreigners do in fact do a lot more raping, killing, thieving and provoking than the natives. Because in homogeneous societies, brothers do not kill or steal from their brothers or sisters to such a degree.
If you have an issue with how I conduct myself in my own subforum, then I suggest you go elsewhere.
Also, you're wrong.
I had written a large section summarising just why you were wrong, but I lost it by accident, so I'll break it down into bullet points:
- Your statement is about foreigners, your evidence about blacks. This ignores the fact that the vast majority of blacks in the UK are not foreigners. Therefore it actually doesn't contribute to your argument in any way.
- The trinity between deprivation, victimisation and offending amongst certain ethnic groups in the UK is well known. Racial segregation is one of the driving forces behind this conflict.
- Your statements about Asians are ignorant of the fact that they actually have a lower than mean offending rate based on arrests.
- There's not actually a huge disparity between ethnicity figures and arrest rates, see the statistics below.
- Contrary to your claims, whites are still vastly more likely to be arrested for crimes than any other racial group.
Have a look at the table belowBig PDF document
Here's another point worthy of considering. If there's a correlation between net immigration into the UK and crime rates, why do crime rates frequently decline when net migration rises? I mean, real term crime figures have dropped consistently over the last decade yet the quantity of foreign nationals living in the UK has increased? Care to address that?
And do you know what? Outside of your fantasy island of liberalism taken to an absurd degree, most of the world actually agrees with me.
You say that like popular support matters in questions like this. "Most of the world" is developing, socially and economically, and is ruled by autocratic governments, rife with corruption and sectarianism. It isn't likely to have the same sense of social morals as the developed world is.
Also, care to explain to me why voluntary sectarianism is a good thing? What does benefits do sectarianism and jingoism bring, pray tell? Because from an external observer's perspective, all I can think of is genocide, conflict, racial segregation, violence, suffering, disorder and chaos. Why discriminate based on ethnicity or heritage? We're all the same f*cking species at the end of the day, imposing artificial boundaries based on lines on a map drawn between places that in the majority of cases didn't really exist 150 years ago and then getting all defensive of a "national" cultural heritage which is not only young, but usually based on immigration and foreign integration anyway, is just f*cking stupid.
Most Nigerians, most Indians, certainly 99.9% of Chinese, Japanese etc. are like me - pride and unity in their own people and respect for other people if they respect you.
Great examples there. Three countries with known violent sectarian issues and one that's spent the last 50 years cloning US culture. You couldn't have picked three worse examples if you'd started from the bottom of the Freedom House index. It also misses the point that it doesn't matter
. In order for me to even acknowledge this argument, you've got to explain why such an attitude is empirically a good thing
. "Lots of people do it" isn't an ethical justification.
After all, I would not have a problem if a big, global economy like the UK attracted a few hudnred thousand immigrants with strong technical knowledge and specialization - but millions and millions of peasants from Third World countries with incompatible ideologies and a perverse distaste for their adopted nation? That's simply lunacy and ultimate suicide.
I don't know, based on economics, social cohesion and the general state of society I'd say it's working pretty well
Edited by sivispacem, 03 November 2013 - 04:39 PM.