Heh, tribalism. The cause of, an continuing non-solution to, most of the world's social problems.

You should see schools in the UK though, there's hardly any whites and no one can speak english. The immigrants think they rule everything, seriously, no exaggeration. People who go to high school in the UK will know what I mean, unless it's just Leeds, which I very much doubt it.

I feel like I'm in the ethnic minority.

But why is that a bad thing?

Because I'm English in England.

Open the doors, people will get bored here anyway.

Fixed, now to deal with the lack of sense your statement holds.

I know, but you didn't read my previous posts.

If you have a number of generations that have lived in the UK, I would call that British, but if your parent's have just come here and had a kid within months then your not, and thats the case with a lot of people in my school / area. Point is imigrants are fine, it's just when theres too many.

Yeah. I'm still not following.

The way i see it: if you have a community, a working community, and then too many people from other places come into that community, where they are not needed, where their presence would put an un wanted strain on the community's schools, healthcare, jobs and housing. Regardless of race, It is unfair.



I must say i agree with josh.

First off let me say that my opinion on this is a difficult and possibly controversial one.

Secondly let me say I love the irony that many of the ones who clame to be the liberal-minded people stepping out of the dark ages are talking down or extrapolating the opposite side's argument to unreasonable levels, as a means of dissecting the original viewpoint, while the side you'd "expect" to do that-the right wing side- for the most part aren't. Just an observation.

Also, I find the idea of internationalisation with a 1-party/government world to be very contradictory to traditional liberal values- different opinions, freedom of speech etc. Surely more parties means more ways of life are represented? If you are truely liberal then everyone has the right to their opinion and the right to express it whether you agree with it or not, and you accept that problems caused by this are inherent to a democratic way, just as resentment and scapegoating are inherent to an overly dictatorial/1 party state.

My opinion on nationalism is this- you have every right to be patriotic for your country, but keep it reasonable, especially when a guest in another country- either on holiday or to live there. My definition of foreign/living in another country is someone who was not born there and whose parents were not born there. For example, while my distant geneology no doubt comprises Dutch and Italian, I consider myself as English because I was born in England and so were my parents, and 3 of my grandparents (4th born in Ireland). Furthermore let us suppose somebody was born in England but their parents were born in India- indeed I know several people like this. I would class them as English and think that they'd consider themselves English, but I would not deny them the right to call themselves Indian so long as they still abided by English law and custom.

This leads me on to immigration. Immigration is tricky- if you come to live in another country, you follow their customs. You can still keep elements of your own culture as far as possible yet where it contradicts your new native land you should follow the customs of the place you live. For instance let us take a Sikh, born in India, who moves to the UK. A turban does not contradict anythnig British, so its fine to wear it. Same with practicing Sihkism. However, speaking Indian/the Sikh tongue (I did know its name but I have since forgotten), would contradict with the English language so he should speak English in public and as his primary language. Speaking Indian or whatever language he wishes in his own home however, I have no problem with as that is his private property.
Another slightly different example, with various intricacies, would be a Muslim immigrant. As before- worship in a mosque, fine, wearing the Muslim headcap, fine. However here we must pause and address the burkha and hajib. There is nothing in the Qur'an about the Burkha being part of Islamic religion- I have spoken with several Muslims (and indeed other Asian religious followers such as Hindus) who have confirmed this. it is purely a tool used by the Islamic state. The hajib, yes, that is religious, the burkha no. I understand that it is personal choice to wear the burkha (though not always as some Muslim women are groomed/indoctrinated/forced into wearing it, again what I have found from Muslims) but the fact that it is essentially a symbol of female repression is why I'm of the opinion it should be outlawed. The hajib, thats absolutely fine to wear, the burkha is different. And again, on language- Yes, if they wish or feel comfortable to speak Urdu in private then fine, however in public they should speak the native tongue- in this case English.

Furthermore, in all legal issues, the country laws should take precedence over religious/prior national laws- this also includes "national religious laws"- ie. Christian laws. The country law is always priority and no compensations/alterations should be made. As such Sharia law in my view should not be incorporated to Britain- it is creating a law for 1 specific demographic, which however you slice it is discrimination- discrimination against both the particular demographic and against those who are not covered under such laws.

And finally, on the issue of crime. I believe if you are a convicted criminal you should not be allowed entry unless it is a very minor crime or if there is an oustanding reason to gain entry- seeking to avoid the death penalty is not an adequate reason as the criminal knew the laws where they were when they committed the crime, so should face the consequences. An adequate reason I cannot currently think of, I'm open to suggestions though. Also, I believe if you commit a crime after coming to this country, you should be on 1 warning. Commit another crime, 2nd warning. 3rd crime? Out. A single offence could be down to accident, circumstance or loss of way. Repeat offences suggest something more innate and as such I believe a repeat offender should be asked to leave. it is only what happens at say, a sports game or concert- repeated troublemakers are warned twice then asked to leave. Again- they know the rules of their (new) country, they should abide by them.

Finally I believe there should be no intentional segregation/ghetto culture. It is a fact that in many parts of the UK there are minority ghettos that have sprung up- immigrating families all move to a certain area and distance themselves from any other ethnicity. I know a guy who lived in an area which saw a large number of Muslim families move in. His new neighbours refused to acknowledge or speak to him and so he ended up moving. This should not happen- The point of immigration (and indeed the liberal way) is to mix and to accept and tolerate. This should work both ways- we accept and welcome the immigrating populace but they should accept and mingle with us too. This extends to education too- there is at least 1 school in Blackburn (possibly more elsewhere) where ONLY Muslim-faith children can attend. This is discrimination against non-Muslims. Just as Christian-only schools are discriminations against non-Christians (and so should also be prevented). Again-the purpose of immigration is to come to another country to work, integrate, and find home. If you are to be at home you should be comfortable amongst others. Thus schools should not be allowed to segregate based on ethnicity/religion- REGARDLESS of whether it is a minority ethnicity/faith or the majority ethnicity/faith. I am close to wandering on to minority/majority parties and socieites now but thats another topic.

Let me state I would fully comply with these rules if I were in their situation. If I was to go live in say, Spain, I would abide entirely by Spanish law, I would learn the native language (Spanish or, depending on regions, Catalonian) and I would speak the native language to spanish residents and in public. I would not live in a ghetto environemnt- regrettably many of these exist in Spain, however I would make an effort to integrate to the local populace. I would attend a Spanish college and if i had children, send them to a Spanish school and raise them to speak Spanish primarily, and only use English in the privacy of my own home if desired. I would also be fully prepared to accept any consequences if I broke the law, as I am agreeing to Spanish law.

No doubt there'll be both sides of the fence now pouncing on me calling me stupid, stunted, BNP, wrong, not English anyway, or just snowball my viewpoint into something completely different. Still, thats what I get for posting it, it is about discussion after all not just stating mindsets.

And I can understand shaman's whole nationalist-pagan thing. I can identify with many liberalist/left wing views, and at the same time agree with various conservative/right wing ideals. Yet I don't want to class myself as middle-ground cause that appears indecisive.

Exxxxxxxxxxxxxactly!

You mate took the words right out of my mouth.

With the crime thing, in East Leeds there are two "ghettos" as you would call it. Theres "Harehills" that is mainly Muslim and "Chappeltown" that is mainly Blacks. Now there was a statistics thing I read a while back and it was saying how these two areas are the worst in Leeds for crime, from shop lifting to firearms. This is a minor example of how too much immigration is a bad thing along with the idea of different ethnic groups living in one area..

Uh, that wasn't what I was getting at josh. I was not correlating "ghettos" to crime at all. I was speaking purely on a social interactive level, not on a criminological level, when it came to the ghettos.

Plenty of crime in Manchester and Liverpool and they dont have any "ghettos" as far as I know.

I'm trying to think of a nicer word than ghetto too. "Ethnocentric region"? That would apply to white-heavy areas too, such as Liverpool and its chav culture, which is again an awkward case.

Ah, my mistake, it's a point though but might not apply everywhere.

I know. Fuck those niggers (sand and regular), spics, chinks, and all the other dark people.

Well, I don't have any kind of complaints about this, just say that it is something that may influence the outcome of your town/village. Because you'll get to knwo how other people work and have their lives done. Thing is, it can also destroy the reputation you're hardly keeping. It really depends on the people, and on how they work.

If a white person got a tan on vacation, would you

Surely you mean: "If I came on a helpless niggers face, would they at least be a little white?"?

This thread is hideous.

He really didn't take the words out of your mouth. He made a long and well thought out argument, that regardless of how well thought it is still amounts to bullshit.

First off. No one has extrapolated anything. We have been discussing this using their own words and nothing else.

Second. Not a single person ever talked about a single party government. Wherever it is that you live, you live under a single government. Look around you. Diversity is everywhere, is it not? Having a single government would merely give the benefit of protection to all of the people instead of just some of the people.

Thirdly: By your logic, immigrants are no longer immigrants by the third generation. So, sit back and wait a bit. The situation will sort itself out for you. Also, I agree that they must abide by the laws of the region but only an asshole would think that a person must live by the same customs that they do. Why do you want them to speak your language in public? Do you want to eavesdrop on them? How the hell does it affect you? And you want to repress people because you think that some of their clothing is repressive? If the women feel oppressed by their men, then living in an open and free community will eventually lead them to a women's liberation movement, much as the rest of the world experienced. If you force them to not be oppressed, they will not thank you for it. They will in fact hate you, and you will merely strengthen the thing that you are trying to combat.

I do agree with not letting convicted criminals in. I'll give you that. But now you want to dictate where they must live and who they can socialize with. Private life is just that. Private life. You have spent most of your life living in predominantly white areas. Did you see a problem with that? And why is it that you think that all non-white regions will become ghettos? You say you wouldn't live in a ghetto. No one chooses to live in ghettos. You live there because you are experiencing a thing called poverty. Not as much fun as you might think.

So, to end I will say this. No matter how well you dress up bullshit, at the end of the day it is still bullshit.

No, I think he has perfectly valid views, you may not, but this subject is about peoples opinion on it, and someone will always think the opposite of you, your views are also valid and this is the point of this debate alough I don't think it will get anywhere.

You didn't put forward your opinion on too many immigrants, what do you think of that. I'm not being sarcastic or anything I'm genuinely interested.

When I'm told that I'm being unfair by someone who goes on to state that Orwellian government policies should be put in place, I tend to cry bullshit.

If we lived under a single government people wouldn't feel the need to flee from oppression, and coordinated efforts would keep financial standings somewhat similar. In other words, it's a good step towards solving that problem.

Not extrapolating? How about the whole "Its ok to them be proud but not wave it in your face, actually, they cant even be proud" stuff on page 2? Whether a joke or not thats just discrediting peoples arguments by twisting what they say and taking it beyond what they said.

Maybe I used the wrong words for 1-party government, my mistake. I meant 1-leader.

I understand what youre saying on the burkha issue but a female rights movement is unlikely to spring up in the Muslim community as that has been their way of life for so long. I do know a Muslim woman who strongly objects to the Burkhas, thinks they should be banned, and has said as much to other Muslims, so it is possible, but unlikely as she is in the stark minority. And guess what? She tends to be rejected by other Muslims for her views. I recognise that forcing/advising change could result in drastic backlash, but simply sitting back and waiting does no help.

I did actually say that a ghetto is never good. That does include if youve only got white people. But I was talking about how you get occassional areas where a single ethnic race (whether white, black, Asian, African, American, whatever) moves in and entirely excludes everyone not of that race as if they dont exist.Thats why I was talking about mingling/integration. Also, I NEVER said that "all non-white regions become ghettos", I think you'll find it was joshkrz who mistakenly said that. I said there are several "ghettos" across the UK in various regions, where said exclusion goes on. Imagine the outcry if a white-heavy area excluded a black person. People would cry racism, I'm sure you would also say it was racist. That's the exact same situation as I'm talking about. Exclusion is wrong whoever commits it. And my definition of ghetto is not referring to a poverty stricken area. MY definition of ghetto is a residencial area that is largely/entirely inhabited by 1 nationality/ethnicity, who refuse to reach/branch out to other nearby nationalities. I don't know of any better term so I use the word ghetto.

I say about the languages because there's situations where you can be chatting to people then suddenly 2 of them will converse in their own language during the conversation, excluding whoever does not speak that language. I DID say private life is private life and should be left be, dont try and take that differently. And of course I dont wish to eavesdrop. I'm merely saying that a peacefully coexisting society tends to work better when everyone can understand each other- understanding on any level, whether politically, motive-wise, linguistically, or whatever. I certainly feel more comfortable when I can understand conversations going on- whether I am listening to them or not. Plus its an act of courtesy as much as anything- as somebody else said, when in Rome. Going to another country and refusing to use their language is not exactly courteous. How often have Americans for instance been villified for going to other places and refusing to adapt? When I've been to Spain, the Spanish people have much preferred it when I spoke Spanish instead of English. Again, Im not saying entirely cut it out. Speak whatever you wish in private.


Still, this will get nowhere as we appear to have 2 completely different opinions. But I would like it if you at least respected mine, instead of simply calling me full of bullshit.

Whoa! I only used actual examples near where I live and also stated that it may not be the case everywhere.

There are also White "ghettos" and I would think the same of them as any other ghetto.

What are you talking about?

I understand that it is a long standing problem, but people seem to forget that it has also been a long standing problem for the rest of the world. Women in Christian society were seen as being just as worthless as those in Muslim society until very recently. As people are given more and more freedom these things have a way of working themselves out, however. These women will not stand for it forever. But you absolutely can not legislate people's views. If a man marries a woman and thinks that she should wear a burkha, well that's an issue for them to resolve between them. Not an issue for the state.


I failed to read your posts where you further explained your position on this. However, the point still stands. Who are you to tell them that they can't live around people who are like minded to them? They aren't excluding anyone. You can move in any time you want. Anyone who is upset because their neighbors don't talk to them needs to have their whiny cunt hole smacked. I fucking wish my neighbors wouldn't talk to me. Ever.


I understand that you think it would be more convenient and polite if they were to speak your language, but....well, that's not their fucking problem. Some people are polite and some aren't. This is just a fact of life. I'm more irritated by the cunty "He isn't catering to my desire to understand him" mentality than one of the guy who just plain doesn't give a shit what you think.

Don't accuse me of putting words in people' mouths and I won't accuse you of being full of shit.

Sorry, this is a bit off the previous convosation, but there is one thing that hasn't been mentioned:

If a white guy is rasist to any other race, and it's reported, the white guy gets into shit.

But, if its vice versa and someone is rasist to a white guy, fuck all happens.

Like if a brick is thrown through a white familys window, does anyone even concider it's a racial attack? No. But if the house belongs to an asian family for example then it will be.

I just don't get it.

You're about seventy different types of wrong there. If there is any evidence to support that it is racially motivated then they will pursue that track.

Ok, I know it was a bit faint, it was more of a question, but I'm more certain (not 100%) about the top example.

Example? What example? I see a shaky hypothesis with no data to back it up.

It's a good thing that I dropped out of MSI. That rate of which I'm pissing people off in this thread would have assured my crushing defeat.

(NOTE TO IDIOTS EVERYTHING IVE SAID IN THIS THREAD HAS BEEN A STUPID UNFUNNY JOKE. EVEN MORE STUPID ARE THE STUPID STUPIDS WHO STUPIDLY TOOK ANYTHING I SAID AS FACT. STUPID)

Here's the thing though. Has the man ever brought you down for being white? I mean, seriously. With the shit that ALL minorities have gone through in Western civilization, it's our way of compensating for it. Sure, it's not fair, and sure, we should have moved past it by now. It's called positive discrimination, and while I'm not a fan, it's pretty much a necessity.