Nearly one in five in St Austell Voted for The British Nazi Party.
Democracy is a wonderful thing.
Every silver lining has its tarnished ring.
And freedom of speech is sacred,
And haters mustn't be hated.
But it makes me sad, that him or his dad,
Or your neighbor or lover or friend or mother,
Voted this way, to have their say:
That they are haters too.
I just hope it wasn’t you.
88 comments:
To use John Lennons words - "All you need is love". The problem with this attitude, however is that love entials hate, ie, to love something is to hate its opposite. Thus, for example, when we love our family, country, etc, this implies that we hate whoever or whatever would harm it or to take it away from us.If people feel their country has changed for the worse, and feel the mainstream parties are to blame, then it is only natural for them to turn on them parties.
>>>The problem with this attitude, however is that love entials hate, ie, to love something is to hate its opposite.
Thats not true. That assumes that all things have opposites. It also assumes that these opposites apply to national or “racial” categorisations. What is the opposite of English? Or Cornish? Or Caucasian....
Your premise is mistaken and typical of the right wing toolbox.
>>>Thus, for example, when we love our family, country, etc, this implies that we hate whoever or whatever would harm it or to take it away from us.
Let’s go with that mistaken proto-racist viewpoint for a moment... who exactly in your world view is trying to harm our country or take it away from us?
I suppose if you lived in Leeds and had concerns about ghettosisation or whatever then you might have some room to form a cogent argument. But in Cornwall??? Come on.
>>>If people feel their country has changed for the worse, and feel the mainstream parties are to blame, then it is only natural for them to turn on them parties.
I absolutely agree. But showing a lack of faith in the mainstream parties by voting for nasty racists – which make no mistake is what they are – is not the way to go.
No no whats the opposite to a cake?
Love - hate
Bad - good
Dark - light
Hot - cold
opposites.
Proto - racist viewpoint? To love your family - country?
Have you never heard anyone say i hate what is happening to our country? These people have real concerns,they must have.I do not live in Cornwall, so i can't speak for the people in Cornwall.I was just replying to the poem and the word hate.
Why is everything about race to you?
By the way what is your definition of racist and nasty?
>>>>Have you never heard anyone say i hate what is happening to our country? These people have real concerns, they must have.
Yes. Absolutely. And these concerns are justified. But then when you extrapolate that the problem with the country is to do with immigrants or asylum seekers that’s when the bad seeds are planted.
The problems with our country are not the Polish family trying to make a go of it by coming here to pick turnips. The problems are not refugee who has travelled thousands of through a hell of suffering and danger just to try to make a better life for themselves.
Globalisation, Population, the Corporation ...these are where the core problems of this planet and this country come from. There is no conspiracy. It is the systems themselves that create the economic and political conflict that permeate down onto the streets and the lives.
>>>Why is everything about race to you?
Ummmmm...errrr... Its not... its just that this post was about the BNP; who are racist.
What’s interesting about the BNP is that they have moved from their across the board racism that they had in the 80s and 90s now to a more effective and, in today’s climate, compelling anti-islam position. There are more Votes that way.
But if you check out their literature or, for a more comical look, go do a search on their videos on youtube.com and it is very clear what they are about.
>>>>By the way what is your definition of racist and nasty?
“RACIST”:I think you need to have a progressive definition of racist in today’s climate. A racist is someone who makes an unjustified assumption about a group of people and justifies that assumption on the grounds of their race/genetics.
So to say that “Black men are more likely to be criminals than white men” isn’t necessarily racist. Clearly in America its true (Not sure about UK) and statistically provable. The question is that because of their genetics or because of the fact that Black’s in America are much more likely to be poor, uneducated, disenfranchised and any other negative influence. To say its because of the black genetic is racist.
The overwhelming evidence now is that the very notion of “race” is a mistaken categorization that has absolutely no relevance to humans.
There is no “race”.
This is hard for us to really accept right now, but with a greater understanding of the Human Genome and, importantly, the genetic distribution of mankind over the years over the planet its probable that future generations wont be able to argue that there is such a thing as race.
“NASTY”: I think Janet Jackson captured the essence of this term the best:P
>>>>I do not live in Cornwall
What!!! Get off this blog!!! This is for Cornish people!! From Cornwall!!! We don’t like your type on our blog!!!!
Get off this blog!! It's for Cornish people, says it all about you loony left hypocrits,hatefull delusional nasty bunch
p.s Don't tell Trevor Phillips there is only one race, he'll be out of a job. Twat
John Devon small island isn't it.
Democracy is a wonderful thing.
John. Devon.
Maybe i should bring my family down to Cornwall and pick turnips and then we might be accepted!
To love something doesn't mean you hate anything else. You love your wife, your children - does that mean you hate those of others? Of course not. It just means you prefer them to others,
Similarly, only odd balls and poseurs prefer other peoples and their ways to their own.
It's entirely natural and right that you should prefer people like yourself. It is bound up with genetic survival and preference.
You can love the whole world only in theory. In practice you choose those for whom you have the greatest natural affinity.
These are the people who are more likely to help help you in times of trouble. Saying otherwise is a luxury of good times.
Those who try to ignore this or deny it are in the words of President Reagan in another context, going against the grain of human nature.
wise words tim.
Yo Tim,
The trouble with human nature,
Is that it belongs down with the beasts.
To rise above that level, is to be civilized.
To be more than beast is to be a person.
To have a compassion for others when there is no need.
To be generous with what you have,
When nature gives in to greed.
And the luxury of good times,
Is a luxury we can share,
Because times are much better here,
Than times else when and where.
its not the natives of this land who need your words,its the people who have just got here and the ones on the way.
But they probably don't speak English, have internet access, know about midcornwall.com or appreciate hastily written attempts at poetry!
:)
thebirdman.org
very informative brian,well done,now go and enjoy the soaps,and take in as much as you can,good lad.
Hi Folks
FYI I just deleted a comment by Brian Jacks just because it contained a word my mum, and most people's mum's, would find offensive.
Feel free to post again but without using the "big guns" of swear words.(You can use "big'uns" as in: "Nick Griffin is a pair of big'uns" no propblemo.)
Hang on a minute. Bob Hossack stood in Bethel ward for BNP and got 298 votes - last out of 5 candidates - and wasn't elected. There were 2945 votes cast which means his share was 10% not 18%. No BNP candidates stood in any of the other St Austell wards - so the idea that BNP got 18% of the St Austell vote is just nonsense. Sorry to say it, but assuming that news from the BNP site is correct is just helping them with their propaganda.
http://www.restormel.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=23218
Thanks James. Rather than remove the post have added a comment. I think we can be glad that the Kernow Klux Klan wont be a' linchin' tonight:)
The problem with the word racist is that it means exactly what whoever is speaking wants it to mean.
Nowadays it means any one who wants to live in their own country amongst their own people in their own way as they and their forebears always have done; to be amongst what is familiar and loved. If one is like this (and the whole of humanity has always been like this ) according to some people this brackets one with Nazis and Gas ovens.
That is of course hysterical nonsense, but it is quite deliberate in many cases.
Incidentally, why is it 'racist' to say that blacks are more likely to be criminal because of their genes? Blacks in white societies (ie having some white blood) have average IQs of 85. That is, on average they border the 'dull' in whites who have average IQs of 100.
IQs of this level closely correlate statistically with poor education, criminality, poverty, even single motherhood and smoking in the population at large, including whites.
Whites aren't responsible for the poor performance of blacks: blacks are. Other minorities such as orientals (average IQs 103/104) and Ashkenazi Jews (Average IQ 113)have excellent perfromances.
Orientals have the lowest criminality of any group - they have the lowest average testosterone levels and blacks have the highest.
I'm afraid that genetics has a lot to do with it, like it or not.
Truth has no manners.It is no respecter of persons.It wounds kings as deeply as commoners.It cuts down the high, and confirms the lowness of the low.It may dress up for formal occasions, but it does so only in order that it may more shockingly expose itself in front of the assembled company.And just as it respects no one, likewise there are few who respect it.But those who do are granted many favours - power,understanding,domination and of course the honor of the unswerving hatred of the ingnorant millions.
>>>The problem with the word racist is that it means exactly what whoever is speaking wants it to mean.
I think the problem with the word racist is not the word itself but the racists.
>>>Incidentally, why is it 'racist' to say that blacks are more likely to be criminal because of their genes?
Because it’s a false assumption used to make a political/social distinction that can be used as a tool for hate and segregation.
>>Blacks in white societies (ie having some white blood) have average IQs of 85. That is, on average they border the 'dull' in whites who have average IQs of 100.
IQs of this level closely correlate statistically with poor education, criminality, poverty, even single motherhood and smoking in the population at large, including whites.
This is absolutely right. And in the 70s a book came out (I think the 70s) called the Bell Curve which pushed the idea that blacks are less clever than whites, that they have an I 15 points below.
The study is flawed and simply not true according to current theories. Even if you take out the stuff I mentioned before about blacks in white countries being poorly educated, disenfranchised etc there are very compelling studies to show little or no difference.
For example, a study was done of the children of American servicemen’s European children after WW2. There was no significant difference in the children of black service men to white. That’s just one study I remember, there are lots more. Go google things like “racial differences for intelligence”. You have lots of dated references to get through to get to the modern studies.
>>>Whites aren't responsible for the poor performance of blacks: blacks are.
I guess that’s correct, if you operate within a misguided racist framework. We don’t need to go back as far as slavery, even in this country, to see the institutionalised racism in education, employment and even the media.
>>>Other minorities such as orientals (average IQs 103/104) and Ashkenazi Jews (Average IQ 113)have excellent perfromances.
Yes, lets agree on these kind of point for the sake of argument. How do you then extrapolate that it’s a racial and not social/cultural difference?
The Chinese are generally better at math is… is this a racial distinction or is it because their culture/history is rich in numbers, maths, gambling and numerology? I vote the latter, a racist would vote the former.
>>>Orientals have the lowest criminality of any group - they have the lowest average testosterone levels and blacks have the highest.
>> I'm afraid that genetics has a lot to do with it, like it or not.
There are zillions of conflicting studies about all of this stuff going back decades. Not just criminality and IQ but cranial capacity, gestation, longevity… you name it… people have tried to either argue for a biological or social construction of race. Until we have hard evidence based on the genome project that there is, or is not, significant difference for trait x..y…z… then choosing sides, at the end of the day is meaningless.
But what is really relevant isn’t about choosing sides but its what is the actual battle that needs to be fought??!! Lets suppose blacks are less clever than whites and Chinese clever than whites, so what. Its not mastermind, its life.
And some people live their life with a narrow mind that focuses on their own little world and their sacred little community that they “must defend” and others like the difference that these “not like us” people bring.
Racism is bad for many reasons, there is the ignorance and the hate and all that ohhhh its so not politically correct… whetver.. sure. But its also bad because if you’re a racist it shows your unimaginative dull and without a passion to grow as a person and a community.
I’m white and I’m proud. I’m English and I’m Cornish, but without funk, I am a nobody.
FYI: I just deleted a bunch of comments that were were flaming between two people.
I'm now getting people having a go at me for removing comments -(I deleted another). For the record, this isn't a forum or a soap box. Its a blog, my blog, and I want it primarily to be interesting reading. So I'll moderate it like that, thanks:)
There have been some great comments from both sides of the debate on this post - some pretty controversial statements. I haven't removed them, nor will I.
But as soon as it starts becoming what I think of as dull one line anonymous insults then I will edit out the comments.
If you have issue with this then start your own blog, forum, message board....
Thanks in advance
Mat
What do those people do who rely, not on commonsense observation and the evidence of empirical science to tell them what the world is like, but some extremely dodgy continental philosophy based on nothing much except already discredited marxism, inter alia, when science and observation conflict with that philosophy?
Simple. Just say that if we think race exists, we are imagining it as part of some sort of plot to keep others in subjection, and deny the science. Black literally is white, and science is just a social construct or language game so forget it when gives results which are embarrassing.
Hmmmm.
Actually, the results of the Bell Curve have been replicated time and again, most recently by J. Phillippe Rushton of the University of Toronto and by Richard Lynn Profesor Emeritus at the University of Ulster. Using the Raven Matrices, which cut out cultural influences, Rushton has established that the average IQ in sub-saharan Africa is 70, ie subnormal in whites. The lowest average IQ in the world is to be found in Ethiopia, where it is 60+. The vast difference in average IQs alone is evidence that the different races exist.
The idea of the oneness and equality of humanity is a quasi religion which attracts atheists and agnostics, and is evidence of nothing except the human need to believe in something greater than oneself. These people do not have the far more realistic Christian idea which acknowledges that people are different, but says that they are all equally valuable in the sight of God as his children.
Without God, there is at root no reason whatever for suggesting that either people are equal in any way, or that there is any kind of moral imperative on individuals to treat them as if there were.
We are simply animals living in a meaningless universe and have no obligation to anyone or anything. Our sole biological function is to reproduce. Our 'moral ' impulses (altruism, etc) are there merely to help us further this aim. Full Stop.
The liberal left cannot allow themselves to acknowledge this truth and dream up all sorts of philosophical reasons to say otherwise, because not to do do would lead to the collapse of everythng they cling on to to give humanity dignity and purpose in their otherwise empty lives.
Incidentally, the fatuous idea that only whites are 'racist' because it is they who excercise power is totally blown out of the water by the observation that other races are every bit as 'racist' as are whites. Asians, for example are not just 'racist' towards whites and blacks, but towards other asians within the Indian sub-continent. 'Racism' is a function not of economics or society but of our human nature.
Saying that only whites are 'racist' is itself 'racist.'
I trust the above has given food for further discussion!
How come the Roast Reviews don't get these kind of comments!:)
Hi Tim
As I said previously, until there is hard genetic evidence from the Human genome project than all the stats and studies and figures you quote are meaningless.
For the sake of argument Ill focus just on the case of the Ethiopian IQ. You said:
“The lowest average IQ in the world is to be found in Ethiopia, where it is 60+”
I don’t know what study this is from, but lets assume that its true; That if you got everyone in Ethiopia to take an IQ test they would come out lower than the world average.
If that is true... you have the evidence... now you need to explain that evidence. There are two classifications of exlinmations
1) Genetic:
The Ethiopian genetic stock has in it a propensity for a lower IQ.
2)Cultural/Environmental:
The culture and language of Ethiopians is such that it doesn’t promote the kind of thinking and problem solving which generally gets people higher IQs in the IQ test.
Also I may be wrong, but probably Ethiopian Parents have not had too much impetus to send their kids to Nursery whether they can do all the bricks and baby Sudoku that will help them develop to be super puzzle solvers – which is what the IQ test is, at root.
Until you can rule our Cultural/Environmental factors as being relevant then its bad science to make the kind of assumptions that are often made (and Vice Versa).
:)
liberals and blacks claim that the reason for black failure is "discrimination", and yet many other racial and ethnic groups have been discriminated against-Chinese,Irish,and Jews,for example-and yet all except blacks have become successful within a generation or so.
the major media incessantly harps on any white-on-non-white crime,yet ignores the much greater number of non-white-on-white crimes which are equally horrific yet happen far more frequently, why?
Bumpkins!! Ever seen a black person?
LOL
FACT:(USA)The average white IQ is 10;the average American black IQ is 85;the average African black IQ is 70. There has never been a civilization worthy of the name founded by blacks,and blacks have not even been able to retain the civilizations which have been created for them by whites ("white colonialism").NOTE:Contrary to black propaganda,the ancient Egyptians were not black-their sculptures,portraits and mummies all clearly show Caucasian features.SECOND NOTE:Critics commonly claim that blacks score low on IQ tests because such tests are culturally biased. In fact,however,as black Prof Walter Williams has pointed out,blacks actually do better on tests that are culturally biased.
Never heard of white flight Jase?ever wondered why it happens?
I know this is not pc but the truth never is.
Race,immigration,etc are never debated,or if they are its always from oneside-politically-correct viewpoint there can be no debate if one of the sides is never allowed to speak.
WALTER E WILLIAMS,google it,worth a look.
ever seen a black person? Asks Jase?
If you go to London you can get on a tube and not see a white one these days.
According to awell known and well respected Oxbridge Demographer, this country will on present trends become in the lifetimes of our children now at primary school
majority moslem.
Some people say that this is not important, Well it's important to me. Few things more so.
The idea that we have always been an a nation of immigrants and therefore shouldn't worry our silly little heads over the present influx has the same intellectual status as the argument that has it that the Egyptians were black African and that therefore we owe our own culture to black Africa via the Greeks. It's pathetic, ahistorical and reveals nothing except its own desperate thinness and the capacity for deceiving themselves of those who feel the need to scrabble after such straws.
The term 'English' is an ethnic designation. Without the racially and culturally English, there is no England, only a strip of territory so named.
According to the best estimates of a well-known Oxford Demographer, on present trends the majority of people in this strip of territory will in the lifetimes of our children now at primary school, be islamic.
For the country of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, John Donne, Jane Austen, Dickens, Wordworth, Tennyson Gerard Manley Hopkins and the rest; of Bede, St Cuthbert, Thomas a Becket, St Thomas More, Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, John Knox, John Bunyan, Wesley et al; of Alfred the Great, Richard The Lion Heart, Henry 1V (parts 1&2), Henry V111, Elizabeth, Victoria etc, of Marlborough, Wellington, Montgomery of Alamein, Drake, Nelson and Beatty; of Pitt and Winston Churchill, of Roger Bacon, Newton, Clarke Maxwell and the like; of George Stephenson and Logie Baird,of Elixabeth Fry, Florence Nightingale and Wilberforce, to become the land of the muezzin and the veil, is for me an unimaginable tragedy brought about by a political class which will be the first to suffer when it happens; by individuals none of whom are fit to tie the shoe strings of any of the aforementioned.
The only thing to do is to emigrate, and I would if I were young enough, This country, our inheritance, has been destroyed by the usual type of individual, of the perennially, stupidly and ignorantly dissatisfied; the kind who in a previous generation were mugs for that other failed utopia from the same stable: Soviet Communism.
It is all the worse for me because I can remember Britain which, though it had many problems, was, mostly because over many centuries it had become one of the most racially, culturally and religiously, specifically Christian, homogenous nations on earth, also one of the most poltically stable, decent and successful.
I think Islam sucks. Its racist, homophobic, sexist, draconian, nonprogressive, unforgiving and it seems to have the capacity to really create fanatics.
I think it would be great is Islam modernized like other religions have, then it might get my thumbs up.
But Tim, what has Islam got to do with being black?
Most racists are either jaded bitter old men who don't have the passion (or power) in their lives anymore so they focus it on something, some issue they can get passionate about and get passionate responses with.
Or they are not too sharp young men who as they leave adolescence realize that they don't have the cause to fight for or the purposes they thought they would have.
There are no real reasons to be racist. Suppose blacks are thicker than whites, so what.
Its men that cause the problems of this world. Stupid ignorant men who are sheep and follow smart men who like to lead the little racist catamites.
Ive never met a racist who is dynamic and funny and charming and relaxed and at ease with himself or others. They are all, in my experience, in some sense fucked up individuals.
There is a movie out right now, called 'this is england'. it sheds light on much of the suspicion, fear and anger that pervades these comments. but FFS the movie is set in 1983. can i add that the comment about being a muslim nation within the lifetime of our children is absolute nonsense - some towns or cities possibly, but not 60million people. and the comment about the tube - london is a world city, it is also the future.
it is not nonsense. Don't delude yourself. London will be majority immigrant in the next 10 years or so, and other cities will follow.
With open ended influxes from Asia joining those already here, and a vastly higher birthrate than the native British, moslems will outnumber the native British in the next 50 years or so.
The young will have to live in this new Britain. Seeing what has happened to other areas that islam has taken over in the past -like much of the middle east, for example, I don't envy them. Non-moslems have av ery much second rate citizen status. And do you think that moslem societies are more successful than western ones? If so why not go and live in one?
As it is, the flow is almost totally the other way, isn't it.
http://www.islamicpopulation.com/
or do a search... on muslim population and read any survey or bbc stat report...
thus - you are so way off with your stats that your emotive views deserve to be thoroughly reconsidered...
Do a search for "white powder gold". This stuff is meant to be a new kind of matter that has magical cancer curing properties. You can buy it on ebay.
You can find many reports and papers arguing for its scientific reality and that it is what it is etc. All the evidence is there.
Now try and find proof that its a farce and a joke and a dumb assed powder of ridicularium, and you wont find (m)any.
This is because real scientist cant be bothered to even spend time arguing for its dumbness.
I think maybe there is an analogy here for scientific proofs of racial superiority of the "whites" and all that other stuff.
The Nazis were the masters of this stuff. Oh Look a monkey skull and a "negro"...
It is not 'nazi' to point out that different races exist and that the fact of the differences is important to people and to the sort of societies they create. I don't suggest that whites are superior in every respect- just different.
The point to be made is that the different ethnic groups are better off in their own areas running their own affairs -they used to be; they were called countries.
If you value your own people, the British and why shouldn't you, you should note that on present trends:
It has taken 45 years for a city's population to reach 20% immigrant.
It takes a further 20 years to reach 40%. (this was London in 2001) It then takes 12 years to reach reach 60%. It then takes a further 5 years to reach 100%
What happens to the whites? They leave. In other words, they show with their feet what they think of multiculturalism and multuracialism. That is the reality, never mind the rosy tinted blather about some kind of inclusive love feast.
Do you really want your people to be dispossessed of the homeland of their ancestors? Do you really think it is a great idea that they should be confined to certain areas in their own country, like Native Americans on reservations? because that is what is on the cards.
Do you really think it's OK for Islam to be top dog in Britain? I don't. I think all this would be an unmitigated tragedy.
Name a singe moslem country which a) is democratic in any real western sense and
b) does not treat non-moslems as second class citizens, or (more usually) actively oppress them.
Name a single moslem country which has in the last 700 years approached anything like the cultural achievements of the west.
No I can't either. Every where you look, moslems are attacking Christians and others. That is what it means to be moslem. It is in their holy book. Everywhere you look, moslems are still sunk in pre-medieval attitudes. that too is in their holy book, including an OK to slavery.
Without Christianity on the other hand, there would be no modern science and no democracy,no abolition of slavery, no Enlightenment,no western civilisation.
Take your choice.
This is the future of Britain, which up to and including the time it saved the world from the Nazis, was the finest country on earth.
Tim you keep on combining religions and ethnicity. Whats next, chuck in the homosexuals into the mix for your ill founded and inaccurate conclusions.
You don't seem to be reading what the people replying to you are saying... or at least your not thinking about it.
That comment somone made a few comments back about the Muslim population page (http://www.islamicpopulation.com/europe_general.html)
totally refutes your claim, but you don't mention it. You quote stats without backing them up. You quote theories without arguing for them.
Your a soapbox-superstar Tim, masquerading as a clever debater. Your a braggart and a biggot who I am guessing is sad and dissatisfied with where his life has taken him.
Don't blame it on the "wogs" and the "Arabs" Tim.
Sad little man.
FYI: Comment deleted due to swearing.
For the record you can say "twat" on my blog but I am going to draw the line at anything more sweary than "dicksplat" or perhaps "assmuncher" (depending on the context).
http://www.physorg.com/news97857326.html
you just cannot handle the truth,like i said mat you are one of the ignorant millions,thanks again for paying me homage.
Liberal - lefties and other"sophisticated"folk have long regarded those who promote white racial consciousness as ignorant and prejudiced - not smart enuf to think their way out of the paper bag.Instead, liberals have supposed that such people have been brought up in some northern city which nurtures a milieu of hatred that keeps them from seeing the blacks,muslims and other outsiders are merely their brothers under the skin, and that there is only one race,the human race.In truth however,the lefties have gotten things exactly backwards.The ugly reality is that,unlike the generally - well- off, the chavs and other white members of the lower economic class do not have the financial wherewithal to move from the urban ghetto to the tree-lined fields and the good neighbourhoods once their own area begins to darken.The result is that those whom liberal-lefties call ignorant and prejudiced are merely those who have received instruction in racial differences by living cheek-to-jowl with the darker denizens of the multicultural nightmare;and when such people obtain a PhD in the collage of Hard Racial Knocks,as they invariable do,they are unlikely to embrace a coat-and-tie approach to the problems that were once regularly handled with a bat.What is even more important,however,is that while the rest of us may congratulate ourselves on how unpredjudiced we are and how uncompromisingly we reject hate,the approach to the racial question by the unsophisticated lower-class white--crude as it may be-is far better grounded in fact and reason than the liberal foolishness to which we have been subjected for the last half century.The chavs of our world may be an easy target for TV comedy and leftie documentaries,but such "ignorant and prejudiced"whites at least know what liberal-lefties will continue to deny until they are forced up against the wall.Namely the difference between BLACK and WHITE.
NO sweary words,just the truth.
Thanks for not swearing this time:)
gentlemen of arcadia
i have just eaten a bag of dried prunes from tescos (jewish i believe). before long i will shit for england.
good day to you citizens
love and peace
yer bruddah
WHERE IS THE HATE? EXPLAIN,DONT JUST WRITE SHIT EXPLAIN YOURSELF,IF YOU CAN,JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT USED TO THE TRUTH DOESNT MAKE IT HATE,YOU LIVE IN A BRAIN-WASHED POLITICALLY CORRECT WORLD,PC STIFLES DEBATE,IF YOU WISH TO FLAGELLATE AT THE ALTAR OF LEFT-WING DOGMA THEN THAT IS YOUR CHOICE,BUT IF PEOPLE DONT JOIN YOU OR THIHK DIFFERENTLY THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM RACIST,BIGOTS,NAZIS OR ANY OF THE OTHER WORDS YOU THROW AROUND WHEN YOU ARE LOSING AN ARGUMENT OR DONT LIKE THEIR OPINION.
THE LEFTIES CALL ME RACIST:
THE TORIES CALL ME DUMB
THE MODERATES DONT KNOW ME-
I'M SHUND BY EVERYONE.
I'M SHUND BECAUSE I TELL THE TRUTH
I LEAVE NO FAULTS UNSHOWN.
SO THUS I REAP THE ROD OF RUTH
AND THEREBY STAND ALONE.
BUT THO I MAY NOW STAND ALONE
I STAND ALONE AND PROUD
I DO THE RIGHT BY CONSCIENCE SHOWN
AND THUS STAND FROM THE CROWD.
I DO NOT WINCE,I DO NOT CRY,
I HOLD MY COURSE WITH STEADY EYE,
FOR THERE'S NO STRIFE CAN POISON LIFE
WHEN READY,WE,TO DIE.
JOHN BRYANT.
Can we find it in our hearts to all join together and enjoy tony's words:
"The British are special - the world knows it, in our innermost thoughts we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth."
amen, to that, to all britons, whatever creed, colour, race, religion, batty boy etc... we all make it what it is
I may be in the BNP
Maybe I'm a right-on leftie,
But whichever way:
Facts speak straight,
This countries problems
Are not of race.
The counties problem is not race.
There would be no white-flight and no political correctness,there would be no job for Trevor Phillips if there wasn't a problem with a multiracial society. No utopia.
There are probably a few cities in Yorkshire/Lanchashire where you could say there is a clash of race, or at least the start of one.
I would hate, say Truro, to become all Muslim... but Id hate it if it was all Irish,Australian or French too!
What we want is the biggest mix up possible, both in terms of who lives where and what race they are.
Thats what makes the worlds great cities and countries great!
A multiracial society can only work when and where everyone wants it,fact is not everyone wants it,so it will never work.
Fact is we were never asked.
Who is we?
People talk of tolerance but tolerance is usually just a call for people-usually white-to capitulate to minority race-hustlers demands--usually outrageous and intolerable.
multiculturalism can never work,never has.
This country is heading for big trouble,you see.Who is we? ask your mother or Grandmother,who is we.
Democracy is awonderful thing
every silver lining has it's tarnished ring.
AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS SACRED
and P C must be HATED
but it makes me sad,that him or his dad,
or your neighbor or lover or friend or mother
never voted this way,to have their say.
and they missed out too
P C is not for you.
Ive been Plagiarized and Paraphrased!!! Wooooooooooooooot!!
Hoooorah!
Can I get an advance on a autobiography or maybe a cookbook or something now?
LOL, had to do it.
Those people who have criticised my statistics are in effect agreeing with me that immigration. especially islamic, is the worst sort of bad news for this country. We disagree only on the timing as to when Islam will be dominant here.
As to my sources; I take my statistics from Prof David Coleman of Oxford, who has provided material for Migrationwatch.
Also, the stats about what is happening to our cities are provided by Graham Gudgin of consultants Regional Forecast.
I'm afraid that the take-over of our country is inevitable: Asian women have 2'5 children as opposed to an average in the country as a whole of 1.8. I quote from a Sunday Telegraph report:
'The exodus of wealthier whites and influx of poorer migrants with higher birthrates means many of Britains towns and cities may soon have majority populations of recent immigrants. Indeed many of Mr Gudgin's models predict that many of them will soon be completely dominated by new arrivals.'
The whites are not just leaving, those who remain are declining in numbers.
It seems to me that only those who actively hate their fellow countrymen would wish to completely supplant them in their own country with foreigners. The idea that multiracialism / multiculturalism is an advantage is saying in effect that the fewer native english there are around in England, relatively speaking, the better.
On what grounds is this assumption made? Where is the evidence for this, given that pre the present leftist mania for mass immigration, Britain was without a doubt one of if not the most politically stable and successful societies the world has ever known, and admitting its undoubted blemishes, has given far far more to the world than just about any other society, including Parliamentary Democracy?
No multiculti society that I can think of works which is not some kind of dictatorship (Like Singapore, which came into existence to give the chinese a majority) or where there is so large an ethnic majority that this majority feels no threat; as in India or China, which has closely related ethnic minorities of 10%.
That is not going to be the case in Britain.
Believe me, there is going to be real trouble ahead in this country.
Northern Ireland was homogenous racially, culturally and religiously. Then an ethnic minority was imported into it in the 1600s. The result has been centuries of division and violence.
Are the English so very different? As parts of northern towns like Burnley separate out into ethnic areas just like Belfast, I don't think so.
Incidentally could wehave a debate without any personal abuse? Abuse is no argument and simply demonstrates the fact.
I'm in total agreement with you Tim but i think you will find it hard to have a debate with people on the left,they don't debate anything outside of their dogma,they just name call.
They only see what they want to see,only hear what their politically correct brain-washed minds will let them hear,anything outside of this and they really get their knickers in a twist.
Good luck,it can get quite testing trying too get an "interllectual" to put a round peg in a round hole, they will see it as square.
to clarify... there are deep deep problems with the spread of islam in this country. not with muslims, but how muslim society has developed (and been allowed to develop). thus we had the hate preachers who could spread their evil doctine to disastrous effect both within the UK and abroad.
certainly we should never allow mini states to evolve. where certain districts of towns attempt to impose shia law e.g. (and this could easily happen) off licenses are 'instructed' to stop selling liquor, or worse that a community justice system developed.
but my beef (what a lovely word) is that you are exaggerating the islamification of the UK. here we must differ. it aint happening quite at the rate that you suggest.
over the next 50yrs - a generation - much is to be worked out between secular progressive forces of the world and reactionary entrenched extremists. that there will be blood split is of course inevitable. possibly on a very large scale. this is nothing new. we have had world wars against fascism, we have fought against communism, we have endured a cold war. but freedoms must and will prevail.
for sure immigration must be stemmed and controlled. moderate muslims must play a greater role in managing their own. more must be made of the law, conventions and traditions of british society.
there are many positives to work on. chuntering on in alarmist tones about the fall of england aint how it gets sorted. pursuing legitimate legal channels, supporting the right lobby groups, issues is.
much of the current conflict was coming whether we liked it or not, and it aint got much to do with how many people live in burnley.
and please dont bang on about leftist hectoring - i take the torygraph and the speccy!
Good words brother, good words.
You know what MUST be done i know what MUST be done,but it needs addressing now,not tomorrow.
The BNP have made gains and that will only continue until the public can see changes,not just hear the promise of this, that and the other.
Trust in politicians is low,and rightly so, the public will see that Cameron is just like a sparrow,all twitter and shit just like Blair,Labour and the LibDems are weaker now than they have been for a long while,a few more muslim atrocities,and,and and what?will the natives wake up?
Did you know Dave boy Cameron is a member of the far left uaf? says it all about we used to be Tories.
There is a strange marxist, muslim alliance in this country.
Dangerous,Traitorous.
How anyone on the right of politics can talk using marxist verbiage such as 'Much has to be worked out between secular progressive forces of the world and reactionary entrenched extremists.' is beyond me.
In there also somewhere is the leftist revolutionary insouciant attitude to the spilling of blood very much in the tradition of 'you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs.'
The point is that we shouldn't have to work out anything or risk the coming race/cultural/religious struggles . This future is being wished on us by mad people who have forgotten the lessons of history and seem to have no knowledge of or not to care about human nature, or the tradtions of their own countrymen but are thinking in immediate, material terms,
Secularisation isn't the answer, not one Islam will ever recognise , because unlike Christianity, which is where we get our traditions from, it demands submission to itself in this world by force if necessary.
Secularisation is part of the problem, not the answer. Mass immigration is being encouraged in Britain by the materialist,marxist liberal left to destroy the Christian basis of our civilisation, and by globalising capitalism because it is as a source of cheap labour. They thought that moslems would become secular. As we can see, they are in fact becoming more militant.
Meanwhile, secular materialism is encouraging people here not to have children because they value their material comforts above anything else, and children are expensive.
That is not the case with moslems, whose women are told at Friday
Prayers to have many children, The stated aim ( eg Col Ghaddaffi inter alia) is to outbreed the native whites in Europe to ensure an islamic future for it.
On present form, Islam will win, because throughout history, civilisations which have ceased to be religous, and have therefore lost their cultural confidence, motivation, identity and social cohesion (viz Ancient Greece and Rome)have succumbed in the end to religiously motivated, racially and socially cohesive groups.
A good book on this subject is 'How Civilisations Decline, by Ann Glynn-Jones, Imprint Academic, which is an exposition of the theories of the Harvard Sociologist Pitirim Sorokin.
Incidentally if you read the Spectator, you will have read a letter of mine published in it not so long ago.
Tim, Can you please rate these races or religions in order with the ones you like the most at the top.
Jews
Blacks
Christians
Muslims
Arabs
Chinese
Mexicans
Europeans
English
Cornish
Buddhists
Pakistanis
Indians
Welsh
In reply to the post which asks me tp rate various religions and races; I would reply that there are absolute standards.
I have a great admiration for the Jews and think the native British have much to learn from them.
They are highly intelligent and capable. They have strong family values. They believe very much in education, self reliance and mutual assistance. As a result they are extremely successful in every area of life.
Their religion and associated dietary and other laws which were designed to keep them apart from other racial/religious groups, has ensured that they are the only people from ancient times to have survived into the modern age, when all other ancient peoples such as the Etruscans and the Phoenicians have disappeared.
In many ways, they are ideal role models for conservative people.
tim - you are certainly well read on this subject - and if you werent so alarmist and suggest that all muslims are extremists (99 per cent are not by the way) - you speak some historical and philosophical truths.
what issue of the speccy? the revered organ churned out many articles during 2006 that were thought provoking. but journos like melanie phillips are numbskulls. and not that it's important but where do you live to nurture these sentiments? i am a londoner (long ago removed from devon)
Hers's an interesting item about recent research into the abilites of primates and brain size.
If apes, why not humans?
After two generations of `behaviourism'-dominated animal psychologists declining to study or even admit animal differences in general intelligence, a young Harvard psychology researcher, James Lee, broke ranks and said primate species differed reliably in performance on a range of problem-solving tasks - with orang-utans the most successful, followed by chimpanzees and spider monkeys (Times Online, 15 iv).
"A primate genus with a high rank in an experiment testing particular mental abilities appears to have high ranks in all of them," said Lee. He also found that the single most important factor in deciding a species' intelligence was simply the size of its brain: "The correlation of brain size with mental ability found in humans appears to extend throughout the primate order." This "remarkable finding" suggests, he said, that all primate brains work in much the same way, however they have evolved, allowing comparisons between species.
Tim, by the way, the "Jews" are the same "Race" as the "Arabs" who I am guessing you "hate".
Hi Folks
This has been a really fascinating discussion.
In started writing my comments and they turned into an essay.
You can read it over on my other blog, salted.net:
http://thesaltedsolution.blogspot.com/
Its a first draft and is probably pretty typo heavy:)
Thanks
Mat
In the interests of carrying this discussion forward, I would say that I hate no one, I just prefer my own people. That is true of everyone throughout history, including Arabs. Why do leftists think that they can and should mold human nature? This is the very essence of totalitarian tyranny.
The Christian basis of our society is absolutly fundamental. Without is we cease to be Britain, we become something totally different and far, far inferior and barbaric.
Christianity, far ahead of any other religion or ideology has been a force for good in the world. Even when it has not succeeded in some people in overcoming the tendency to selfishnes and evil we all have, it could never be reponsible for the hundreds of millions of deaths and whole nations pitched into terror that secularism has been responsible for since the Terror of the French Revoluton right through the atheistic regimes of the Soviet communists,the Nazis and Mao to Pol Pot.
Christianity was responsible for modern science. The specifically Christian idea of a law -giving, rational and benificent God was essential to the view that nature is understandable and predictable and can and should be explored.
From this arose the modern scientific method. This woud have been impossible in the cultures of the east where nature was/is viewed as whole and did not lend itself to analysis in part, or in Islam where God is viewed as unpredictable.
Christian ideas of the dignity of labour were instrumental in the application of theoretical science to hands on technology. In other religions/cultures (such as Confucianism} manual labour was despised by the educated classes.
According to Max Weber, the Protestant work ethic was responsible for the accumulation of capital which provided the funds to underwrite the Insustrial Revolution. This was also assisted by the Christian emphasis on monogamy, which allowed the accumulation of funds instead of having them dissipated on the upkeep of numerous wives and children,as in islam and elsewhere.
Monogamy too helped in the elevation of the status of women.
Christianity has created the modern world and lifted untold millions out of poverty, ignorance and disease.
Christian ideas about the worth of the individual and the Christian separation of church and state (render under Caesar' etc) underlay the developmentof Parliamentary democracy and individual rights, including the rights of women..
Jesus's teachings of the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden rule, are the foundation of our best views on right and wrong, and were the inspiration for a thousand and one ameliorations of social conditions in Britain. They lay behind the ideas of honour in public and the decencies of private life which George Orwell commented on in the Britain of his day.
The Christian version of the Golden Rule (Do unto others, etc,) is more proactive and general than any other. The islamic version, for example, is not general, since it excludes non-believers. It is this proactivity which has produced such things as raising standards in prisons (The quaker Elizabeth Fry), the abolition of the Slave Trade (Wilberforce)Eduation for the poor (Robert Raikes), the Nursing Profession (Florence Nightingale) and the Red Cross.
To destroy the Christian character of Britain is an act of monumental folly and arrogance which will lead to tyranny and a 'culture' of mindless, dead materialism and selfishenss. Major steps in this direction ahve already occurred in Blair's Britain.
Tim:
Hate to break it to you but there are no teachings of Christ, just the teachings of Paul.
The 4 Canonical Gospels as we have them now were written down between the 2nd and 4th century and it is historical fact that they were heavily edited for what were at the time were global political reasons.
For a real test of your faith Tim, go and research into all of this because right now you are standing on the door-step with the Jehova's witnesses and the ID lunatics.
As the possessor of several degrees and University Diplomas , including Theology, and an MA in Philosophy and Religion from London Univ, I think I know what I am talking about.
Further to the above post, may I recommend (for example) the book by that ultra liberal Bishop, John Robinson: 'Redating the New Testament' which is on the bookshelf behind me.
Robinson argues persuasively (and has never been refuted), that the books of the New Testament were all written before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and that John's Gospel was in effect begun at the time of the Resurrection.
Tim:
I don't really care how many degrees you have or where you went to Uni. All i am interested in right now is how you answer the following five multiple choice questions:
---------
1)Translation: Matthew (1:20-23) mistranslates the Hebrew almah, (meaning “young woman”) to the Greek parthenos (meaning a physical virgin). This is an accepted Translation error. Do you accept this error?
Yes/No/Don’t Know
---------
2) Contradiction: Matthew (again) (1:1-16) claims that there are 27 generations between David and Jesus, Luke (3:23-38) claims 41 generations. This is a contradiction. Do you accept this contradiction in the bible?
Yes/No/Don’t Know
---------
3) Inconsistency: Mark (15:22) ”and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.” John (19:14-15) “And about the sixth hour...they...crucify him!" Do you accept this is an inconsistency in the bible?
Yes/No/Don’t Know
---------
4) English Christian Family values: You clearly respect the English Christian family values. Is this the same Christianity Endorses child murder (Exodus 21:15, 17, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21)?
Yes/No/Don’t Know
---------
5) Anti Flat Nosed. Leviticus makes it pretty clear that people with flat noses or are blind or lame should now be allowed to worship God. Do you agree with this Tim?
Yes/No/Don’t Know
---------
I am afraid you are missing the point.
God's revelation is evolutionary.
Calvin is good on this.
In the name of fair dialectic can you please just answer those 5 questions Tim:)
Tim why don't you answer the question?
This chat has made me realize that the blog isn't the best place for such discussion. It has no structure or all of that
So I have added an anonymous forum on midcornwall.com
go to:
www.midcornwall.com/forum/
You don't need to register and no IPs are logged.
Thanks
Mat
I have already answeredt the question about morality when I said that God's revelation (and morality) in the Scriptures is evolutionary, culminating in the teachings of Jesus.
As for the point about whether or not th Scriptures are talking about a virgin or a young woman, there is in fact no way of knowing now what the word meant originally.
There is a naive view that the Scriptures are literally the word of God in the way that the Qur'an is claimed to be: ie dictated by God. This isn't the case, They were written by human beings in faith, by people who knew that Jesus had been resurrected (there were hundreds of witnesses, and much implicit evidence in the Scriptures of the realty of it) They were explanations of who they thought Jesus was in the light of these extraordinary events. John is obviously the result of deep reflection over a long period,involving much Greek philosophy although some parts of it are very early indeed and it was without a doubt either written or dicated by an eyewitnes, the 'beloved disciple.'
The evangelists used sources, not just immediate eyewitness accounts but collections of Jesus's sayings and the parables etc. Some sources are more reliablea than others. for example, the accounts of the last few days of Jesus's life are very well attested (as well attested as just about anything else in ancient history).The accounts of Jesus's birth seen in the light of what people knew of Jesus's adult life, death and resurrection, have elements of myth.
That said, it is amzing how often 'myth' is rooted in truth.
If you are interested, I recommend Craig Blomberg's book 'The Historical Reliabilty of the Gospels.'
Here are some comments I made about this and apparent dicreapncies in the Gospels. (skip it if you want).
Blomberg points out, (139) that it is ‘inconceivable’ that Jesus would have had large crowds thronging him (bearing in mind that, in the circumstances of the time they must have often have taken a great deal of trouble and valuable time to hear him) and have taught only for the short time that even delivering the Sermon on the Mount would have taken. It is much more sensible to view the Synoptic sermons as very much abbreviated accounts of much longer messages than to think that they were built up from ‘small individual bits of free floating tradition.’ Jewish teachers of the first century were not like Oriental gurus, pronouncing one pithy pearl of wisdom at a time. They did utter memorable proverbial sayings (Blomberg quotes Carson’s remark that ‘the pithier the saying the more likely it is to be repeated word-perfect’), (141), but they also spoke, not unlike modern preachers in coherent, organised, discursive form. That Jesus delivered the messages on discipleship (Mt5-7) or on the other major themes is entirely likely.’(26) Blomberg agrees that Matthew may have added or interspersed Jesus’s connected discourses with additional authentic teachings of Jesus on related topics. (140)
Blomberg’s explanation for the seemingly random scattering of the parallels in Luke is that Luke rearranged material from Matthew’s sermons topically. Thus Luke11:1-3, combines the Lord’s prayer, the parable of the friend at midnight, and the command to ‘ask, seek and knock,’ The parable is unique to Luke, whilst the other passages are paralleled in the Sermon. Further, Blomberg goes on: ‘Moreover, for many of the shorter sayings of Jesus, one must never forget the possibility that parallels in multiple contexts in the gospels reflect Jesus’s repetition of the same teaching on different occasions ‘ (p139-140). ’ In other words if one evangelist knew that Jesus said something similar on several different occasions but only had a written account of his words from one of them, he would have felt free (and would have been completely justified in doing so) to follow that wording in his description of any of these occasions. (141).
Blomberg regards the probability of Jesus’s sermons having been summarised and preserved by word of mouth as great in view of the nature of oral tradition in antiquity’. He quotes Riesenfeld of Uppsala’s ‘The Gospel Tradition and its Beginnings, wherein Reisenfeld argues that Jesus probably ensured that his disciples memorized his key teachings, and actions, in conformity with the rigid patterns of memorisation and paraphrase in Rabbinic circles in the centuries immediately following the birth of Christianity. (26) Riesenfeld’s student Birger Gerhardsson developed the idea of that Jesus’s disciples ‘ formed an authoritative circle of leadership which carefully safeguarded the traditions and prevented them …from distortion,’(26) Rainer Riesner, in a doctoral thesis at Tubingen listed six reasons why Jesus’s followers would have carefully preserved accurate information about him without necessarily memorising it word for word, including the widespread evidence in the Gospels of Jesus commanding his disciples to ‘learn’ specific lessons and to transmit what they had learnt to others. (Mark 6:7-13 and parallels, Luke 10:1-17, with more subtle hints in Mark13:28m Luke11:1, Mark9:10 and Acts2:42) (27).
What though of the contradictions among the Gospel accounts? In Blomberg’s analysis these are more apparent than real. For example, Matthew’s rendition of the beatitude ‘blessed are the poor’ (Luke 6:20) with the phrase ‘in spirit’ (Mt 5:3) does not ‘distort a promise originally made to all the materially poor regardless of their spiritual condition. Rather, he has recognised the close equation between poverty and piety in certain first-century circles, and phrased the words of Jesus in away which clarifies that when he blessed the poor he was thinking of those ‘who stand without pretense before God as their only hope.’ (Robert A Gulich ‘The Sermon on the Mount’ Waco Word 1982) p 75 (121) In Matthew, Jesus enjoins us to be ‘perfect’ whilst Luke, uses the word ‘merciful.’ (Mat 5:48; Luke 6:36). But it is possible that the word Jesus could have used, the Aramaic shelim implied both concepts in its original context, and Matthew and Luke each use a different one.
Tim:
Please. Copy this text. And just answer the multiple choice questions.
Ill do me shall I,, then you should be able to follow:
1)Translation: Matthew (1:20-23) mistranslates the Hebrew almah, (meaning “young woman”) to the Greek parthenos (meaning a physical virgin). This is an accepted Translation error. Do you accept this error?
Yes
---------
2) Contradiction: Matthew (again) (1:1-16) claims that there are 27 generations between David and Jesus, Luke (3:23-38) claims 41 generations. This is a contradiction. Do you accept this contradiction in the bible?
Yes
---------
3) Inconsistency: Mark (15:22) ”and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.” John (19:14-15) “And about the sixth hour...they...crucify him!" Do you accept this is an inconsistency in the bible?
Yes
---------
4) English Christian Family values: You clearly respect the English Christian family values. Is this the same Christianity Endorses child murder (Exodus 21:15, 17, Leviticus 20:9, Deuteronomy 21:18-21)?
Yes
---------
5) Anti Flat Nosed. Leviticus makes it pretty clear that people with flat noses or are blind or lame should now be allowed to worship God. Do you agree with this Tim?
No
---------
Hi.
Yes /No answers on the lines you want would say nothing very much at all, and would require me to accede to your pre-existing and incorrect assumptions.
I've answered all your queries very fully indeed.
Tim,
I didn't ask you as part of a query. I want to pin you down into some meaningful semantic blocks so that we can have a structured, rational debate about the matter.
But you have refused to do this now a number of times.
I think we both know why that is, Tim. But you won't admit it. You will battle on endlessly with your Racist and Christian educated diatribe.
It is a sham Tim, a vile facade of self delusion that turns you into a man who would hate another because of the colour of his skin. You sit and rant about your knowledge and you quote super-stars like they publicly endorse you but at the end of the day, Tim, you're just a bitter deluded man who would hate another because of the colour of his skin.
shame on you, loser.
I have stopped the comments to this, I think nearly 90 is enough. if you want to talk more on this issue of Racism I have added a :
Are Racists Right?
Thread over on the new Midcornwall.com anonymous forum:
http://www.midcornwall.com/forum/
Thanks everyone, racist and leftie, and all else for what has been a most interesting debate!
Post a Comment