UkipHM, you seem to think it desirable, that non-Caucasians come to dominate us here. A significant part of the "immigration enthusiasts" agenda is to allow ethnic groups to become a majority and thus to allow them to take over. UkipHM, what do you envisage happening when that comnes to pass? Will they make a better world, treat us fairly or repay us for the sins of previous ruling lites?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Ken:
UkipHM, you seem to think it desirable, that non-Caucasians come to dominate us here. A significant part of the "immigration enthusiasts" agenda is to allow ethnic groups to become a majority and thus to allow them to take over. UkipHM, what do you envisage happening when that comnes to pass? Will they make a better world, treat us fairly or repay us for the sins of previous ruling lites?

I don't think it desirable that any racial group comes to dominate any other racial group. For they are all equal. If any racial group was inequally treated, I would be opposed to it. Any sin repaying would violate this so I would naturally be against it.

I am not an "immigration enthusiast". I think I have said that 3 times already this thread :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by UkipHM:
Ethnic cleansing is "the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another". So it's not happening here - don't be silly. I am not a racist; I am actually an anti-racist.

So-called 'anti-racism' assumes an anti-white paradigm, as I have demonstrated. It has not gone unnoticed that you have not responded point by point. You wheel out an extreme definition of ethnic cleansing, yet you had no qualms against accusing the BNP of wishing ethnic cleansing for their policy of voluntary repatriation. This is another indication of the schizophrenic mind-set you have imbibed without even know it.

Originally Posted by :
National self-determination is not the same as racial discrimination.

Then why didn't you condemn Israel as a 'racist' state? National self-determination means that each ethnic nation has a piece of land where their interests are put first. Most countries are sensible enough not grant citizenship willy-nilly to foreigners. When people live in the ethnic domain of another people, they do so as guests. Just because they were illegally given 'citizenship' without the consent of the people doesn't mean a thing. If I were to live among other people, I would respect the fact that it was their country.

Originally Posted by :
I never justified the "eastern European invasion". I was just pointing out the fault in your post. "When I say 'whites' obviously it is short for 'white indigenous britons'". Well sorry! When you write something, people tend to interpret it as what it actually means!

Actually most people use context as a guide. Perhaps you should take some linguistic classes along with your Latin, and realize how language works in the real world.

Originally Posted by :
Where is your proof that there is an organised plot by racial minorities to deliberately outnumber whites?

It's not organized. It's part of the tribal nature of man. Have you never heard minorities boast about how they will take over in the future? No, of course not, because you don't live in the real world.

Originally Posted by :
As I have said, opposing immigration is fine but opposing all racial minorities from equal treatment to whites and Jews in this country is monstrous and unfair.

Putting white people first in the country built up by their forefathers if right. Giving a free ticket to those who have come in recent years primarily to gain economically, is wrong. Our (or at least my) English forefathers worked to build a country for their children, not anyone elses, and they have no more right to reap the benefits of generations than I do to go to Africa or any where else and be treated the same as someone with roots and history in the land. What you also fail to appreciate is that demographically, whites (that means white indigenous Britons by the way) will be a minority. The idea of treating minorities as well, or better, than the majority, is an exclusively white (and suicidal) idea, as we will learn when we are a minority. That is why Jews set up Israel, just for themselves (but they aren't stupid white goyim, so they don't count as racist, right?).

Originally Posted by :
From your posting above, I take it that the BNP would indeed only allow white British-descended Lords, MPs and councillors. I am absolutely disgusted.

What I said is that that is the Constitution of the United Kingdom. I don't know what the BNP would do, though I hope they would uphold the Constitution of the land, as is expected. Therefore there aren't any legal non-indigenous Lords. I am not surprised that you despise it.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by UkipHM:
I don't think it desirable that any racial group comes to dominate any other racial group. For they are all equal. If any racial group was inequally treated, I would be opposed to it. Any sin repaying would violate this so I would naturally be against it.

That is why the world is divided into nations, wherein people can live with others of common heritage, culture, language, traditions, loyalties, and descent, while not in a position to impose their ways upon the rest of the world. That's why I'm a nationalist. Your advocating of civil strife and ethnic war, which is where we are heading, is because you have ignored the way God made the world.

Also you haven't answered his question.
[Rep]

The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised) isn't generally known for giving "extreme" definitions.

I do not have an intricate knowledge of the racial policies of either Israel or Japan. Sorry if that dissapoints you.

If you use ambiguous language, people will misquote you, esp. journalists and that's not, I'm sure, what the BNP and their supporters want. I'm sure there are plenty of hungry reporters out there looking for one stray word from Griffin and his advisers.

I have not advocated "civil strife and ethnic war" anywhere, ever. Please don't tell open lies.

Where have you "heard minorities boast about how they will take over in the future"? On one of the BNP war-propaganda films? I call it far-flung conspiracy theories and threat-mongering.

If millions of Muslims and Arabs (goyim themselves, I believe) live in Israel, why are you telling me that Israel's administrators are so successful at this 'Jews only' thing? And why would they keep control of Arab-majority areas if indeed they were in it for just themselves?

White and black and mixed-race and Asian and anything else who have been born and raised in Britain are all equal in my eyes.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by UkipHM:
The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised) isn't generally known for giving "extreme" definitions.

If you knew the definition, why did you accuse the BNP of supporting ethnic cleansing, when it has a voluntary policy of repatriation?

Originally Posted by :
I do not have an intricate knowledge of the racial policies of either Israel or Japan. Sorry if that dissapoints you.

What, you didn't know that only Jews are allowed to immigrate? Is this the same person who put up a link so that we could all learn all about Israel? I actually support their policy, and you cannot pretend that you don't know what it is. I'm not expecting you to know their annual water use - are you seriously implying you weren't aware of their Jews-only policy?

Originally Posted by :
If you use ambiguous language, people will misquote you, esp. journalists and that's not, I'm sure, what the BNP and their supporters want. I'm sure there are plenty of hungry reporters out there looking for one stray word from Griffin and his advisers.

Who cares about Griffin? The man scores more own goals against the BNP and does more damage than Searchlight ever could, with his support of Collett and Lee Barnes.

Originally Posted by :
I have not advocated "civil strife and ethnic war" anywhere, ever. Please don't tell open lies.

Actually you have, because you have advocated the continuance of the status-quo which will inevitably - whether immigration is stopped or not - result in civil war.

Originally Posted by :
Where have you "heard minorities boast about how they will take over in the future"? On one of the BNP war-propaganda films? I call it far-flung conspiracy theories and threat-mongering.

Real people in real life. Ok, I'll confess they tended to be Muslims from the Indian sub-continent, though I have heard blacks say 'why did you let in the Pakistanis', and Indians say 'why did you let in the blacks'.

Originally Posted by :
If millions of Muslims and Arabs (goyim themselves, I believe) live in Israel, why are you telling me that Israel's administrators are so successful at this 'Jews only' thing? And why would they keep control of Arab-majority areas if indeed they were in it for just themselves?

They inherited the Palestinian populations, and in fact had the ghastly policy of not allowing Palestinian refugees to return to their homes after their war for statehood. However because of Muslim demographics, they still face becoming a minority in a Muslim-dominated state, despite letting go of Gaza and not letting the refugees and their descendants back. In short, the face the same future we do, unless urgent action is taken.

Originally Posted by :

White and black and mixed-race and Asian and anything else who have been born and raised in Britain are all equal in my eyes.

Yes, whites are the only people who have adopted this strange view that denies human nature for naive universal principles that will lead to his own destruction if not abandoned very soon. But either way, you will lose. Either you will wake up one day as a despised and hated minority, treated like ****, in a Muslim or white-minority Britain, or we will wake up and put things right - either way the likes of you will be history - very soon.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by For_England:
Everyone will have their own countries where they will be put first. Answer this for a change, wise guy - are the Kurds racist for wanting their own country? What about the Israelis - I'm waiting for an answer to these two questions.

Thats why the Turkish army is fast to crush any form of separatist movement, with the help of U.S of course, and palestinians didn't really give in to Israel. But Tibetan separatists want their independence, Khalistan movement in North east India wants it, Kosovo albanians did it. IRA always wanted it. Now some Scots want it as well. Eurasia isn't divided nicely into distinguishable nations or ethnics with boundaries. history was meant to be amibigous and messy that the simplicity of identity politics cannot account for. This kind of "logic" dictates that the world is heading for division and unstability due to nonsensical abuse of identity politics.

But it is important to sort Israel Palestinian conflict out of the mess above for there is a technical difference. Israel is not a secular state; in fact it is quite clear that the establishment of Israel is meant for a Jewish homeland and thats why they give preference to Jews than non-Jews. This issue of discrimination and alleged apartheid against palestinian has always been covered in the UN by critics of zionism. On the other hand Islam itself disfavours anf form of nationalism and places a greater emphasize on close family ties. Most importantly religion itself is internationalistic and expanisonist rather than nationalistic. Hence this case does not, somehow qualify what we call a nationalistic or ethnic conflict.
[Rep]

It doesn't follow that because different ethnic and religious groups can't get along on their borders, that they should all live among each other and make the situation worse.
Israel is a secular state, and a Jewish homeland, with the definition of Jew being a largely ethnic one, not a religious one. However their conflict with the Palestinians, as much as I sympathise with both sides, is their problem.
[Rep]

For England, your arguments are very wellsaid! UKIPhm, if liberal-left (I use that term liberal even though most of these people are definitely not liberal when it comes to tolerating different political opinions!) people are consistent in their arguments against the BNP and others then they would denounce Japan as a 'Nazi' or 'fascist' country on account of the Japanese government's decidely 'hard right' immigration policies. I suspect they don't do so because Japs are East Asians and only whites can be 'racist' in their eyes.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by For_England:
If you knew the definition, why did you accuse the BNP of supporting ethnic cleansing, when it has a voluntary policy of repatriation?

Voluntary eh? What happens when non-whites tell the BNP Brown Shirts "F*** off I'm British"?

Originally Posted by For_England:
Actually you have, because you have advocated the continuance of the status-quo which will inevitably - whether immigration is stopped or not - result in civil war.

Please tell me, will a BNP government be telling the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa etc to send all white people back to Europe? If we're going to allow Britons to move abroad then it's only fair to let people move here, no?

Originally Posted by For_England:
Yes, whites are the only people who have adopted this strange view that denies human nature for naive universal principles that will lead to his own destruction if not abandoned very soon. But either way, you will lose. Either you will wake up one day as a despised and hated minority, treated like ****, in a Muslim or white-minority Britain, or we will wake up and put things right - either way the likes of you will be history - very soon.

Heil Griffin, or something. Outside of London and some (and I say some, because by no means does it affect all of the cities) of the cities whites make up well over 90% of the population. Are we in any immediate danger of becoming a 'minority' - no. In fact, I'd argue this doesn't matter.

What's important to me is what a person believes - either you believe in freedom, separation of powers, democracy, the rule of law and a secular state etc or you don't. A persons skin colour doesn't even factor in to it.
[Rep]