Multiculturalism - a failed ideal?

FTA69

Point me exactly to where I have banged on about the BNP being "a great bunch of lads".

Eh, you've denied they're a racist party and have bemoaned their "demonisation at the hands of the PC leftist media" etc, it isn't a far leap to believe that someone who denies a racist party is racist may perhaps be that way inclined politically.

Similarly you've continually used race as the bedrock of your argument, namely how a decline in whites in some parts of the UK is a terrible thing.

You aren't fooling anyone.

Bertie Woot

BluntGuy wrote: »

For a start, I never said there wasn't an element of British society who are dissatisfied. Secondly, this:

Is a far cry from expressing this sentiment:

Nonetheless, even if we were to accept that they're along the same line of thinking, the irony of you trying to claim that a majority of British people share that opinion on the basis of the electoral results of a party that couldn't even get a parliamentary majority is quite amusing. You can try and lump the Lib Dems in, but they're not anywhere nearly on the same page on the immigration issue. If anything, going down this route, if you add up the votes for the parties with more liberal views on immigration they outnumber quite comfortably the Con/UKIP/BNP vote.

Cameron is PM and his views and opinions are thus taken as representative of the majority electorate, otherwise he and Clegg wouldn't be in power, and Labour would. And I don't think any Tory or UKIP voter would wish to be lumped in with the BNP, as if you hadn't already noticed, the Tories have been gravitating to the left, and whilst UKIP are a right-wing party, they are not far-right enough to be mentioned in the same breath as the BNP, who are a far-right party.

And how many of the voters were "indigenous English people"?

How would you define "indigenous"?

Okay, I give up on this one.

You could have just as easily supplied a "universally accepted definition of nationality" as was requested, but I shall accept your capitulation.

This is what you asked:

It is a disingenuous request.

You are asking me for a direct quote of someone from the BNP saying "We are a racist party!". You know damn well you are not going to get it. The idea that somehow the absence of such dispels the notion that they are a racist party is seriously misguided, to say the least.

I have linked you an excellent paper, and highlighted the relevant part which has direct quotations from their own manifesto outlining their racist views. Just because they don't tag them as racist, doesn't mean they're not racist.

Is this not racism? Or do they have annex "Btw this is racist" to it?

I don't know why you quoted "racism", but whatever.

The paper I linked is about that very topic, and discusses it succinctly. It discusses how the tone of their rhetoric has shifted by doing a qualitative analysis of their pre and post 1999 manifestos. To quote them:

Since Nick Griffin took over, the party has made an effort to shed its image as an extreme, racist party, to distance itself from its fascist roots, in order to be more electable, following disastrous results in the preceding elections.

Of course, one doesn't have to look very far to see how this party continues to operate:

The facts:

Oh dear.

No-one can deny that the National Front, BNP et al. have had racist origins dating back to the 70's and 80's, and as you have rightly pointed out; "Since Nick Griffin took over, the party has made an effort to shed its image as an extreme, racist party, to distance itself from its fascist roots, in order to be more electable."

What I have been questioning is the assumption that the BNP is still a racist party. Some people evidently think that they are, and despite the BNP clearly describing themselves as "a patriotic, democratic alternative to the old parties that have wrecked our great country", with the racial element of their politics having been virtually erased. Because the BNP has not successfully lost the boot-boy image completely, and because the PC brigade are all too eager to pounce on anyone who even mentions the word "race", the BNP have little to no electoral support in middle England, and indeed many working class people have no desire to be associated with them, even though they have seen their towns and cities transformed by mass immigration and consequent multiculturalization, and aren't too happy about it.

FTA69 wrote: »

Eh, you've denied they're a racist party and have bemoaned their "demonisation at the hands of the PC leftist media" etc, it isn't a far leap to believe that someone who denies a racist party is racist may perhaps be that way inclined politically.

Similarly you've continually used race as the bedrock of your argument, namely how a decline in whites in some parts of the UK is a terrible thing.

You aren't fooling anyone.

You've jumped through all of the hoops set before you, made some premature deductions, and reached a foregone conclusion. I asked someone to provide a link to where the BNP specifically stated "We are a racist party", and I also outlined the fact that London, Luton, Leicester and Slough are now minority indigenous white British cities, and you've decided for yourself that I must therefore be "a racist". I've experienced it numerous times; if you dare question the usefulness of multiculturalism and point out the phenomenon of minority white cities and towns in England, you are automatically branded as "a racist!".

I'll repeat, "racism" refers to a "hierarchy of race", where some races are deemed superior to others. I subscribe to no such ideology, and am therefore not a racist. It is not racist to question immigration policy and/or multiculturalism, and it is not racist to acknowledge the fact that race exists.

oscarBravo

Bertie Woot wrote: »

You could have just as easily supplied a "universally accepted definition of nationality" as was requested...

Is there a universally accepted definition of nationality?

Cody Pomeray

Only a declaratory, aspirational sort (UN) and a legal sort (domestic, EU law). Of course, anyone can look these up in a book, but that's not what is being asked of Bertie Woot, is it, Bertie?

Give us your opinion bert. we're all pals.

Bertie Woot

I'm holding out for that universal definition. There has to be at least one poster who isn't afraid to deliver.

Nodin

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I'm holding out for that universal definition. There has to be at least one poster who isn't afraid to deliver.

It's irrelevant. We're asking your opinion and an explanation of same.

Do you think Ian Wright is english? Likewise Frank Bruno, Lennox Lewis, Jermain Defoe, Samit Patel? Please don't come back with this "accepted definition" nonsense - I'm asking for your opinion and an explanation of same.

Why are you fixated on skin colour? You've mentioned it numerous times.

What is an "ethnic ethos"?

oscarBravo

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I'm holding out for that universal definition. There has to be at least one poster who isn't afraid to deliver.

Is there a universally accepted definition of nationality?

Scofflaw

OK, there's obviously a merry-go-round going on here. This is by Bertie Woot:

Bertie Woot wrote:

Most indigenous English people hate present day England because they have seen undemocratic and unrequested mass immigration erode the traditional culture and ethnic make-up of their country and transform it into "a foreign land" where they no longer feel at home.

And when challenged on the use of "indigenous English people", he responds by asking for a definition of the term he used:

Bertie Woot wrote:

How would you define "indigenous"?

This is frankly unacceptable in the forum. No further posts from Bertie until he defines what he means by the terms he uses - any other posts will be deleted and infracted. Enough's enough.

moderately,
Scofflaw

faustino1

If you look at recent statistical data for a country like Sweden

Some 43,900 asylum seekers arrived in 2012, a nearly 50 percent jump from 2011 and the second highest on record. Nearly half were from Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia and will get at least temporary residency. There was a total of 103,000 new immigrants.

It's interesting these countries are the current focus of military operations by the United States.

While the US is destroying tribalism in these areas with daily bombings, the local population seek asylum in countries such as Sweden which indirectly destroys Swedish culture and identity.

If it were not for pro-immigration policies of countries like Sweden, where would these refugees go? ...just a thought.

source

The main point I'm making is that offensive military actions carried out by the United States create refugees which then leave their own country for European nations like Sweden.

Nodin

faustino1 wrote: »

While the US is destroying tribalism in these areas with daily bombings, the local population seek asylum in countries such as Sweden which indirectly destroys Swedish culture and identity.
.

I wasn't aware that Swedish culture and identity were being destroyed.

faustino1

Nodin wrote: »

I wasn't aware that Swedish culture and identity were being destroyed.

Would you accept the people being forced to flee their own countries and seek refuge in Sweden are having their identity stripped from them?

Do these refugees choose to emigrate or are they forced because of wars in their nations?

It's quite clear to me, it's because of war; Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia.

If given the choice, I'm sure the vast majority would remain in their own country.

Nodin

faustino1 wrote: »

Would you accept the people being forced to flee their own countries and seek refuge in Sweden are having their identity stripped from them?

Do these refugees choose to emigrate or are they forced because of wars in their nations?

It's quite clear to me, it's because of war; Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia.

If given the choice, I'm sure the vast majority would remain in their own country.

Hang on a tic. You made a statement that "the local population seek asylum in countries such as Sweden which indirectly destroys Swedish culture and identity" and now you're talking about the refugees........

faustino1

Nodin wrote: »

Hang on a tic. You made a statement that "the local population seek asylum in countries such as Sweden which indirectly destroys Swedish culture and identity" and now you're talking about the refugees........

Really?

I mentioned refugees in the same post, maybe you should read it again.

Nodin

faustino1 wrote: »

Really?

I mentioned refugees in the same post, maybe you should read it again.

While the US is destroying tribalism in these areas with daily bombings, the
local population seek asylum in countries such as Sweden which indirectly
destroys Swedish culture and identity.

...as, I stated - I wasn't aware that Swedish culture and identity were being destroyed. You've some research to back that up, I trust?

faustino1

Nodin wrote: »

...as, I stated - I wasn't aware that Swedish culture and identity were being destroyed. You've some research to back that up, I trust?

Would you accept the people being forced to flee their own countries and seek refuge in Sweden are having their identity stripped from them?

Do these refugees choose to emigrate or are they forced because of wars in their nations?

It's quite clear to me, it's because of war; Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia.

If given the choice, I'm sure the vast majority would remain in their own country.

Nodin

faustino1 wrote: »

Would you accept the people being forced to flee their own countries and seek refuge in Sweden are having their identity stripped from them?

Do these refugees choose to emigrate or are they forced because of wars in their nations?

It's quite clear to me, it's because of war; Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia.

If given the choice, I'm sure the vast majority would remain in their own country.

For the third time - You stated

While the US is destroying tribalism in these areas with daily bombings, the local population seek asylum in countries such as Sweden which indirectly destroys Swedish culture and identity.

I wasn't aware that Swedish culture and identity were being destroyed. You've some research to back that up, I trust?

faustino1

I can back it up if you answer my question, Nodin.

Nodin

faustino1 wrote: »

I can back it up if you answer my question, Nodin.

I have no idea whether or not these peoples identities are being "stripped from them". Being a minority will affect them over time.

Now....

faustino1

Nodin wrote:

I have no idea whether or not these peoples identities are being "stripped from them". Being a minority will affect them over time.

Now....

So you don't believe wars in their country of origin are responsible for their emigration?

Where would these refugees go if not for pro-immigration policies of Sweden?

Refugee camps in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia would look considerably bad for the countries bombing them, wouldn't it?

So what's the solution? Send them to European nations which are completely ill equipped to deal with them?

The recent riots in Sweden were the result of Police shooting an Iraqi refugee waving a machete...and do you want to talk about the British soldier in London being beheaded?

I use the word, "refugee" because that's precisely what the Iraqi man in Sweden was. A refugee fleeing a country fenced in by western countries bombing and shooting them on a daily basis, stirring up sectarian conflicts.

Iraq was bombed back into the stone age by the NATO alliance and many people fled the country in fear, mostly into European nations which were not equipped to deal with this

The same is true for Syrians, Afghans and Somalians which incidentally make up the majority of asylum seekers in Sweden. Of course, there's no correlation here, is there?

From your perspective, emigration from Islamic countries is not a symptom of western countries bombing and shooting at them everyday, it's because they want to enjoy "Freedom" and "Democracy" ...eat McDonalds and Burger King...yet we see high unemployment, crime and a disarray amongst those people in their new "home" despite all the opportunities available to them.

This is not an attack on Muslims, it's a simple fact, NOT ALL Muslims want to live in European nations but they're forced to flee their own countries because of wars led by the west upon them and it seems you support it.

purplepanda

To me Bertie Woot is Unionist and Irish, and his political views are of course British, it's doubtful that ALL his ancestry has arrived from Britain in the last 400 years & more than probable that he has some ancestors from the Irish population previous to the plantation periods. He would still be called Irish by most English people in London!!!

And of course Ulster historically & culturally a distinct mixture of Irish & British over recent centuries, compared to some other parts of Ireland which has an older Anglo - Norman & Irish mixture.

Other parts of Ireland have large historical populations from Britain just as Ulster does, try Wexford and south eastern adjacent regions.

I think people are getting confused with nationality and family background and ancestry.

To be English you have to have some historical lineage & background in the country. This is the view of the English relatives in my family. And the stated opinion of the many English people I know.

Those English of Irish, Welsh or Scottish backgrounds, are considered to be connected with the English due to common history and connected lineage between these nations.

If you are born in England without any relevant ancestry from these islands, you are a British subject living in England.

I have many Black friends in London, whilst they feel a connection with England they will always describe themselves as 'Black British" not English.

Those born in the West Indies often call themselves "British" usually used in a wider context because they see Britain as the mother country from days of the Empire.

One lad I know Jamaican Father, mother Welsh / English, brought up by grandparents calls himself "Anglo Caribbean" & follows the England Cricket team around the world with the Barmy Army. He also supports independence for England!

The English are turning to UKIP because they traditionally see the BNP / NF as a racist party who would deport people of English background because they are not 100% white. English people don't like extremist's of any kind.

UKIP allows them to express their views & concerns as regards the EU & continuing mass immigration. They are picking up votes from former Labour & Tories.

With mass unemployment, the cost to the health service & strain on national infrastructure many people of all backgrounds are asking how can the country cope, with the continued high levels of arrivals.

Some extreme left wingers want a totally open door policy regards immigration & will label any opposition to their beliefs as "racist" hoping to silence any real debate. The political classes & media in Britain have promoted this attitude but the public are not listening any longer.

Nodin

faustino1 wrote: »

The recent riots in Sweden were the result of Police shooting an Iraqi refugee waving a machete..............

No, they weren't.

On Tuesday, the Finnish Swedish-language newspaper Hufvudstadsbladet (HBL) reported that the victim, reportedly a Portuguese man married to a Finnish woman, may have been wielding a puukko knife, a traditional hunting knife, and not a machete.

http://www.thelocal.se/48264/20130601/

The trigger for the riots – police shooting dead a 69-year-old Portuguese man called Lenine Relvas-Martins...............

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/25/sweden-europe-news

Now - back to this -

Faustino wrote:

While the US is destroying tribalism in these areas with daily bombings, the
local population seek asylum in countries such as Sweden which indirectly
destroys Swedish culture and identity.

I wasn't aware that Swedish culture and identity were being destroyed. You've some research to back that up, I trust?

faustino1

Nodin wrote: »

No, they weren't.


http://www.thelocal.se/48264/20130601/

What were they about then?

wasn't aware that Swedish culture and identity were being destroyed. You've some research to back that up, I trust?

How about we talk about the destruction of the countries these immigrants come from?

Of course you don't want to talk about that, because it would expose your ignorance of the issue.

I already stated in previous posts that most of the refugees arriving in Sweden are from nations being bombed by western nations.

Do you want to address the correlation or continue with your own little agenda?

Nodin

faustino1 wrote: »

What were they about then?

Read the quotes from articles I linked.

faustino1 wrote: »

How about we talk about the destruction of the countries these immigrants come from

We'll deal with the first issue first.

You stated back here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84892866&postcount=100

While the US is destroying tribalism in these areas with daily bombings, the local population seek asylum in countries such as Sweden which indirectly destroys Swedish culture and identity.

Where is the evidence that Swedish culture and identity is being destroyed?

faustino1

Nodin wrote:

Where is the evidence that Swedish culture and identity is being destroyed?

Do you think it's acceptable for Sweden to have the highest percentage of rape in Europe due to pro-immigration policies?

Scofflaw

faustino1 wrote: »

What were they about then?




How about we talk about the destruction of the countries these immigrants come from?

Of course you don't want to talk about that, because it would expose your ignorance of the issue.

I already stated in previous posts that most of the refugees arriving in Sweden are from nations being bombed by western nations.

Do you want to address the correlation or continue with your own little agenda?

faustino1 wrote:

Where is the evidence that Swedish culture and identity is being destroyed?

Do you think it's acceptable for Sweden to have the highest percentage of rape in Europe due to pro-immigration policies?

Well, now, we seem to have arrived at almost exactly the same sort of merry-go-round as before, and in almost exactly the same way. Funny that. Can't tell which of the two recently banned merry-go-round specialists this is, don't care. P/B.

moderately,
Scofflaw

JustinDee

faustino1 wrote: »

I can back it up if you answer my question, Nodin.

No you cannot.
Swedish culture is not being "destroyed". Aside from English Premier League being bigger in Sweden than the domestic league and Seinfeld, Big Bang Theory being most popular TV programmes, where is Swedish culture being "destroyed"?