I think we've strayed well away from the point. A Nazi sympathiser got the hump because and only because Hitler advocated State over Religion.
Do you think all the Germans that voted for Hitler were aligned completely with the extreme ideas the Nazi's implemented? I think that poem suggests more than "got the hump" personally, it highlights how he and others were misled culminating in the dangers of extreme nationalism.
It could equally be used to suggest that all forms of Britishness could disappear because no-one stood up for it, indeed it could be used to promote the BNP rather than demote them.
What is Britishness, and what about it could disapear?
Those are ALL very much YOUR words and certainly not mine. Where have I suggested anything like that?
I'm just producing questions from what you have posted. If you read your previous posts you can see why I inferred that.
Islam is a complete system of life and government. It does not have to be Jihadist at all. Indeed where a political process allows it to assume control it has no need for Jihad.
So you assume that Muslims are brain washed into taking over countries, if not through political process they use Jihad? No that is not what you said, but is clearly what you are inferring.
Islam is an ideology and one of the leading tenants of Islam is to spread Islam.
Which tenant is that exactly? I think you will struggle to find it.
Why would an Islamic MP not try to spread islam?
Because his job is to be a politician not an Imam?
However it is worth pointing out, again, that it is YOU who keep referring to Islam, not me. I only mention it when answering specific points of yours.
Furthermore suggesting I am paranoid and inventing things that you claim that I have said is exceptionally poor quality debate or discussion.
I strongly suggest you back up your assertions with some quotes of mine or withdraw your ridiculous assumptions.
What religion do you see as a threat to our cultural way of life then that immigration is bringing? Our Muslim population is on the increase like no other religion.
No I have not. I have been very careful to avoid bringing any specific religion into the debate. Each and every mention of Islam is in direct reply to your mentions of Islam. The first mention of Islam in our discourse was yours. Please try to debate with facts not lies.
I mentioned the BNP's distaste of Islam which was the first mention, it has spiralled from there. Islam itself is a key issue because of it's increase and the BNP's insistence that it is a threat to us. Which other religion can be interpreted as a threat going by number increase?
Any religion (I see that once again you are mentioning islam) can via the political process gain power. You do understand that concept right? Once in power any political party can make changes to the law, or attempt to. If a hardline religious party is democratically elected then what right does anyone have to oppose them?
Tony Blair was a Christian, I didn't see him try and convert the public and enact laws that we should all be in Church on a Sunday. Just because a Politician has a faith doesn't mean it will affect his job.
Are you incapable of debating without bringing Islam into it? Is it a required aspect for your brand of emotive debate?
Islam is a key issue. Don't get me started on emotive debates since the BNP's entire arsenal is based on that line of attack.
We have a democratic system that makes it entirely possible. Why wouldn't it be "compatible"?
When the House of Lords is full of Muslims maybe I will take your point.
Again you miss the point. The point there is about the difference between someone expressing their opinion (which doesn't always have to be correct) and someone interpreting that opinion as incitement to religious hatred......
It is awfully difficult to discuss issues with someone who struggles to comprehend simple concepts.
I understand the concept, when does an emotively loaded opinion turn into incitement might be a better way of saying it. It's a tricky one, my take is that when that opinion can lead less perspicacious people into believing that opinion is true and the opinion can demonstrably be proven false in a court of law.
How's that.
Because Christianity and Islam have NEVER tried to take over the world right?
Do you take the aggressive American foreign policy under George Bush Jnr as Christianity trying to take over the world? If not, then all previous wars lead by fanatics that use their faith to justify their wars were not doing it in the name of religion, merely wielding the religion as a uniting power to form armies.
Firstly it would not take 50% of the population, when was the last time a ruling party had 50% of the vote? It could take a far, far smaller % of the vote for any party to win the general election.
My point was that at 50% they would be unstoppable, even if they got 30% today all other parties would form an alliance and defeat them. Why you needed to nitpick that point I don't know.
Secondly what do you mean by educated and cultured muslims? Are you suggesting that non UK muslims lack education and culture? Educated and cultured people In Germany did not directly vote for the mass murder of 6 million jews but they did get it.
So you complain about me inferring things in what you post and then you follow it up with that golden nugget, 10/10 for hypocrisy. Now you realise that the Germans that voted in the Nazi's didn't share their ideas, why attack the poem I posted because the author voted for the Nazi's?
Politics are rarely so black and white as getting what you actually voted for.
How black and white are repatriation initiatives and wanting to close borders, it doesn't get much clearer.
Assuming that the majority of honour killings are muslim rather than say hindhu?
It's not much of assumption since it is only highly prevalent in countries with Islam as it's leading religion, as were the poor souls victims of it in this country.
Assuming that having sharia courts in some way stops the practice in islamic countries? Which it doesn't?
The women don't enjoy the equality in Islamic countries like they do here, neither do they have police protection and as many charities to help women escape. That's not to suggest it will end here, but heads of Islamic communities will be invested in courts; if something happens in their community they will be the first port of call.
You claimed that our liberal culture would make radical elements more liberal. However I've given you an example of the exact opposite. It has nothing to do with the IRA whatsoever. Your point was that our liberal nature would make people coming here more liberal.
Radical elements will always be there, we need community leaders to stamp it out. Do you think a Muslim growing up in Afghanistan in similar family surroundings to a Muslim being exposed to UK culture will be as liberal?
Of course I do. What they aren't inspired by is forced mass immigration to thier country and being told that they must adopt different values. In Iran the people are getting to choose what they want to adopt, not being told what to adopt.
Who is telling us what to adopt? Multiculturalism doesn't mean immigrants forcing their culture onto you.
It is not in the nature of any culture to just live alongside another culture. It is not human nature.
I live alongside other cultures fine personally, some of my neighbours are Muslim; I've never had any trouble. In all the places I've lived the older members of the Muslim community generally stick together, but the British Muslims who have grown up here integrate pretty well as far as I'm concerned.
Very true. The dogmatic forcing of "you are now a multicultural society, you will learn to like other cultures, you will learn to like it or we will scream racist at you"...... Many people see this uncontrolled immigration and the sheer size of it as having something forced upon them. And for them it is a problem....
No-one says you have to like the other culture, merely that you shouldn't hate it just because it is different to you. I've lived in communities with very high amounts of immigrants, it's never been a problem for me.
Why? Is it not also important to realise that different cultures don't mix well and that established populations don't always like to have immigration forced upon them with no say in the matter?
In your opinion they don't mix well, as for first generation immigrants I would tend to agree that the integration process is very hard. However the 2nd generation British born and bred integrate on the whole just fine.
More pure blood? Again your words not mine. I think the UK has probably had a lesser mixing of people than central Europe simply due to the way that it is easier to walk on land than water.
I'm just saying what you are inferring, if we have less mixing of genes then we are "purer". I think you'll find we've had these things called "boats" for some time now. Which in fact make it easier in certain respects to travel to other countries, especially when the country in question used to own most of the World and have huge amounts of importation of goods. Guess what, over the sea!
Did the lesser extent of our mixing stop us being the dominant country in the world for a significant period of time? Am I more prone or less prone to certain ailments as a result of my ancestry? You'd really have to expand upn your statement and explain what you mean by "stronger".
If you go by the Nazi idea of Aryan superiority then you can see what I meant by stronger. If you believe in that notion and your idea we dominated the world because we were less mixed genetically you can see where I was going.
They appear to have a far lower crime rate and are competing very well economically. Yet they have very low levels of immigration. Can you really think of nothing positive in Japan? They have held on strongly to their population and cultural norms and yet do not appear to be worse off for it. If multiculturalism is so good then why doesn't Japan appear negatively affected by the lack of it?
They are also one of the most racist nations in the world according to the UN.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4671687.stm. Is it really that unsurprisingly they have low levels of immigration because of their citizenship policy which I mentioned earlier?
The british were not ethnically diverse. They simply ruled other people. Do you think any of those Indian troops in Victorian times got to vote or have any say in the UK or even the future of their own country?
Native Britons are very diverse, look at the differential of hair and eye colour for starters. Now look at Japan, another island nation but one that has never had much migration; oh look they almost all have the same hair and eye colour. Doesn't matter if they had a say, they were part of the British Empire and had their people dispersed among the colonies.
And that still doesn't mean that mixing genes always results in a stronger variant does it......
Where did I say it always resulted in a stronger variant? However a wider gene pool is associated with robust populations that can survive bouts of intense selection. Please research gene pool to see the benefits of greater genetic variation.
Perhaps you can show me where I suggested that it would "cause a dramatic increase"? If you need to resort ot inventing things to try and make a point it can only be because your own point is weak. You claimed mixing genes is GOOD. Period. I gave you an example of when it would not be good. That was all. Yet you invent a ream of BS to try and ratify your nonsense.
You didn't use that phrase you said this:
Perhaps sickle cell anemia is something the British people need in their genes as a GOOD thing?
Suggesting that their would be a detrimental increase of sickle anaemia. Or is just a couple of instances per thousand enough to stop black and white people breeding?
Or more likely it could spread to non whites. Genetic mutations do not usually seem to be bred out, rather the reverse.
If the mutations are passed on with recessive genes (which sickle cell is), then the instance of the mutation will disappear over time as it is bred out.
Stronger how? Stronger in what way? Which European nations are not "mongrels". Infact barring Australia and the deep Amazon which nations are not "mongrels"? Which of these cultures desperately wants to become assimilated and to disappear? I'm struggling to think of any immigrant population that is keen to forget its roots and genetically breed itself out. Perhaps you can point one out?
Most nations on Earth are mongrels unless they live in somewhere very remote and/or have successfully defended themselves from invasion for thousands of years. You have arguably Japan, Aborigines (before the white man starting ripping their children from them) and Amazonian tribes are pretty much it for pure races. If you study post Samurai Japan you will see how the Emperor westernised the entire country.
If you discount religion, you will find most people in developed nations live very similar lives. We are a global culture, for good or bad it has happened. As the speed of information and communication increases we will only see this trend continue.
