White Britons: Minority Status

UK-AL05 · 22 Oct 2011 at 00:38

You can really tell when some thing really winds people up for irrational reasons. When they think there are secret foreign leaders, trying to increase immigration on purpose, who it is illegal to name.

Stag · 22 Oct 2011 at 00:38

Damn that Adam Weishaupt.

d_brennen · 22 Oct 2011 at 00:40

UK-AL05 said:
I highly doubt there are laws against naming leaders, countries or companies.

Stag said:
The Rothschilds?

asim18 said:
The Illuminati?

It's the Osbourns

There. The feline is well and truly bag

Guile · 22 Oct 2011 at 00:50

You realise Lib/Lab/Con won't give you a referendum on Europe? Who runs the EU that dictates to national governments?

Who runs the IMF/World Bank/ UN? Who wants to crush European self-determination?

I won't say directly on here but you should know where the power really lies.

Stag · 22 Oct 2011 at 00:53

We discuss this stuff all the time on that forum BTW.

Guile said:
You realise Lib/Lab/Con won't give you a referendum on Europe?

Yup.

Who runs the EU that dictates to national governments?

The European Commission.

Who runs the IMF/World Bank/ UN?

Washington, mostly.

Who wants to crush European self-determination?

Banksters?

I won't say directly on here but you should know where the power really lies.

Why not?

[FnG]magnolia · 22 Oct 2011 at 00:56

^ Yeah, that site will get your comment edited by a mod normally.

Angilion · 22 Oct 2011 at 01:01

Stag said:
Shout strawman at me, but would you be happy with a Britain that was only say 40% white?

I said I don't care. I meant that I don't care. I do not care. I can't put it any simpler than that.

I wrote this:

I don't care what proportion of the population isn't "white", as long as everyone here is British/English/Irish/Welsh/Scottish or visiting.

I wrote "I don't care" because I don't care. 100%, 80%, 40%, 4%...I don't care.

I wouldn't. Not because I dislike other races, but because I like my own.

I reject the entire concept of race. It's not real. That's why I wrote "white" instead of white.

Besides, it's not the same as immigration. What if, for some reason, somehow, a population of tens of millions of "white" French people built up in Britain and they took control of it and renamed it as a new province of France? Would that be OK with you because they were all "white"?

Or what if Angle and Saxon immigrants took control of most of Britain and renamed it to Englaland (the land of the Angles, soon shortened to England)? Hmm...sounds familiar.

This is what matters to me:

Different levels of suntan are irrelevant to anything other than cosmetics and body art. It's the attitude that matters - countries can be conquered by foreigners coming in and remaining foreigners, if there's enough of them either immediately or after some generations.

Why care about how much suntan people have?

I have no issue with immigration in moderation, I welcome people who will contribute to this country whatever their racial make up, but I believe there is a limit to acceptability. Identifying the limit is tricky and I think it is easy to shout racist at someone who raises the issue but our cities are in danger of losing their British identity.

Which, as I explain above, has nothing to do with "race" or skin colour.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I was a racialist (look the term up, I know it sounds Ali G-esque, but it isn't), but I believe that it would be wrong to let whites become a minority in our ancestral lands.

I can claim British ancestry back a long way because all of my ancestors that I know about are Welsh. So...should I think it's wrong to allow the English to live on this island, being as their ancestral lands are elsewhere? I'm English. Should I think it's wrong to allow me to live here?

For those that think Whites becoming a minority ridiculous, I urge them to look at the demographics of inner London. They show that only 19% of school children are white British, for me, that is too few.

I don't believe in forced repatriation or anything like that, but I believe we should look at our immigration policy very closely.

So do I, but not on the basis of how much suntan people have.

How far do you go? If someone you class as "white" gets a really heavy suntan, would you consider that an issue until they lose it?

[FnG]magnolia · 22 Oct 2011 at 01:02

Just saying, it normally happens whenever that site is mentioned. It's kind of a ****hole so I don't disagree actually.

Tefal · 22 Oct 2011 at 01:03

Guile said:
I won't say directly on here but you should know where the power really lies.

what law specificity is stopping you?

d_brennen · 22 Oct 2011 at 01:11

Tefal said:
what law specificity is stopping you?

Because the sauce is the voices in his head

Angilion · 22 Oct 2011 at 01:13

cheets64 said:
Really, so why are people in Africa Black, people in Northern Europe White, people in Southern Europe Olive, et cetera

Explain this madness.

Evolutionary adaptation to local weather conditions.

Melanin partially blocks ultraviolet. There is an optimal level of UV penetration through skin for humans, in order to make enough vitamin D without too great a risk of serious damage. The optimal level of melanin in the skin therefore varies depending on how much UV a person is exposed to, which depends on where they live (unless they're exposed to an artificial source, which is too recent to be relevant).

Purely as an irrelevant side-effect, the same properties that allow melanin to absorb UV also allow it to absorb visible light, so it's black. It therefore dyes skin and hair - the more you have, the darker they will be.

Regarding the migration comment you were replying to, the available evidence indicates that homo sapiens started in eastern Africa, probably around what's now the border between Kenya and Ethiopia. If that's true (and the evidence that it is true is very strong), then Homo sapiens everywhere else must have migrated there.

UncleRuckus · 22 Oct 2011 at 01:18

Angilion said:
Evolutionary adaptation to local weather conditions.

Melanin partially blocks ultraviolet. There is an optimal level of UV penetration through skin for humans, in order to make enough vitamin D without too great a risk of serious damage. The optimal level of melanin in the skin therefore varies depending on how much UV a person is exposed to, which depends on where they live (unless they're exposed to an artificial source, which is too recent to be relevant).

Purely as an irrelevant side-effect, the same properties that allow melanin to absorb UV also allow it to absorb visible light, so it's black. It therefore dyes skin and hair - the more you have, the darker they will be.

Regarding the migration comment you were replying to, the available evidence indicates that homo sapiens started in eastern Africa, probably around what's now the border between Kenya and Ethiopia. If that's true (and the evidence that it is true is very strong), then Homo sapiens everywhere else must have migrated there.

There's a lot more to race than skin colour you know that, right?

Stag · 22 Oct 2011 at 01:18

Angilion said:
I said I don't care. I meant that I don't care. I do not care. I can't put it any simpler than that.

I wrote this:

I wrote "I don't care" because I don't care. 100%, 80%, 40%, 4%...I don't care.

Good for you, do you think because some people do care it makes them racist?

I reject the entire concept of race. It's not real. That's why I wrote "white" instead of white.

I don't accept simple definitions, and I don't expect populations to be sedentary but I believe people have the right to identify with their ancestral lands.

Besides, it's not the same as immigration. What if, for some reason, somehow, a population of tens of millions of "white" French people built up in Britain and they took control of it and renamed it as a new province of France?

No it wouldn't, because they'd be displacing Britons.

Would that be OK with you because they were all "white"?

It would be preferable to the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous inhabitants as at least they'd share a similar genotype/phenotype.

Or what if Angle and Saxon immigrants took control of most of Britain and renamed it to Englaland (the land of the Angles, soon shortened to England)? Hmm...sounds familiar.

Would I accept cultural domination from an invasion? No.

This is what matters to me:

Why care about how much suntan people have?

Which, as I explain above, has nothing to do with "race" or skin colour.

I can claim British ancestry back a long way because all of my ancestors that I know about are Welsh. So...should I think it's wrong to allow the English to live on this island, being as their ancestral lands are elsewhere? I'm English. Should I think it's wrong to allow me to live here?

So do I, but not on the basis of how much suntan people have.

How far do you go? If someone you class as "white" gets a really heavy suntan, would you consider that an issue until they lose it?

I believe people should be able to migrate, but I also believe in the rights of indigenous people, something the UN agrees with.

SkScotchegg · 22 Oct 2011 at 01:24

chaosdestro0 said:
Trying to predict the future without providing numbers: ✔
Racist posts for no apparent reason: ✔
Being a fool on the internet: ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔

How did you do these ticks? lol

Stag · 22 Oct 2011 at 01:24

[FnG]magnolia;20368656 said:
Just saying, it normally happens whenever that site is mentioned. It's kind of a ****hole so I don't disagree actually.

In what way? We allow free speech which means we get some idiotic content, but if that is the price for freedom I'm all for idiocy.

d_brennen · 22 Oct 2011 at 01:26

UncleRuckus said:
There's a lot more to race than skin colour you know that, right?

Not really. We are built of the same stuff, in different quantities. Are you trying to refer to class or culture?

UncleRuckus · 22 Oct 2011 at 01:30

d_brennen said:
Not really. We are built of the same stuff, in different quantities.

So there are differences in races then, glad we agree.

d_brennen · 22 Oct 2011 at 01:33

UncleRuckus said:
So there are differences in races then, glad we agree.

Yes there is. There is also a difference between race and culture, you did not quote that bit

Europeans have run riot over the world causing all sorts of mayhem and destroying ancient civilisations, shaping the world we have now

I suppose in your universe engineers from Yorkshire put the Pyramids up in an afternoon off?

UncleRuckus · 22 Oct 2011 at 01:39

d_brennen said:
Yes there is. There is also a difference between race and culture, you did not quote that bit

Europeans have run riot over the world causing all sorts of mayhem and destroying ancient civilisations, shaping the world we have now

I suppose in your universe engineers from Yorkshire put the Pyramids up in an afternoon off?

I didn't quote the second part because it stank of Marx.

To be fair most ancient civilisations tore each other apart. But you seem to think it was Europeans doing it all; how bigoted and racist of you. :rolleyes:

Angilion · 22 Oct 2011 at 01:40

dirtydog said:
Freedom to work 40 hours a week yet still find, OH DEAR, our wages can't pay enough to pay the rent! WHY IS THIS? OH YES MASS IMMIGRATION

So how do you explain why it's been very common for a very long time? Look back 100+ years and you'll find plenty of people who would have been very glad to be able to meet minimal living expenses on only 40 hours a week. Nor was it limited to the period of rapid urbanisation caused by the industrial revolution - it goes back as far as recorded history. In medieval times, it was far from unknown for the working poor to die of starvation, no matter how many hours per week they worked. All it took was a bad harvest or political turmoil. Just 3 years of bad harvests caused the Great Famine, which killed at least 10% of the entire population of England (and elsewhere).