Happy Christmas from multiculturalism

Don't usually like to use the Sun for serious news stories, but seems this is the only clue as to the appearance of the suspects the propaganda ministry is prepared to give us.........

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...eenager-is-stabbed-to-death-at-the-sales.html

 

The UK is simply mimicing the US. A society terribly obsessed with consumption and possessions.

 

Eh...there were gangs in London long before trainers were invented.

 

The problems endemic!

I was recently speaking to individuals from Morecambe bay,

They told me those 12 Chinese who drowned were systematically abused and there catch's was stolen on many occasions by locals priorm to there deaths.
They were being beaten up on a regular basis.
That they were frightened to get off the beaches as local gangs were waiting for them!
That the police new what had happened and had not gone further with their investigations! Too many people were implicated in the mass murder!

If this is true.....its a sad reflection on the police, the MP's and worry for the future of England and its people!
Not forgetting......Oooh...... Dr Kelly.......and Jean Charles De Menzes...... If your wanting to look for gangs and thugs.....bLiar.....Brown ....... Cameron......etc etc HMG! Or the lying policemen who executed De Menzes!
Or the million or so Iraqs murdered!

Oooh....and for those less well educated in the English/German Aristocracy's normal ways.......http://www.irishholocaust.org/tollofholocaust

Regards
Highlander

 

Britain's experience clearly shows that statistical racial crime differences still hold true across international borders. Africans are just several times more likely to comitt violent crime than any other race, no matter which country they are in.

The UK could have looked over into the USA to see exactly what the effects of racial diversity were going to be. Instead, the liberals and leftists refused to see what should have been obvious- the poverty-ridden hispanic neighborhoods in America's southern states, the deteriorating inner city black ghettos in Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin, and the overcrowding/unaffordable rents in such cities as Los Angeles and Atlanta. Well, now the UK is going to have to deal with what it purposefully brought in. And the consequences will last for time and all eternity...

This is multiculturalism in the USA, coming soon to a city near you!


(note that there was no recent storm or riots, this is what most of Chicago's streets always look like)

(there simply are not enough beds in the city's homeless shelters to deal with all the poverty in Los Angeles)

 

Plenty of violence also, this is very typical:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/12/20/student-hospitalized-following-brooklyn-school-stabbing/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/2...d-in-head-with-scissors-over-basketball-game/
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...ed-With-Attacking-Math-Teacher-117426053.html

http://www.occcws.com/?p=606

These types of occurences will soon be common place in London, if it is not already. Expect to see "white flight" from the city into surrounding gated suburban communities with armed guards, and parents picking up and leaving to escape deteriorating schools.

 

The only problem with Anders is that he does not get out enough .
The theory is fine for earnest left wing students , but the practise is entirely different .Here in England things are fine .
But thank you for your interest Anders .I am sure you mean well .

 

Totally disgusting. What the hell are you on about?

There has been no sudden influx of "Africans" into UK. Immigration here is being capped and hasn't seen any increase to numbers of incoming "Africans" incoming for generations. If anything, there has been an huge increase in Eastern European white economic immigrants.

Your post is a completely inaccurate pile of nonsense as always with only one aim, to slander non-white people.

And it is sickening to see how racists slaver at being allowed an opportunity to perpetuate racism.

Typical of what? The centre of London has not seen any change to the multiculture which has existed for generations.

I don't think he means well in any way. Racism at that level is dangerous and should perhaps be on a watch list.

Anders, people of other ethnicities than yours exist. They exist in your society and mine and they have a perfect right to do so. That is not going to change. Therefore your attitude to it must change. Can I suggest you learn to live with reality and try to focus on facts, before getting into a bad situation.

 

You know this is not true at all. Working class Britons have been displaced from their former neighbourhoods.

People of other ethnicities have a right to exist, just like mine. Yes, they exist in my society. But note how people of my ethnicity do not exist in their societies. We both know why: because the non-white races have created societies of wretched poverty that no white person would want to live in! I have a right to live, work, and go to school surrounded by only people of my ethnicity. Whether you think it is "right" or not, most [typically non-white] nations in the world have laws designed to protect the balance of their ethnic composition. There should be somewhere in the world for my ethnicity to have all to itself. The problem is that my ethnicity will create prosperity wherever it goes*, and the impoverished masses will want to come for the jobs, welfare payments, and other free things a prosperous society hands out to everyone.

*(assuming, of course, it is not some extreme place like the Saharra desert or Antarctica)

All the immigrants can go to the Americas or Siberia. Europe is the homeland of my race. They will eventually destroy and impoverish the white people with their high fertility rates. My race has a right to exist. The descendants of this current wave of immigrants threaten the future of my race. It is not fair to give equal rights to every individual when some groups of people have much much higher fertility rates. Indidual equality is not racial equality. I support racial fairness. If your race has multiplied by a factor of 5 within a hundred years, each of your people deserve only 20% as much consideration if they are in my ethnic homeland. That would, of course, create inequality and conflict. Much better just to keep the different races living separately apart. I have nothing against my race helping all the other people in the world. But those people do not have to immigrate to my country to be helped. It makes no sense what is being done now- only helping outsiders who first immigrate into my country. Why incentivise people to immigrate here?

Do not try to make me feel guilty for wanting to protect the future standard of living and purity of my race. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

Years ago, Anders. Nothing has changed recently.

Who wants to live in an inner city, btw?

This is a big subject and I am not qualified to speak on the reasons some non-white people may be temporarily less affluent than whites, but it looks like a matter of historical record that white people were there first, generally had the money (position of advantage), kept the money and still don't want to share the money.

They have been in situe for longer and have the natural advantage. Non-white people in the societies you seem to be discussing came later, against their will, without advantage of being part of the dominant culture and are only now beginning to find ways to gain leverage, i.e. mobilising less affluent people to use their vote to secure a candidate who will actually represent their interests.

Do you? There are Catholic schools in this country, but if you tried to exclude a person on the grounds of colour you would be breaking the law.
I understand that in some African/Asian countries there are 500 different languages in use. I take it that means there are many different ethnicities in each country. What criteria would you be applying to exclude non-Hoverlanders from your lily-white school system?

Is that the Hitler Youth you're on about? Countries cap immigration for economic reasons, yes. I haven't really seen anyone in recent years cap to specifically keep out non-whites with the intent to purify an Aryan race.

I agree you deserve to be marooned on a desert island with people who think just as you do and you do deserve each other.

*(assuming, of course, it is not some extreme place like the Saharra desert or Antarctica)

All the immigrants can go to the Americas or Siberia. Europe is the homeland of my race.[/quote]

You sound US to me.

There is no evidence that your race will not exist. People tend to evolve depending on circumstances and circumstances change.

Let me clarify what you seem to be saying...your race used to procreate like rabbits. Now it doesn't. Therefore it doesn't have the same environmental needs as it used to. It won't need as much food, work, income etc as there are less of you.

But you want to keep everything you have, even if your numbers don't require or merit it. And even if your race is contributing less than others.

On the other side are people in dire need with terribly low standards of living, who are willing to cross the world to try to make a better living. These people are desperate and will work at anything, probably doing jobs your "ethnicity" is above.

And you want to keep them out. To ensure the purity of your instrument. (I'm sure you can see my eyes rolling)

In the real world, Anders, those people are trying to survive and they are ready to contribute. An extremist like Breivik would kill them to retain what his ethnicity has. Be careful as desperate people will also kill to achieve security for their children.

Of course no one need kill anyone as it can be controlled politically. In civilised society, immigration can be capped as required. Measures can be taken to assist the less affluent and lessen the divide. There is no need to promote racial hatred which benefits no one.

Good luck trying to sell "Racism is Right", but it isn't right. It doesn't work. It won't even be necessary if you wait a bit, races and ethnicities intermingle and distil by natural means and benefit from the process, as the techonological and economic progress of the country which contains the US melting pot, evidences.

 

Why do you think white people had the money? Whose money should they share? Isn't this the basic difference between how Socialists and Capitalists see things?

 

What sort of nonsense is this? Have you ever been to Chicago? I very much doubt it.

 

No it isn't. The other poster implies it and I responded to his post. Don't develop this, it's irrelevant and I'll not debate a point I haven't made.

 

I'm not developing it. I'm asking you to explain the point you made.

 

I didn't make that point. And I'm not defending it.

 

OK, you said "but it looks like a matter of historical record that white people were there first, generally had the money (position of advantage), kept the money and still don't want to share the money."

I'm trying to understand what you mean. Why do you think white people had the money? Whose money should they share? (And while we're about it, why were white people there first?)

Your reluctance to answer seems to me to be evidence that you do indeed understand that this is the basic difference between Socialists and Capitalists. Socialists think they have the right to decide how "the money" is spent even when it isn't theirs to spend. Or maybe you don't like to be challenged on points you have made, or maybe you just didn't think it through properly?

Isn't Thatcher supposed to have said "the trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."?

 

There is no use arguing with him. The only way to prevent socialists that want to "redistribute" everyone's wealth is to make sure that there are not too many poor people within our nation. If there are not decent paying jobs available, we should not be taking on any more immigrants. They and/or their children will just turn around and become socialists. Just because a vacant job exists does not mean we should take on more people. If the demand is really that high, the wages for that job will go up enough for someone already here to be willing to do it. Masses of poor minorities working in low wage jobs are a recipe for disaster.

Turn off the faucet now, while you still can. Because once the bucket approaches the half way filled point, the incessently flowing stream will be impossible to shut off.

 

My reluctance to respond to any of your posts as already politely explained, is always because you miss every point and don't receive information. It's a waste of time.

 

I'm not a him.

I'm not a Socialist.

Many economic immigrants don't have access to decent paying jobs. They come into more affluent countries and work horrible jobs for low pay, because that translates into affluence in their own countries...which they return to after working here. The people who already live here, don't want those horrible jobs. There is therefore, little reason to fear "taking on" immigrants.

What is it to be? Masses of immigrants working in low wage jobs is a disaster for the country, or masses of indigenous people working in low wage jobs?

If it is impossible to shut off, it's impossible. That is what you are trying to fight...natural development. It's 100% natural for people and animals to migrate in order to survive.

 

Maybe that's because you're loose with the facts. Accusing Thatcher of having committed crimes is a perfect example.

Oh right, that'll be why you hate Thatcher and think "the money" should be "shared".

 

So a socialist is defined by hating thatcher? *Sweet jesus*.

Tell me Tamara, what is a socialist? What type of socialism are you talking about? Even Thatcher didn't look to remove state benefits or the NHS, so was she some kind of socialist?

How about the miners? They had jobs, were they socialists?

I honestly thnk you don't have a clue what you're talkign about.

 

*Sweet Jesus*! That isn't what I said. It's just something that almost all the Socialists I have met seem to have in common.

A Socialist is someone who wants the state to have as much control as possible and the private sector to have little or none. Did you really need me to say that? [And how could I forget, they usually want everyone to have an equal start in life which they'd facilitate by "sharing" all "the money".] How would you define socialism?

What does having a job have to do with whether someone is a Socialist? Thatcher was a capitalist. It didn't mean that she thought ALL socialism was bad any more than I do.

You don't if those questions were seriously put.

[Edit]

 

If you ever read a post accurately, you would know I listed various crimes she is accused of committing, for example the (well documented) taxing Scotland differently from the rest of the UK which fortunately commenced her demise. Waste of time listing these apparently, it escaped your eagle eye somehow. Can you please list the great achievements which should make the world admire the old ratbag? I'm all ears.

I explained (to no avail as usual) why Thatcher is still hated even after years. All her own doing. I am far from unique in despising everything about the old bat. More people than myself are not swayed or fooled by shallow celebrity culture and talking a good game in the style of dictators. Diana Gould being one.

If you read the post you are again attempting to twist to suit what you would like it to mean, you may see I prefaced the attempt to summarise what may or may not have caused people to be in the situation Anders describes (and I don't accept they are in that situation)...by making it clear I am not qualified to speak on it. I am not qualified to speak on it. Carry on arguing with yourself.

As to politics, be assured I will certainly never vote despicable Conservative, as I am not inherently self-centred and I care a bit about other people. However, I don't ascribe blindly to any political theory. All political theories are flawed. I am centrist and subscribe to the strange and apparently unusual philosophy of common feckin sense. Whatever is going to work best, that's what I support.

That can change depending on the makeup of the people who are attempting to govern or be elected to government. A Party may appear competent on election and disintegrate into shambles as happened with the Tories. I vote SNP with the aim of getting rid of England. Once that objective is secured, it will be necessary to reassess and determine if SNP is specifically worth keeping in office or if I should cast my vote elsewhere.

Let's see what strange interpretations emerge from this innocuous post...

 

I read your post with complete accuracy. None of those things are crimes. You need to get a dictionary, and I never said Thatcher did anything the world should admire. Talk to a Tory if you want your question answered.

That socialists (and you) hate Thatcher is not and never has been in dispute. If only you were as smart as you think you are you would have grasped that.

In no way am I attempting to twist anything at all. I'm replying to you because you say things which I think need answering. Don't worry about a reply if you can't level a reasoned argument.

I will certainly never vote Conservative again. I was not self-centred when I did, I care about people too and my common sense is in no way lacking. Isn't it a little arrogant to imply that Conservatives don't care and lack common sense or support anything other than what they think is best?

And it happened with Labour too. Who you vote for is your business, especially when you're not sending MPs to vote on English affairs. Bring it on.

Reasoned argument. Can you deal with it?

But one thing I think Thatcher definitely did get right in 1992 was her prediction about the EU.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoTXV-lySw0&feature=player_embedded"]Margaret Thatcher: Speech at The Hague on the E.U. (1992) - YouTube[/ame]

Not only did her party get rid of her for her views, she continued to support them in spite of that. They failed and she failed the people of this country in continuing to support the party, but how she must feel vindicated now if she still has a grasp on world events. What did the SNP care about people when they were keen for Scotland to join the euro? They only recently gave up on that!