FYI I didn't actually call anyone on here that, I used it as a general attitude expressed from a certain section of society, but if the caps fits...................
I think everyone can see quite clearly which cap fits whom (and it ain't this alleged 'liberal, self-loathing elite' your fevered imagination has conjured up).
Quote : "You are deluded. Britain has had a flourishing culture of immigration, fuelled primarly by ongoing wars and conquests of the Romans, Normans etc. We also imported black slaves, precisely for our economic benefit. If you ignore this then you are ignoring history"
No, you're deluded.
The Romans and Normans were a conquering ruling elite, and not a representation of "a flourishing culture of immigration"
As an Anglo-Saxon I may not be native to Britain, but I am native to England - a country dying on it's arse for so many reasons, multiculturalism being one of them.
The Anglo-Saxons were immigrants too you know.
If you hate multiculturalism so much maybe you should go back to where you came from.
Quote : "You are deluded. Britain has had a flourishing culture of immigration, fuelled primarly by ongoing wars and conquests of the Romans, Normans etc. We also imported black slaves, precisely for our economic benefit. If you ignore this then you are ignoring history"
No, you're deluded.
The Romans and Normans were a conquering ruling elite, and not a representation of "a flourishing culture of immigration"
And how did they get here? Were they born here? Did they appear from nowhere? Did they spring up from the ground? No, they invaded, invasion being like today's immigration but through force
How has my being Black affected you at any point? What danger has the colour of my skin brought to your doorstep?
Charlotte, no disrespect but after studying this thread I can't help feeling that it is you that hasn't answered trunkster.
The question was raised by trunkster in post 32 for the second time. You respond to various other points made by people after that in posts 34, 35, 40 and 67, before posing the question again this time to spaniellover in post 70 so it would seem that you HAVE seen the question trunkster is asking.
Of course we will. That's what happens when you allow anyone and everyone to come here.
I don't care about skin colour, but I do care about British people in general, regardless of colour, being the minority in their own country. I think it's wrong, and am sickened by the fact that nobody seems to be doing anything to prevent this from happening.
Of course we will. That's what happens when you allow anyone and everyone to come here.
I don't care about skin colour, but I do care about British people in general, regardless of colour, being the minority in their own country. I think it's wrong, and am sickened by the fact that nobody seems to be doing anything to prevent this from happening.
And how did they get here? Were they born here? Did they appear from nowhere? Did they spring up from the ground? No, they invaded, invasion being like today's immigration but through force
So you can compare the invasion and supplantation of a ruling a elite centuries ago to todays mass uncontrolled immigtation?
I think I was right with my deluded comment, bye
Charlotte, no disrespect but after studying this thread I can't help feeling that it is you that hasn't answered trunkster.
The question was raised by trunkster in post 32 for the second time. You respond to various other points made by people after that in posts 34, 35, 40 and 67, before posing the question again this time to spaniellover in post 70 so it would seem that you HAVE seen the question trunkster is asking.
Charlotte, no disrespect but after studying this thread I can't help feeling that it is you that hasn't answered trunkster.
The question was raised by trunkster in post 32 for the second time. You respond to various other points made by people after that in posts 34, 35, 40 and 67, before posing the question again this time to spaniellover in post 70 so it would seem that you HAVE seen the question trunkster is asking.
Trunkster's first post was:
Oh no, not the tired old 'define Briton' and 'we're all immigrants' lines from the left/liberals
If the issue is not with immigrants, then this post was calling rusty123 a member of the 'left/liberal' team who spout 'tired old lines': after all, rusty123 was the one who said 'define Britons' and the one trunkster quoted. His second post was:
Exactly, it's the usual self hating bile from the liberal elite, The we once had the largest empire in the world so me must feel eternal shame attitude.
When I pointed out that he himself was labelling people self-hating liberals, he claimed:
FYI I didn't actually call anyone on here that, I used it as a general attitude expressed from a certain section of society, but if the caps fits
This is clearly not true - why else reply to rusty123 with the words 'tired old [line]... from the left/liberals' and 'it's the usual self hating bile from the liberal elite'?
It seems to me his beef is either with immigration or with people (including people here) whom he feels are victimising those who dislike immigration by using 'tired old liberal/left bile'. Unfortunately, he chose to demonstrate this by labelling those he disagrees with and then disingenuously denying that he was doing so. In short, it appears that he wishes to castigate those those who don't oppose immigration as 'self hating liberals' or art and part of this 'liberal elite' in order to play the victim.
So you can compare the invasion and supplantation of a ruling a elite centuries ago to todays mass uncontrolled immigtation?
I think I was right with my deluded comment, bye
im·mi·grant
1. A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
2. An animal or plant living or growing in a region to which it has migrated.
Yes, they are all immigrants. Stop trying to dodge the argument, it's cowardly.
im·mi·grant
1. A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
2. An animal or plant living or growing in a region to which it has migrated.
Yes, they are all immigrants. Stop trying to dodge the argument, it's cowardly.
So now you're comparing a dictionary defination of a word to actual events in this countries history, desperate and deluded.
This is an old study, I have been mentioning in posts for a couple of years.
A few points, firstly I have no problem with the white British becoming a minority in the UK as long as the same is true for the countries the migrants come from. So for example Delhi should be 45% Asian Indian, Lagos, 45% black Nigerian, Beijing 45% Asian Chinese etc. That way they will all match London and ethnicity will be evenly distributed around the world. I am all for equality although I doubt very much that is the case at the moment though.
It will also be interesting to observe the reactions of the native populations in those countries on multiculturalism and becoming minorities in their own countries and whether the left here criticises them if they become unhappy at the prospect. Its hard to imagine for example a million white Britain's in Pakistan drinking beer in the streets, wearing short skirts, partying all night long etc. Like they do on a Saturday night here. How would the locals react if we told them that Pakistan is a multicultural society now and they shouldn't be so racist?
Multi ethnicity seems to be a one way street that only has to apply to Europe for some reason according to the progressive parties. There were 200,000 Europeans in the Indian sub continent during the height of the empire, there are 3.4 million people or their descendants from that part of the world in the UK, so the old empire argument is totally flawed.
Secondly this prediction is dependant on mass immigration which is unsustainable financially and infrastructure wise. The prediction is based on 2010 levels, which are already dropping under the Conservatives. Labour may reverse that though and it could increase. Very few people are against immigration but the levels are too high for too short a period of time. The country needs time to adjust and integrate people and people have to feel there is a good reason that benefits them for new people coming here.
Nigel Farage said the other day that more immigrants arrived in 2010 than from 1066 to 1950. I'm not sure if that's true as I haven't checked, but it does sound pretty plausible. If it is, then it puts paid to the lie from the left that we are a nation of immigrants.
Don't get mad just because you don't understand the definition of the word 'immigrant'
I think you need to understand and grasp the differences between immigrants and invading ruling elites, but this fascination with word meanings and dictionaries is a sure sign you're losing this particular debate.
No need to get so vexed:D
This is an old study, I have been mentioning in posts for a couple of years.
A few points, firstly I have no problem with the white British becoming a minority in the UK as long as the same is true for the countries the migrants come from. So for example Delhi should be 45% Asian Indian, Lagos, 45% black Nigerian, Beijing 45% Asian Chinese etc. That way they will all match London and ethnicity will be evenly distributed around the world. I am all for equality although I doubt very much that is the case at the moment though.
It will also be interesting to observe the reactions of the native populations in those countries on multiculturalism and becoming minorities in their own countries and whether the left here criticises them if they become unhappy at the prospect. Its hard to imagine for example a million white Britain's in Pakistan drinking beer in the streets, wearing short skirts, partying all night long etc. Like they do on a Saturday night here. How would the locals react if we told them that Pakistan is a multicultural society now and they shouldn't be so racist?
Multi ethnicity seems to be a one way street that only has to apply to Europe for some reason according to the progressive parties. There were 200,000 Europeans in the Indian sub continent during the height of the empire, there are 3.4 million people or their descendants from that part of the world in the UK, so the old empire argument is totally flawed.
Secondly this prediction is dependant on mass immigration which is unsustainable financially and infrastructure wise. The prediction is based on 2010 levels, which are already dropping under the Conservatives. Labour may reverse that though and it could increase. Very few people are against immigration but the levels are too high for too short a period of time. The country needs time to adjust and integrate people and people have to feel there is a good reason that benefits them for new people coming here.
Nigel Farage said the other day that more immigrants arrived in 2010 than from 1066 to 1950. I'm not sure if that's true as I haven't checked, but it does sound pretty plausible. If it is, then it puts paid to the lie from the left that we are a nation of immigrants.
Given that Farage has lied in the past about immigration levels (Romanians and Bulgarians), I wouldn't be in a hurry to believe him.
Nigel Farage said the other day that more immigrants arrived in 2010 than from 1066 to 1950. I'm not sure if that's true as I haven't checked, but it does sound pretty plausible. If it is, then it puts paid to the lie from the left that we are a nation of immigrants.
That either is or isn't true and I don't know what basis you have to say that it's plausible. In either case it might be very misleading as it is not the number of immigrants, but the proportion, which is important, as the global population has increased drastically since 1066. And by 'nation of immigrants' the 'left' mean that most of us have mixtures of Roman, Norman and Anglo-Saxon lineage. This was caused my the mixings of culture brought about by the aforementioned races
Given that Farage has lied in the past about immigration levels (Romanians and Bulgarians), I wouldn't be in a hurry to believe him.
When I get time I will check it. I read once that if the Huguenots emigrated to Britain today, it would take them 27 days instead of several centuries.
That either is or isn't true and I don't know what basis you have to say that it's plausible. In either case it might be very misleading as it is not the number of immigrants, but the proportion, which is important, as the global population has increased drastically since 1066. And by 'nation of immigrants' the 'left' mean that most of us have mixtures of Roman, Norman and Anglo-Saxon lineage. This was caused my the mixings of culture brought about by the aforementioned races
Weren't they invaders though not immigrants. Are you saying that modern immigrants are invaders in slow motion, slowly conquering our nation. :eek:
I think you need to understand and grasp the differences between immigrants and invading ruling elites, but this fascination with word meanings and dictionaries is a sure sign you're losing this particular debate.
No need to get so vexed:D
In a debate, you have to agree terms. In the real world we have this wonderful thing called the Dictionary, which standardises the language that we use. When you use a different meaning other than what is intended, you are being misleading.
So don't try and spin your way out of this by implying that a fixation with rigour and truth is somehow an inferior debating style. You have been cornered and shown to be someone who relies on soundbites and phrases that you do not understand. You cannot be taken seriously and, in any reasonable arena of debate, you would not be.
That either is or isn't true and I don't know what basis you have to say that it's plausible. In either case it might be very misleading as it is not the number of immigrants, but the proportion, which is important, as the global population has increased drastically since 1066. And by 'nation of immigrants' the 'left' mean that most of us have mixtures of Roman, Norman and Anglo-Saxon lineage. This was caused my the mixings of culture brought about by the aforementioned races
So basically you refuse to accept its's true, purely on the basis that you don't like it or can't disprove it.
Weren't they invaders though not immigrants. Are you saying that modern immigrants are invaders in slow motion, slowly conquering our nation. :eek:
Of course not. An immigrant is someone who chooses to live permanently in a difference place to which they were born. There is no other implication of analogy, so don't try to pretend that there is
So basically you refuse to accept its's true, purely on the basis that you don't like it or can't disprove it.
I refuse to accept that it is true because I have seen no proof. Reasonable and logical people require proof, rather than speculation, to inspire their beliefs
Why not try to argue the point, rather than just presume my intentions? It's because you can't
If you actually read the article instead of reading the thread title and launching into a hysterical tirade you would know that the claim is being made by a professor at oxford university who did a study of international population projections for this dubious and unreliable organisation.
i'll let you get back to telling people how they're mongrels with no identity who can't object to people flooding into their country.
I've personally never said that Britons are "mongrels with no identity who can't object to people flooding into their country". But don't let that stop you making up fake quotes for me or anyone else who doesn't susbcribe to your narrow bigoted agenda.
So, I've been to the website you've mentioned and searched in vain for anything on there that says White Britons a minority by 2066. Infact, all I can find by googling "2066 White minority" are articles from those scions of diversity and political balance, The Sun, the BNP website and the Telegraph. So you'll excuse my skepticism around your fairly unbelievable claims.
More importantly it should also be noted that Professor David Coleman, the author of this 'report' is a founder and advisor to "Migrationwatch", that pathetic 'charity' and front for rightwing Tories and UKIP. So, rightwing academic makes partial, partisan and rightwing claims based on bigotry and prejudice shocka !
He is also a member and fellow of the Galton Institute - formerly the Eugenics Society, whose aim is (and I quote)
"[the] science of improving stock - not only by judicious mating, but whatever tends to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had"
So, not only a rightwing nutter, but a racist and eugenicist (someone who thinks humans should be "bred" better) as well.
Comments
I think everyone can see quite clearly which cap fits whom (and it ain't this alleged 'liberal, self-loathing elite' your fevered imagination has conjured up).
Quote : "You are deluded. Britain has had a flourishing culture of immigration, fuelled primarly by ongoing wars and conquests of the Romans, Normans etc. We also imported black slaves, precisely for our economic benefit. If you ignore this then you are ignoring history"
No, you're deluded.
The Romans and Normans were a conquering ruling elite, and not a representation of "a flourishing culture of immigration"
The Anglo-Saxons were immigrants too you know.
If you hate multiculturalism so much maybe you should go back to where you came from.
And how did they get here? Were they born here? Did they appear from nowhere? Did they spring up from the ground? No, they invaded, invasion being like today's immigration but through force
Charlotte, no disrespect but after studying this thread I can't help feeling that it is you that hasn't answered trunkster.
The question was raised by trunkster in post 32 for the second time. You respond to various other points made by people after that in posts 34, 35, 40 and 67, before posing the question again this time to spaniellover in post 70 so it would seem that you HAVE seen the question trunkster is asking.
I don't care about skin colour, but I do care about British people in general, regardless of colour, being the minority in their own country. I think it's wrong, and am sickened by the fact that nobody seems to be doing anything to prevent this from happening.
How do you define 'British'?
So you can compare the invasion and supplantation of a ruling a elite centuries ago to todays mass uncontrolled immigtation?
I think I was right with my deluded comment, bye
Thank you
Trunkster's first post was:
If the issue is not with immigrants, then this post was calling rusty123 a member of the 'left/liberal' team who spout 'tired old lines': after all, rusty123 was the one who said 'define Britons' and the one trunkster quoted. His second post was:
When I pointed out that he himself was labelling people self-hating liberals, he claimed:
This is clearly not true - why else reply to rusty123 with the words 'tired old [line]... from the left/liberals' and 'it's the usual self hating bile from the liberal elite'?
It seems to me his beef is either with immigration or with people (including people here) whom he feels are victimising those who dislike immigration by using 'tired old liberal/left bile'. Unfortunately, he chose to demonstrate this by labelling those he disagrees with and then disingenuously denying that he was doing so. In short, it appears that he wishes to castigate those those who don't oppose immigration as 'self hating liberals' or art and part of this 'liberal elite' in order to play the victim.
It all rather feels somewhat pointless.
im·mi·grant
1. A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.
2. An animal or plant living or growing in a region to which it has migrated.
Yes, they are all immigrants. Stop trying to dodge the argument, it's cowardly.
So now you're comparing a dictionary defination of a word to actual events in this countries history, desperate and deluded.
Don't get mad just because you don't understand the definition of the word 'immigrant'
A few points, firstly I have no problem with the white British becoming a minority in the UK as long as the same is true for the countries the migrants come from. So for example Delhi should be 45% Asian Indian, Lagos, 45% black Nigerian, Beijing 45% Asian Chinese etc. That way they will all match London and ethnicity will be evenly distributed around the world. I am all for equality although I doubt very much that is the case at the moment though.
It will also be interesting to observe the reactions of the native populations in those countries on multiculturalism and becoming minorities in their own countries and whether the left here criticises them if they become unhappy at the prospect. Its hard to imagine for example a million white Britain's in Pakistan drinking beer in the streets, wearing short skirts, partying all night long etc. Like they do on a Saturday night here. How would the locals react if we told them that Pakistan is a multicultural society now and they shouldn't be so racist?
Multi ethnicity seems to be a one way street that only has to apply to Europe for some reason according to the progressive parties. There were 200,000 Europeans in the Indian sub continent during the height of the empire, there are 3.4 million people or their descendants from that part of the world in the UK, so the old empire argument is totally flawed.
Secondly this prediction is dependant on mass immigration which is unsustainable financially and infrastructure wise. The prediction is based on 2010 levels, which are already dropping under the Conservatives. Labour may reverse that though and it could increase. Very few people are against immigration but the levels are too high for too short a period of time. The country needs time to adjust and integrate people and people have to feel there is a good reason that benefits them for new people coming here.
Nigel Farage said the other day that more immigrants arrived in 2010 than from 1066 to 1950. I'm not sure if that's true as I haven't checked, but it does sound pretty plausible. If it is, then it puts paid to the lie from the left that we are a nation of immigrants.
I think you need to understand and grasp the differences between immigrants and invading ruling elites, but this fascination with word meanings and dictionaries is a sure sign you're losing this particular debate.
No need to get so vexed:D
Given that Farage has lied in the past about immigration levels (Romanians and Bulgarians), I wouldn't be in a hurry to believe him.
So you are saying its not true and wont happen then? You have some evidence that proves it that these study authors don't?
That either is or isn't true and I don't know what basis you have to say that it's plausible. In either case it might be very misleading as it is not the number of immigrants, but the proportion, which is important, as the global population has increased drastically since 1066. And by 'nation of immigrants' the 'left' mean that most of us have mixtures of Roman, Norman and Anglo-Saxon lineage. This was caused my the mixings of culture brought about by the aforementioned races
When I get time I will check it. I read once that if the Huguenots emigrated to Britain today, it would take them 27 days instead of several centuries.
Weren't they invaders though not immigrants. Are you saying that modern immigrants are invaders in slow motion, slowly conquering our nation. :eek:
In a debate, you have to agree terms. In the real world we have this wonderful thing called the Dictionary, which standardises the language that we use. When you use a different meaning other than what is intended, you are being misleading.
So don't try and spin your way out of this by implying that a fixation with rigour and truth is somehow an inferior debating style. You have been cornered and shown to be someone who relies on soundbites and phrases that you do not understand. You cannot be taken seriously and, in any reasonable arena of debate, you would not be.
So basically you refuse to accept its's true, purely on the basis that you don't like it or can't disprove it.
Of course not. An immigrant is someone who chooses to live permanently in a difference place to which they were born. There is no other implication of analogy, so don't try to pretend that there is
I refuse to accept that it is true because I have seen no proof. Reasonable and logical people require proof, rather than speculation, to inspire their beliefs
Why not try to argue the point, rather than just presume my intentions? It's because you can't
So, I've been to the website you've mentioned and searched in vain for anything on there that says White Britons a minority by 2066. Infact, all I can find by googling "2066 White minority" are articles from those scions of diversity and political balance, The Sun, the BNP website and the Telegraph. So you'll excuse my skepticism around your fairly unbelievable claims.
More importantly it should also be noted that Professor David Coleman, the author of this 'report' is a founder and advisor to "Migrationwatch", that pathetic 'charity' and front for rightwing Tories and UKIP. So, rightwing academic makes partial, partisan and rightwing claims based on bigotry and prejudice shocka !
He is also a member and fellow of the Galton Institute - formerly the Eugenics Society, whose aim is (and I quote)
"[the] science of improving stock - not only by judicious mating, but whatever tends to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had"
So, not only a rightwing nutter, but a racist and eugenicist (someone who thinks humans should be "bred" better) as well.