4:33  |  17 September 11
Members Login:
Username:    Password:      

Chamber of Debate

3 ALLITERATIVE ADJECTIVES OF BRITISHNESS

Do you think Britishness ought to mean more positive qualities than "tolerance", "DIPSO BINGO FATSO ASBO TESCO", "illegitimate illiterate innumerate"?

Gordon Brown: co-operation, responsibility, tolerance

Nick Griffin: humour, tolerance, freedom

Yahya Birt: inventive, ironic, inclusive [and possibly Islamic?]

1Party4All: robust, rational, resourceful

Have YOU any suggestions?
Vote: Should the British define their national character?

Our Unique Parallel Polling System

OMOV (One Member One Vote)
Yes 31% No 69%
Yes No    
OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)
Yes 67% No 33%
Yes No         AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments

Page 1 of 21 2NextRecords Per Page
Jigaboo123456 30-Jan-2010 20:55
Andromeda wrote "It would be nice if the BNP had some big ideas other than "Let's bribe them to go away and all will be well again."

I too wish they could think of some other ideas to remove the vast majority of those who have invaded our shores, and who figure so highly in crime stats despite the "unfit for purpose" Home Office's and PC media's best efforts to hide them. - -possibly the the BNP have a few other ideas, , but Broon's Fascistic restrictions on freedom of speech( Orwellian nomencluture " hate laws") perhaps precludes their being given voice.

I further agree with Andromeda that the immoral, drunken, drug -debased present-day British "culture" is extremely unattractive, but come on, old girl, Moslems are not exactly vice-free, they just sensibly refrain from broadcasting it as virtue, e.g, homosexuality (which is rife in Muslim countries) and of course, fiddling and scamming, which comes easily to those from nations where corruption is endemic,rampant and unabashed. Most Muslim states should be paradises because they are so resource-rich, but most are middens run by corrupt and viscious despots - possibly because they are full of Muslims, who seem to always descend to such a state whenever they dominate?
jeffreymarshall 12-Jun-2009 14:40
Ian, a formerly strong belief in Christianity underpinned our values of hard work - the lack of which young people are so sharply aware of.

It is, after all, fairly pointless to speak of a ‘Protestant work ethic’ when Protestantism commands almost no allegiance or belief.

Had it also not been for the official orthodoxy of multiculturalism, a more natural approach to immigration – even mass immigration – would most likely have predominated.

Both the immigrant and the host would have anticipated a degree of assimilation on the part of the newcomer - and it would have taken each group of immigrants a generation or so to arrive at a state of assimilation.

Instead the host population are informed – to their surprise – that they actually inhabit ‘a nation of immigrants’ and in many respects their interests come second to those of newcomers.

Multiculturalism in fact defies all common sense.

But the response of ordinary British people to the imposition of this philosophy has not been ‘tolerance’ as you put it but apathy.
IanMacdonald 6-Jun-2009 23:27
“Indeed, I believe Islam could be made to serve the National Interest”

I agree that Islam could be used to serve Britain’s national interests however it would be illogical to promote Islam as Britain’s primary religion whilst turning our back on Christianity which is the religion that has shaped and developed our culture and identity for over a thousand years.

“British culture is at the moment unattractive, and this explains why Muslims, who have more traditional values and fret over their immortal souls, just as Christians used to do, wish to reject the pub culture of promiscuity, single parenthood, family breakdown and intoxication.”

Christianity is not to blame for the moral decline in our culture and I refuse to believe that Multi-Culturalism is either. I believe that tolerance is to blame for the moral decline we have seen over the years.

The very reason this culture exists is because we have allowed it to exist. We tolerated it and allowed it to spiral out of control.

The younger generations have grown up and seen this culture around them. They have embraced it and now this culture is very much the norm.

This culture can only be described as a culture of laziness and carelessness. If you have known no different then it is harder for you to learn the self discipline to refuse it.

These are the days that we should be looking at who we were. It is time that we took a step backwards because we have obviously taken a step in the wrong direction.

In all forms, all religion ultimately serves the same purpose and regardless of which religion you regard as the primary religion of a nation it will make no difference to the culture of its people.

I don’t believe that Atheism is the problem. Perhaps I would say that being as I regard myself as an Atheist however it is a possibility that atheism is to blame.

AndrewSlade 5-May-2009 16:16
Tolerance has never been a British quality, as any Catholic Irishman or Scottish crofter would remind us.
Ferocity, insularity & militarism have always been the main characteristics of the Britons & the English, since long before Julius Caesar was rash enough to invade us (in 55 & 54bc) & got beaten & thrown out both times.
Andromeda 28-Apr-2009 15:0
If the immigrants to whom you object are legal, then they belong here, or have a right to be here, whether you like it or not.

You could commission a poll at

http://www.yougov.co.uk/specialisms/specialisms-polsocial-offer.asp?submenuheader=3

on whether the BNP would get more votes and do better in elections if they changed their constitution and lifted their colour bar.

There is absolutely no need to take my word for it at all!
jeffreymarshall 27-Apr-2009 23:31
Suggesting that my view (that many legal immigrants do actually belong here) is only my subjective opinion appears to suggest that only I hold such a view.

On the contrary - precisely the same view is held by the rest of the BNP.

That is why this view is set out in our constitution.

When the law is changed to reflect our opinion then our view will be the objective reality, and not yours.

In the meantime, I do not believe it is very profitable for us to take such subjective advice from members of ethnic minorities on matters that are of such great concern to us.
Andromeda 27-Apr-2009 10:42
The BNP constitution declares its objective to be return the racial composition of this country to what it was before the British Nationality Act 1948.

This is clearly impracticable, which would be my first consideration, were I a member of the BNP. Others will of course find it alarming, offensive, racist and evil.

While it is your right to desire this objective, I wonder at your inability to see why others find it alarming, offensive, racist and evil.

The white proletariat are doing badly because decades of toxic social, economic and education policy has served them very badly indeed.

If the BNP showed some indication of having the answers to these problems, they would win by a landslide.

However, since they are only promising everything will be well again, after they have bribed the foreigners to go home, they will never amount to anything more than being a “cut off my nose to spite my face” protest party, as far as I am concerned.

At the moment, the law states that all who are British citizens have the same rights, whether you like it or not. This is an OBJECTIVE FACT and a LEGAL REALITY.

That you do not think this should be the case is YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION, which is also the opinion of a despised group that is banned from joining the police force, the clergy and perhaps soon the nursing profession.

Who is a part of the British nation is as wide or as narrow as the government in power makes it.

At the moment it is very wide. While you would wish to make it narrower, you would first have to be in government.

And you will not be anywhere near being in government – however well you do in the Euro elections - until and unless you revise your constitution and your membership policy.

It really is as simple as that.
jeffreymarshall 25-Apr-2009 22:16
What does anthropology matter in this argument?

I am referring to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people with ancestral roots in these islands prior to 1948 - before the huge wave of post-war mass immigration began. Trying to turn the whole argument into a reductio ad absurdum based on whether or not a British race can be said to exist - or whether East European Slavs can be said to be part of the same race or not - does not really help Andromeda´s argument.

It is of no importance at all that an Italian national is a member of the BNP - he is a fellow European and he is interested in helping to ensure British national survival. I daresay that some Slavs and other Europeans could join the party on the same basis. The point is not to make our party exclusive - and keep people out - but for sympathetic people to work together to ensure there is a future for indigenous British people.

I accept that Andromeda may not understand what the term ´indigenous British people´ means - in trying to obfuscate the issue as she does. Luckily for the BNP, most indigenous British people still do know who they are.

Personally I would never accept all British people who are now legally part of the British nation genuinely belong here because there has been far too much immigration and far too much change. Even with the present levels of foreigners here, indigenous people are likely to be a minority in many areas in 50 years time.

It is galling that only white Westerners appear to be pussy-whipped by PC liberalism in this way.

The Japanese - largely for economic reasons - are currently operating an assisted passage policy towards many of their Brazilian immigrants.

However the sort of arguments we are having here - with ethnic minorities insisting they have as much right to be as anyone else - they would just not be having in Japan.

Andromeda 25-Apr-2009 8:53
I shall have to seek independent confirmation on the existence of a "British race", which, for all I know is an anthropological fiction made up by those who wish to believe in its existence.

While Jeffrey Marshall does not acccept the Slavs as being part of "the British race" they are undeniably similar in racial characteristics to the people allowed to join the BNP.

The fact that an Italian national is a member of the British National Party, when non-white British Citizens may not become members, is indicative of the race-based and therefore racist and incoherent nature of the BNP, however much it wishes to cloak this fact by calling themseles racial separatists and saying each to his own racial homeland.

While I understand that no one would wish to see unwelcome changes in the racial composition to their country in their lifetimes, the reality is that no human being could ever avoid that or has ever avoided it. The lament "O tempora! O mores!" was after all a Roman one.

You could turn inwards and become like the Amish of Pennsylvania or adapt to change more constructively by reforming your political system and making it fairer and more flexible.

It would be nice if the BNP had some big ideas other than "Let's bribe them to go away and all will be well again."

If the BNP is really about nationalism - which I would define as the development and implementation of policies and practices that serve the National Interest, rather than just the alienated indigenous white peoples, then it should include ALL British citizens who are indisputably now legally part of the British nation.

British culture is at the moment unattractive, and this explains why Muslims, who have more traditional values and fret over their immortal souls, just as Christians used to do, wish to reject the pub culture of promiscuity, single parenthood, family breakdown and intoxication.

If the white British pulled up their socks and behaved in ways that would be regarded as respectable or even admirable, then the other races would doubtless want to embrace THIS sort of British culture.

British culture has now been so vulgarised and pornographic that I can see only doom for the white race who do not question these degraded values.

It is a shame that the BNP will do nothing to address this except blame the Muslims, who understandably do not wish to integrate into a culture they regard as degraded and unChristian.

"Tolerance" and moral relativism is an insufficient guide to life. Muslims are explicitly required by the Quran to forbid what is evil and command what is good. This seems to me an admirably universal and refreshingly simple concept, eternally relevant, compared to the little groups of ideologues who denounce each other for being Communist, Fascist, Capitalist, Socialist, Internationalist, Racist or whatever.

Indeed, I believe Islam could be made to serve the National Interest, if judiciously adopted and adapted to suit local customs and conditions. It would serve the National Interest even more effectively than Christianity, which is now but another mouthpiece for Political Correctness.
jeffreymarshall 24-Apr-2009 12:4
Multiculturalists and liberals are fond of drawing attention to the fact that the British race is composed of former invaders such as Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Vikings & Normans.

Nevertheless these groups have formed a settled society which now stretches back over a thousand years. By contrast today the country is overwhelmed by a far greater number of invaders who have all arrived since the end of the Second World War and reproduce themselves with far too much enthusiasm.

None of them belong here. Those with marked racial differences usually find it harder to integrate and often do not even try. They are far too numerous to be assimilated in any case, and generally establish self-contained versions of their own native societies here in the UK. The easiest method of dealing with such foreigners is to repatriate them - humanely and voluntarily - to their own countries.

As for the differences between nation and race, the British nation may be defined as the homeland of the British race. That such a race may be composed of former invaders from over 1000 years ago is now an irrelevance.

If Andromeda does not understand my point about revising Nick Griffin´s description of the British then perhaps I may recommend a moment´s thought. If NG believes the British are primarily a racial group then it is clear that ´humour, tolerance & freedom´ are not defining characteristics in any fundamental sense, but simply shared cultural values & beliefs. The purpose of this question is to turn shared values into defining characteristics in order to scotch the obvious existence of race as a defining British characteristic.

The police identification codes are a meaningless digression. If repatriation is adopted the police will have less work to do in any case in constantly having to identify suspects from the 1C2 - 1C6 groups. Finally, I do not accept that light-skinned East European and Russian types are part of the British race for obvious historical reasons.
Comment:
All comments are subject to approval.

Tool Box

My Profile
 - My Profile
 - Edit My Profile
 - Reset My Password
My Mailbox
 - Inbox
 - Sent
 - Draft
 - Trash
Search Options
Correspondents
 - List of Correspondents
 - Blocked Members
 - Refer a Friend
Community
 - Chamber of Debate
 - Classified Advertisements
 - Events
 - AAA Award
       
    Home