Giorgia Meloni

[seahawk]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Over the last 10 years Ive spent a lot of time in hospitals due to both my parents being ill with cancer. ive seen how the system works. the vast majority of people in them doing the low end jobs are immigrants, because they are shitty, poorly paid, bad hours jobs that nobody else does. Yes, one can mandate on high all that manpower goes away. Fine. Now what do you do, when the cabinets are not refilled, the floors are not swabbed, and you dont have enough nurses?

IMHO we take too many nurses that should be working in the third world anyway. So training up more of our own people makes perfect sense, other than there isnt enough money to pay them what they are worth, the hours are shitty and hence nobody wants to do it. How do you fix that? Short of somehow coming up with robots to do all these jobs, or somehow encouraging an unpaid militia of retirees which wont appear, you need immigrants to do them. 

You dont like it, I dont like it, but im not hearing alternatives.

As I said, selective immigration. At the moment we either get those without any hope in their home country or the ones leaning into criminal activity, as only those will take the risk illegal immigration poses.

But you want the intelligent and hard working. Let people apply for a work permit at the embassy in their home country. Let them have a language skill test and a general test about the traditions of the country they want to move to. In addition let them provide their qualification. Then select then ones you need. If needed pay the ticket to fly them in, then sent them to welcome centre to qualify them and find an employer, which can the pay back the costs for the ticket. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

25 minutes ago, old_goat said:

You are narrowing and oversimplifying the problem. It is not the healthcare that fuels the immigration. It is the globalist industry. They need vastly more workers. Solution is very simple. Get rid of globalists, and establish a nationalist economy. That immediately reduces the need for workers, curbs inflation, and this is what actually make a country richer. 

Of course, mentioning "nationalism" makes you and people like you scream "naziiiiii!", so I understand why you dont have any alternatives over the Great Replacement. 

im not saying it is. Im saying that every effort that the UK Government have introduced to deal with the immigration or even seasonal worker problem, it directly impacts the manpower of the NHS, and indeed other organizations that do shitty jobs, such as strawberry picking.  We cant say 'oh here is an opt out for nurses' when these people are coming here and apply for nurse training. The same im sure is the case for those wanting to join the armed forces.

I was accused of being a nationalist by someone before on this grate site. Im really not. Im a patriot. I dont understand nationalism, other than it breaks nations, and I want no part of it. Look at the craziness that surrounds the SNP (or January 6th for that matter) and you may see my position. Or maybe you wont.

And im sorry OG, because you are a nice guy and I truly respect your intelligence, but when someone talks about 'globalists' they are in my mind being synonymous with Socialists and right wing Conservatives and starting to talk  ideological tosh and stop thinking. These are words are without meaning, because the world is by nature global, as is trade. Personally I had enough of Ideology in the 1980's, and I want no part of it. I want a pragmatist that tooks the best approach. I dont want words and doctrines, because thats just crap getting in the way that needs to be done.

I want no open doors, at the same time I want only the amount of people coming in the country needs. No more, no less. This is not a position that is hard to understand, and I dont enjoy being painted into the corner that either I have to be a card carrying Reform member,or im in favour of population replacement. Neither of these are my position, and I reject both.

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 minutes ago, seahawk said:

As I said, selective immigration. At the moment we either get those without any hope in their home country or the ones leaning into criminal activity, as only those will take the risk illegal immigration poses.

But you want the intelligent and hard working. Let people apply for a work permit at the embassy in their home country. Let them have a language skill test and a general test about the traditions of the country they want to move to. In addition let them provide their qualification. Then select then ones you need. If needed pay the ticket to fly them in, then sent them to welcome centre to qualify them and find an employer, which can the pay back the costs for the ticket. 

Id be absolutely fine with all that, although I wouldnt clutter the embassies which im sure have enough to do. We set up two or 3 regional centres in africa to handle the whole lot. And if they dont qualify say terribly sorry but foxtrot oscar.

 

[seahawk]

Yes, one could also have application centres or whatever. But the point is, if you need immigration, get people that are an asset not a burden.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I completely agree.

[old_goat]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I dont understand nationalism, other than it breaks nations, and I want no part of it.

Exactly. You do not understand it, thats why you say things like "it breaks nations". It doesnt. Nationalism does not equal to national socialism, fascism (neither are right wing ideologies), or chauvinism. 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

We set up two or 3 regional centres in africa to handle the whole lot.

And it tells everything. Africa, as a whole, is an utterly undesirable place to look for qualified workers, with utterly undesirable population. 

If you really need extra workforce, you should only look in europe. Or if you absolutely must, from eastern asia (vietnam, mongolia, and as a last resort, china). 

[seahawk]

Or South America.. but yes Africa or the Middle East would also not be my favourite regions.

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 hours ago, old_goat said:

Exactly. You do not understand it, thats why you say things like "it breaks nations". It doesnt. Nationalism does not equal to national socialism, fascism (neither are right wing ideologies), or chauvinism. 

And it tells everything. Africa, as a whole, is an utterly undesirable place to look for qualified workers, with utterly undesirable population. 

If you really need extra workforce, you should only look in europe. Or if you absolutely must, from eastern asia (vietnam, mongolia, and as a last resort, china). 

Largely, sure. There certainly ARE developing parts of Africa however, Kenya and Nigeria. South Africa still has the educational system bequeathed by the white settlers. I wouldnt firmly assert there is nobody there that doesnt fit our requirements.

I had zero problem bringing in people from Europe, but my fellow countrymen were conned into beliefing Brexit would solve the immigration problem, and that was enthusiastically championed by some folks on this site that should have known better. So here we are, we have a shortfall that seemingly has to be filled from somewhere.

I think the vietnamese prefer to stick with the pacific ring. Though there is a group of some 30000 people at least here, that owe their presence to the vietnamese boat people.

You should know that I studied Nationalism and the Nation state in the 19th Century with the Open University. I dont claim to be an expert, but I did read a lot on it at least. Maybe it gave me a jaundiced impression, but looking back at how many Empires broke up due to nationalism and ended up leaving violent instablity in their wake, I have zero enthusiasm for it (look at 1948 and the million butchered by Indian nationalists for anotherexample).

Nationalism is, in my view at least, a narrow minded mindset that believes your country should be belong to a narrow ethic group. Through WW2  some European nations achieved that. Im pleased for them, but most nations are not like that. When I hear English people are going to Scotland and being accosted by Scottish nationalists, told  to 'piss off home', then im afraid it reinforces my predjudices about nationalism and I want no part of it.

Patriotism is perfectly fine of course. I get that and embrace it. But I want no part of nationalism. Im a polygot of at least 3 UK nationalities, it would be somewhat hypocritical for myself in any case.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

Or South America.. but yes Africa or the Middle East would also not be my favourite regions.

In part its due to the instablity we have left. France, Britain and America smashed up Libya. We didnt restabilise Somalia. We didnt do anything about Rwanda. We kicked over Iraq and Afghanistan. I dont choose to pick anyone from these places, but you know what, its hardly surprising the flee the mess we left of these places. Maybe if we had stuck around and fixed them as we claim we would, we would be having less of a problem.

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Largely, sure. There certainly ARE developing parts of Africa however, Kenya and Nigeria. South Africa still has the educational system bequeathed by the white settlers. I wouldnt firmly assert there is nobody there that doesnt fit our requirements.

I had zero problem bringing in people from Europe, but my fellow countrymen were conned into beliefing Brexit would solve the immigration problem, and that was enthusiastically championed by some folks on this site that should have known better. So here we are, we have a shortfall that seemingly has to be filled from somewhere.

I think the vietnamese prefer to stick with the pacific ring. Though there is a group of some 30000 people at least here, that owe their presence to the vietnamese boat people.

You should know that I studied Nationalism and the Nation state in the 19th Century with the Open University. I dont claim to be an expert, but I did read a lot on it at least. Maybe it gave me a jaundiced impression, but looking back at how many Empires broke up due to nationalism and ended up leaving violent instablity in their wake, I have zero enthusiasm for it (look at 1948 and the million butchered by Indian nationalists for anotherexample).

Nationalism is, in my view at least, a narrow minded mindset that believes your country should be belong to a narrow ethic group. Through WW2  some European nations achieved that. Im pleased for them, but most nations are not like that. When I hear English people are going to Scotland and being accosted by Scottish nationalists, told  to 'piss off home', then im afraid it reinforces my predjudices about nationalism and I want no part of it.

Patriotism is perfectly fine of course. I get that and embrace it. But I want no part of nationalism. Im a polygot of at least 3 UK nationalities, it would be somewhat hypocritical for myself in any case.

Most Western European nations WERE like that, most post-communist nations still ARE like that and we'd like it to stay that way, most of us at least.

[Stuart Galbraith]

26 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Most Western European nations WERE like that, most post-communist nations still ARE like that and we'd like it to stay that way, most of us at least.

Most European nations were not ethnically homogenous, but were assembled from a group of parts, from victory in battle, even by dynastic marriages. The most obbvious example of this is Germany. They might have spoken German, but as we saw in Ukraine, just because you speak Russia, dont necessarily make you one.

Yes, you can say they were white or have vaguely similar characteristics, thats true. But look at France. It was a polygot of numerous different nationalities assembled into a country. Until comparatively late in the day it was very disparate. I cant recall how many different languages France had in the 1870's, but it was so many the Government had to mandate that all schoolchildren would be educated in French, because it was starting to become a real problem. To this day the Spanish have a problem with seperatists, not least the Basques. And of course Belgium has 43 percent Flemish, and 28 percent Walloon groups, a huge split.  Italy was not a singular nation till Garibaldi, and even then full unification lingered because the vatican was not particularly happy about its territory being annexed. Its a rare country in Europe that was ethnically singular. In fact, I struggle to think of one. Switzerland maybe?

I dont think it was communism that made Polish ethnically singular. I think that was very clearly a direct result of the war. All the Jews were killed or fled abroad. All the Germans fled or were kicked out. What were you left with? Id say it was the sole benefit you got from WW2, and I can understand why you dont want to divest yourself from it.

 

 

Edited May 21 by Stuart Galbraith

[urbanoid]

13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Most European nations were not ethnically homogenous, but were assembled from a group of parts, from victory in battle, even by dynastic marriages. The most obbvious example of this is Germany.

Yes, you can say they were white or have vaguely similar characteristics, thats true. But look at France. It was a polygot of numerous different nationalities assembled into a country. Until comparatively late in the day it was very disparate. I cant recall how many different languages France had in the 1870's, but it was so many the Government had to mandate that all schoolchildren would be educated in French, because it was starting to become a real problem. To this day the Spanish have a problem with seperatists, not least the Basques. And of course Belgium has 43 percent Flemish, and 28 percent Walloon groups, a huge split.  Italy was not a singular nation till Garibaldi, and even then full unification lingered because the vatican was not particularly happy about its territory being annexed. Its a rare country in Europe that was ethnically singular. In fact, I struggle to think of one. Switzerland maybe?

I dont think it was communism that made Polish ethnically singular. I think that was very clearly a direct result of the war. All the Jews were killed or fled abroad. All the Germans fled or were kicked out. What were you left with? Id say it was the sole benefit you got from WW2, and I can understand why you dont want to divest yourself from it.

 

 

All those German 'locals' were still Germans, same for the French. Point taken when it comes to Belgium, but not Netherlands for example. Still, there were functional people who had something in common. Quite a lot actually, even in Belgium.

In case of Poland it was both war and communism, there were gigantic population transfers - Germans to Germany, Ukrainians/Belarusians to USSR, quite a lot of Poles from USSR to Poland within new borders. Jews obviously mostly dead or out to newly forming Israel.

Edited May 21 by urbanoid

[Stuart Galbraith]

19 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

All those German 'locals' were still Germans, same for the French. Point taken when it comes to Belgium, but not Netherlands for example. Still, there were functional people who had something in common. Quite a lot actually, even in Belgium.

In case of Poland it was both war and communism, there were gigantic population transfers - Germans to Germany, Ukrainians/Belarusians to USSR, quite a lot of Poles from USSR to Poland within new borders. Jews obviously mostly dead or out to newly forming Israel.

But what WAS a German? Alright, they spoke theoretically the same language, although if Heimat is any guide there was some indecipherable dialect issues, like everywhere. But what did they have in common? They all had different monarchs, all have different loyalties.

Its even more disparate for the French.  The French were just a small group that eventually conqueored all France. Think of the parts that were Breton, Burgundian, Aquitanian, Norman. They didnt see themselves as French, not at first. Then put in the various loyalties they had to their own monarchs, and even to England. All had different languages. Breton im told has more similarities with Cornish than French.

Netherlands. Belgium used to be part of Netherlands till it succeeded from in the Belgium Revolution of 1830. There was damn near a European war about that, till the British had the great idea to mandate Belgium was neutral, which directly led to our coming into defending Belgium in WW1. Oops...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution

All these nations, it would kind of like being a German in the EU. You think of yourself as German primarily, a European secondarily. A lot of these nation states that errupted in the 1800's were just like that. In some cases it was a top down approach, rather than popular. 'Ok, so you were from Schleswig Holstein, you were Danish, you guys are German now, go it?' Or think of the territory Prussia claimed off Austro Hungary in 1867-68 I think? Did they suddenly think of themselves as German, or Austrlian primarily?

And Poland  had border  disputes, even before the war. Look at the war with Russia, that was because you felt you were entitled to what is now Belarus and Ukraine or chunks thereof (and far be it from me to disagree with you). You had a war with Czechoslovakia over territory you regarded as Polish. In many of those cases, im sure the locals were enthusiastic. In some cases im sure there would be a case of 'well who the hell are you guys then? Im Czech or Russian.'

The war sorted all that out. You had defined borders, and communism, for all its flaws, shielded you from immigration that was starting in Western Europe. You have developed your own kind of nationalism, based on the fact you dont have any other ethnic groups. 

But other Europeans countries most definately did, even before they had the first immigrant from Africa or Asia. Thats the point im trying to make. For you, this is a new problem you reject. For us, this is an old problem in new framework. Particularly so for the French, whom after all considered Algeria 'metropolitan', and the problem followed them home. The Netherlands have a similar issue with Indonesian Immigrants. They are almost like Empires in miniature, and all the problems that brings.

Edited May 21 by Stuart Galbraith

[urbanoid]

19 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But what WAS a German? Alright, they spoke theoretically the same language, although if Heimat is any guide there was some indecipherable dialect issues, like everywhere. But what did they have in common? They all had different monarchs, all have different loyalties.

Its even more disparate for the French.  The French were just a small group that eventually conqueored all France. Think of the parts that were Breton, Burgundian, Aquitanian, Norman. They didnt see themselves as French, not at first. Then put in the various loyalties they had to their own monarchs, and even to England. All had different languages. Breton im told has more similarities with Cornish than French.

Netherlands. Belgium used to be part of Netherlands till it succeeded from in the Belgium Revolution of 1830. There was damn near a European war about that, till the British had the great idea to mandate Belgium was neutral, which directly led to our coming into defending Belgium in WW1. Oops...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Revolution

All these nations, it would kind of like being a German in the EU. You think of yourself as German primarily, a European secondarily. A lot of these nation states that errupted in the 1800's were just like that. In some cases it was a top down approach, rather than popular. 'Ok, so you were from Schleswig Holstein, you were Danish, you guys are German now, go it?' Or think of the territory Prussia claimed off Austro Hungary in 1867-68 I think? Did they suddenly think of themselves as German, or Austrlian primarily?

And Poland  had border  disputes, even before the war. Look at the war with Russia, that was because you felt you were entitled to what is now Belarus and Ukraine or chunks thereof (and far be it from me to disagree with you). You had a war with Czechoslovakia over territory you regarded as Polish. In many of those cases, im sure the locals were enthusiastic. In some cases im sure there would be a case of 'well who the hell are you guys then? Im Czech or Russian.'

The war sorted all that out. You had defined borders, and communism, for all its flaws, shielded you from immigration that was starting in Western Europe. You have developed your own kind of nationalism, based on the fact you dont have any other ethnic groups. 

But other Europeans countries most definately did, even before they had the first immigrant from Africa or Asia. Thats the point im trying to make. For you, this is a new problem you reject. For us, this is an old problem in new framework. Particularly so for the French, whom after all considered Algeria 'metropolitan', and the problem followed them home. The Netherlands have a similar issue with Indonesian Immigrants. They are almost like Empires in miniature, and all the problems that brings.

It's not just about 'the problem', as problems are not equal. The scope of differences between various European ethnic/national groups like those 'different Germans/French/British' is way smaller than between any Europeans and Indians/Pakis/Arabs/Africans etc.

I'd say that in a sense we're particularly lucky that the people coming here are generally Ukrainians and Belarusians, but even if they were more distant Europeans like Welsh or Portuguese or some different kinds of 'Yugos', they'd fit in much better than thirdworlders. It's just common sense really.

With different cultures and races it becomes problematic more often than not (excluding the likes of the Japanese/Vietnamese etc., or maybe just to a smaller degree in their case). LKY was correct that in multiracial democracy people vote according to their racial interests and not national ones. That's exactly what happens with non-whites on both sides on the pond. He even got rid of jury trials in Singapore because the jurors were deciding along racial lines, exactly what often happens in the US today. Well, other than whites and maybe 'slant-eyed Asians', as those groups have a concept of fairness and public interest.

You need strong social cohesion to have actual democracy. The Franco-Germanic-Italian Switzerland can have one, because they have a lot in common despite ethnic differences.

[old_goat]

4 hours ago, urbanoid said:

I'd say that in a sense we're particularly lucky that the people coming here are generally Ukrainians and Belarusians, but even if they were more distant Europeans like Welsh or Portuguese or some different kinds of 'Yugos', they'd fit in much better than thirdworlders. It's just common sense really.

Exactly. Unlike the ukrainain regime, I have zero problems with ukrainian people. At my former job, I actually worked with some of them, and they were really really nice people. They integrate easily into any european society, and usually they are indeed skilled workforce.

But unfortunately, we are not as lucky as Poland. Orbán imports immigrants from all over the world. The worst are black africans. They almost always mean trouble. Second worst are pakistanis and indians. Neither respect our culture, traditions, and, women. Somewhat surprisingly, chinese are also proved to be notorious troublemakers. The least bad are philippinos, but still they have problems with hygiene, and they clearly do not fit into our society. I'd consider all of these mentioned undesirable. 

From what I heard, vietnamese and mongolians integrate very well in every aspect, but they arent that numerous. I deliberately didnt mention koreans and japanese, since nobody comes from there as an immigrant worker into this poor country, but Im sure they would be 100% compatible.

[bojan]

Chinese tourists are horrible, way worse than Brits, so I would not be surprised that their workers are more-less same.

[urbanoid]

28 minutes ago, old_goat said:

Exactly. Unlike the ukrainain regime, I have zero problems with ukrainian people. At my former job, I actually worked with some of them, and they were really really nice people. They integrate easily into any european society, and usually they are indeed skilled workforce.

But unfortunately, we are not as lucky as Poland. Orbán imports immigrants from all over the world. The worst are black africans. They almost always mean trouble. Second worst are pakistanis and indians. Neither respect our culture, traditions, and, women. Somewhat surprisingly, chinese are also proved to be notorious troublemakers. The least bad are philippinos, but still they have problems with hygiene, and they clearly do not fit into our society. I'd consider all of these mentioned undesirable. 

From what I heard, vietnamese and mongolians integrate very well in every aspect, but they arent that numerous. I deliberately didnt mention koreans and japanese, since nobody comes from there as an immigrant worker into this poor country, but Im sure they would be 100% compatible.

As for the Vietnamese we've had 30-40k since the 90s. A non-problematic minority, I wouldn't necessarily say that they integrate very well, as I think they mostly stick to their own (yeah, a normal human attitude) and I'm not advocating throwing them out. But if it was 5 or 10 million, sure, I'd be against so many, a nation is more than an economic productivity unit.

From what I read sometimes on twitter, the Chinese in Japan suck as well, whether as tourists or residents. Like, kicking deers in Nara? What kind of a subhuman would do that? 

On paper the worstest here in Poland are Georgians. 10% had court cases, out of a community of ~2000. Unfortunately, except for hard working Georgians (who open awesome bakeries and restaurants) Georgian mafia immigrated to the EU as well. IIRC Banshee once mentioned that it was very similar in Germany. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

Chinese tourists are horrible, way worse than Brits, so I would not be surprised that their workers are more-less same.

Hold my beer...

[R011]

11 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Most European nations were not ethnically homogenous, but were assembled from a group of parts, from victory in battle, even by dynastic marriages. The most obbvious example of this is Germany. They might have spoken German, but as we saw in Ukraine, just because you speak Russia, dont necessarily make you one.

Yes, you can say they were white or have vaguely similar characteristics, thats true. But look at France. It was a polygot of numerous different nationalities assembled into a country. Until comparatively late in the day it was very disparate. I cant recall how many different languages France had in the 1870's, but it was so many the Government had to mandate that all schoolchildren would be educated in French, because it was starting to become a real problem. To this day the Spanish have a problem with seperatists, not least the Basques. And of course Belgium has 43 percent Flemish, and 28 percent Walloon groups, a huge split.  Italy was not a singular nation till Garibaldi, and even then full unification lingered because the vatican was not particularly happy about its territory being annexed. Its a rare country in Europe that was ethnically singular. In fact, I struggle to think of one. Switzerland maybe?

I dont think it was communism that made Polish ethnically singular. I think that was very clearly a direct result of the war. All the Jews were killed or fled abroad. All the Germans fled or were kicked out. What were you left with? Id say it was the sole benefit you got from WW2, and I can understand why you dont want to divest yourself from it.

 

 

Even in Germany, the regional dialects can be different enough that one could view them as different languages.  Dutch is a separate language rather than a German dialect because of a border.

Similarly, Scots is a language but West Country and Yorkshire are dialects.

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 hours ago, R011 said:

Even in Germany, the regional dialects can be different enough that one could view them as different languages.  Dutch is a separate language rather than a German dialect because of a border.

Similarly, Scots is a language but West Country and Yorkshire are dialects.

To me its still a shock how comprehensively different Welsh is to anything in England. It really brings home to you how completely the Anglo Saxons must have colonised. Ironically there seems to be more words shared between Welsh and a native American tribe. Some claimed accident long ago with a really lost group of Welsh fisherman.

There is a claim the North/South divide is partially down to the Viking conquest. I seem to recall a documentary donkeys year ago that claimed the dialect and inflection of various English words may in fact be down to the scandinavian influence.

[Stuart Galbraith]

20 hours ago, urbanoid said:

It's not just about 'the problem', as problems are not equal. The scope of differences between various European ethnic/national groups like those 'different Germans/French/British' is way smaller than between any Europeans and Indians/Pakis/Arabs/Africans etc.

I'd say that in a sense we're particularly lucky that the people coming here are generally Ukrainians and Belarusians, but even if they were more distant Europeans like Welsh or Portuguese or some different kinds of 'Yugos', they'd fit in much better than thirdworlders. It's just common sense really.

With different cultures and races it becomes problematic more often than not (excluding the likes of the Japanese/Vietnamese etc., or maybe just to a smaller degree in their case). LKY was correct that in multiracial democracy people vote according to their racial interests and not national ones. That's exactly what happens with non-whites on both sides on the pond. He even got rid of jury trials in Singapore because the jurors were deciding along racial lines, exactly what often happens in the US today. Well, other than whites and maybe 'slant-eyed Asians', as those groups have a concept of fairness and public interest.

You need strong social cohesion to have actual democracy. The Franco-Germanic-Italian Switzerland can have one, because they have a lot in common despite ethnic differences.

Its worth repeating that my father could recall in the 1950's signs up where we live saying 'No Irish'. That such ideas may have been subsumed by the immigration of the blacks which became the new dirty men of Europe in the minds of some, but that mindset was still there. I still remember Irish jokes as late as the 1980's at school, before I was smart enough to realise I was Irish.

But going back a bit, when the Irish were coming over here building the railways as navvies, there was every bit the invective and fear of them that there was of the people coming over from Africa. Oh they would be violent, they would be drunks, they would rape our women, the horror! The papers were full of it, inflating every minor altercation. And when it came down to it they were largely good boys and not the ones getting drunk, because they were sending every damn penny back to their families recovering from the potato famine. The ones really tying them on were the English and Scots.

 

Strong social cohesion to have actual democracy. I agree with you actually. What I dont agree is the implicit suggestion that these elements cannot be integrated to make them socially cohesive. At the pace they are coming, probably not. At a controlled intelligent pace? Dont see why not. We built a nation out of wholly disparate elements before, no reason why we cant do it again. It probably does however  demand slightly greater adherence to some mythical British ideal, rather than the infinite largesse we currently show. I look back on how little we tried to integrate the Scots (not least encouraging their wearing of tartan and setting up the higland games) with something like astonishment. its like we set out not to integrate them at all.

Edited May 22 by Stuart Galbraith

[urbanoid]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its worth repeating that my father could recall in the 1950's signs up where we live saying 'No Irish'. That such ideas may have been subsumed by the immigration of the blacks which became the new dirty men of Europe in the minds of some, but that mindset was still there. I still remember Irish jokes as late as the 1980's at school, before I was smart enough to realise I was Irish.

But going back a bit, when the Irish were coming over here building the railways as navvies, there was every bit the invective and fear of them that there was of the people coming over from Africa. Oh they would be violent, they would be drunks, they would rape our women, the horror! The papers were full of it, inflating every minor altercation. And when it came down to it they were largely good boys and not the ones getting drunk, because they were sending every damn penny back to their families recovering from the potato famine. The ones really tying them on were the English and Scots.

 

Strong social cohesion to have actual democracy. I agree with you actually. What I dont agree is the implicit suggestion that these elements cannot be integrated to make them socially cohesive. At the pace they are coming, probably not. At a controlled intelligent pace? Dont see why not. We built a nation out of wholly disparate elements before, no reason why we cant do it again. It probably does however  demand slightly greater adherence to some mythical British ideal, rather than the infinite largesse we currently show. I look back on how little we tried to integrate the Scots (not least encouraging their wearing of tartan and setting up the higland games) with something like astonishment. its like we set out not to integrate them at all.

Yes, and at some point there were certain prejudices in the US against Italians/Poles/Germans/any non-WASPS/whatever, but it's ok now. The thing is, those groups are generally functional people who contribute to the society , so it all blew over. And the thing is, every single one of those groups were vastly closer genetically and culturally to the founding population than e.g. blacks, who are largely dysfunctional and are likely to remain so. Groups in what became Britain? Even closer. There's disparate and then there's disparate.

PS. You may not accept the 'implicit suggestion that these elements cannot be integrated', your call really. I refuse to see MY people suffer in the process of finding a probably elusive 'perfect solution'.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

Yes, and at some point there were certain prejudices in the US against Italians/Poles/Germans/any non-WASPS/whatever, but it's ok now. The thing is, those groups are generally functional people who contribute to the society , so it all blew over. And the thing is, every single one of those groups were vastly closer genetically and culturally to the founding population than e.g. blacks, who are largely dysfunctional and are likely to remain so. Groups in what became Britain? Even closer. There's disparate and then there's disparate.

PS. You may not accept the 'implicit suggestion that these elements cannot be integrated', your call really. I refuse to see MY people suffer in the process of finding a probably elusive 'perfect solution'.

Genetically. Lets think about that. All humankind comes from Africa. The Europeans come from India. So we are all Indo Africans whether we like it or not. At that point its a little late in the day to say Indians cant assimilate, despite having the same genetic legacy as the majority of us.

What you are talking about really is culture. And certainly ive heard horrific stories about Pakistani fathers beating their daughters to death because they are too 'Western.' OTOH, I remember about 15 years back a White father and mother torching the family house with their children inside, because they had the mistaken apprehension that the Fire brigade would save them and they would get a new council house. Their scum is scum, and so is ours. Are we that  superior we can point the finger and claim they are all inferior? Im not going to do that. Yes, some of them most certainly shouldnt let within spitting distance of a British passport, I quite agree, but I can say that about some of the people born here too.

Blacks, the first generation blacks from the carribean assimilated very well. So did the second. ill grant you blacks from Africa have some serious cultural hangups they should divest themselves of, but im willing to bet if a Nigerian or a Kenyan came here, they would fit in quite well. The British Army has been recruting a lot of Trinidadians and Fijians to make up the shortfall. No cultural problems there.

You dont have to, I think we have established that. Im not even saying you must. But I reject the idea it cannot work, when we have had a long history happening in Britain. No, Its not perfect, no multicultural society ever can been, but Reform are about 300 years too late to say keep England for the English. What does that mean anyway? Half of us are Irish or bloody French. And know, im not going to accept any claims we are culturally identical to the French. They would see that as an insult too.

 

Edited May 22 by Stuart Galbraith

[urbanoid]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Genetically. Lets think about that. All humankind comes from Africa. The Europeans come from India. So we are all Indo Africans whether we like it or not. At that point its a little late in the day to say Indians cant assimilate, despite having the same genetic legacy as the majority of us.

What you are talking about really is culture. And certainly ive heard horrific stories about Pakistani fathers beating their daughters to death because they are too 'Western.' OTOH, I remember about 15 years back a White father and mother torching the family house with their children inside, because they had the mistaken apprehension that the Fire brigade would save them and they would get a new council house. Their scum is scum, and so is ours. Are we that  superior we can point the finger and claim they are all inferior? Im not going to do that. Yes, some of them most certainly shouldnt let within spitting distance of a British passport, I quite agree, but I can say that about some of the people born here too.

Blacks, the first generation blacks from the carribean assimilated very well. So did the second. ill grant you blacks from Africa have some serious cultural hangups they should divest themselves of, but im willing to bet if a Nigerian or a Kenyan came here, they would fit in quite well. The British Army has been recruting a lot of Trinidadians and Fijians to make up the shortfall. No cultural problems there.

You dont have to, I think we have established that. Im not even saying you must. But I reject the idea it cannot work, when we have had a long history happening in Britain. No, Its not perfect, no multicultural society ever can been, but Reform are about 300 years too late to say keep England for the English. What does that mean anyway? Half of us are Irish or bloody French. And know, im not going to accept any claims we are culturally identical to the French. They would see that as an insult too.

 

Second sentence and already a mere theory. The Africans possess some genes from an unknown hominid, which no other races have. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/ghost-ancestors-african-dna-study-detects-mysterious-human-species-idUSKBN2072X9/

And no, the Europeans don't 'come from India', more like Central Asia (not all of us, but most). The higher castes in India are largely the descendants of Indo-European Aryan invaders from Central Asia who introduced the caste system in the first place, to keep themselves separate from the natives (who look more like Abos), unfortunately for them they weren't perfectly successful in that. OTOH gotta hand it to them that they created a perfect, diabolical social/religious system where the bottoms never rebel against those at the top, at least they didn't in recorded memory.

Culture is downstream from race, 60-80 IQs won't build or maintain a proper civilization as we understand it and we know that IQ is mostly hereditary. Btw genetics is not just IQ, it's also largely responsible for the aggressiveness for example, that's why certain groups in the US are more likely to chimp out which in the end results in a 'suicide by cop'. At first glance at least, as it wasn't really a suicide, just the inability to consider consequences coupled with higher propensity towards aggression.

Your blacks in the UK are also way above average when it comes to criminality and are generally underachievers - like everywhere else. So no, it's not merely cultural. 

And yes, their scum is theirs and ours is ours, but it's about the scale. Going to be worse when it comes to Paki inbreds.

[old_goat]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The Europeans come from India. So we are all Indo Africans whether we like it or not. At that point its a little late in the day to say Indians cant assimilate, despite having the same genetic legacy as the majority of us.

Lol... There is a rather infamous ethnicity, who definitely came from India. The gypsies (or roma, if you really want to be PC). And guess what... They are also unable to integrate into any society. In Hungary, they are responsible for the vast majority of crimes. (and Im 100% certain it is the same in other eastern european countries. But others from this region can comment on it) And to return a bit to the topic, just see a few pages back what they are doing in Meloni's Italy... 

 

Edited May 22 by old_goat