Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Retaking the Homeland

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 19th, 2006 @ 06:52 AM
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Midwest
    Gender
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Law Office
    Religion
    Why?
    Posts
    14
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Retaking the Homeland

    Quote Originally Posted by Madoc View Post

    This forum is about the discussion of Germanic perservation. I get the impression you are in favor of non-Europid immigration & multiculturalism.


    Then you need to read some of my other threads. Don't confuse playing the devils advocate my beliefs or motivations.

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 19th, 2006 @ 06:52 AM
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Midwest
    Gender
    Family
    Married, happily
    Occupation
    Law Office
    Religion
    Why?
    Posts
    14
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Retaking the Homeland

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    It's much easier to understand what you're saying now. What you meant was pretty far down my list of possible interpretations, so I'm glad I asked you to clear it up.

    I don't endorse the murder of immigrants without regard to their behavior. Please see the original statement:

    I was careful to make it clear that I do not endorse criminal activity (such as murder). I do, however, believe that people should be able to defend (or, in some cases, even avenge) themselves. Many foreign immigrants in Britain (and in Europe, and in the United States) have a tendency to behave criminally toward the native population. Current law in Britain makes it very difficult to rebuff such an attack with the appropriate amount of violence. Now, if the British feel like they shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves against one another, then that's their right. But I do wish they would feel justified in defending themselves — with deadly force if necessary — against foreign immigrants with criminal intent.

    I think the problems with immigration are exacerbated by the coddling the immigrants receive from the native population. In our generosity, we have a tendency to be kinder to foreigners who behave criminally than to our own people who behave criminally. That's silly. If your brother treated you poorly in your house, you'd definitely want to have words with him, but you wouldn't quit the relationship over it right away. But if a stranger whom you'd let in started to treat you poorly, you'd throw him out in the mud and bar the door without a second thought. I don't mean you specifically, of course, because I have no idea who you are really. But I think most people would find this sort of behavior natural.

    I think if the British people (not the state, but the people themselves) were more willing to get aggressive with criminally-minded immigrants, then immigration rates would plummet and many immigrants, even if they were not inclined to be criminal and so were highly unlikely to become anyone's target, would try to find greener pastures elsewhere.

    Of course, it's not just the British who could use such an infusion of aggression against criminal invaders. We all could. But this thread is about Britain.

    I hope that clarifies my earlier statement for you.
    Crystal

    (which still seems only tangentially related to my earlier statement),
    That's a matter of perspective

    I think people have a right to defend themselves against the criminally minded. If we go as guests into another land (not invaders, but guests), then I would expect that we would treat our hosts graciously and not provoke their anger. I would also expect that if we go in as guests, our hosts would treat us graciously. I think that both host and guest have a right to defend themselves against inappropriate treatment at one another's hand. If, after we arrive and are welcomed as guests, our hosts try to renege on their agreement with us, I think we have just as much right to defend our interests as they have to defend theirs should we overstep our bounds.

    If we go in as invaders rather than guests, then I think we're ultimately justified in doing whatever we can get away with (at least from a mortal perspective — I wouldn't agree with that on a spiritual level). If we fail, then no matter what we do, we'd be seen as unjust invaders rightly repelled. If we succeed, then we run the show in that land from then on, so no matter what we do, we can paint ourselves pretty as you please. So if we're going about invading another land and not seeking hospitality, then we can do whatever we're capable of.



    I guess, to tie it back into the situation Britain, I could say that I think the criminally-minded immigrants are after invasion rather than hospitality. If they succeed in their aims, then it won't matter whether their means were good or not — Britain will become Pakistani (or whatever) and the Pakistani people of the future Britain will feel that the actions of the first colonists were the manifestation of the holy will of Allah. By the same token, if the British stop the invaders (not the guests, but the invaders), then it won't matter how they do it, because they will be seen as being justified in stopping an unjust invasion.

    The problem is that we too often treat invaders like guests. If we keep that up, history will not care that we were kind to our invaders. All history will care about is that we were beaten.



    What I'm saying is that the British should be the ones to wake up and retake the island.



    And by the way, I don't feel our need for Arab oil is that great. There's plenty of oil in the United States, Canada, the North Sea, and Russia to meet all our needs. The only reason we go after Arab oil so aggressively is because we don't feel like the Arabs are equal human beings with equally wonderful homelands, so we don't care about what the extraction process does to them and their environment as much as we care about our own. It's sad, but it's true. Everyone who wants to stop oil drilling in ANWR but doesn't mind the drilling in Arabia is a racist bigot — for good or ill. If the Arabs became capable of convincing us through force that we don't want their oil anymore (and they would probably only do such a thing at China's behest and with their aid, since they're the primary consumer of Arab oil), we would still be able to meet all our energy needs through our own resources and those of our fellow Europeans. The Arabs are not our major source of oil as it is, anyway.

    Furthermore, I really wouldn't mind going without petrolic energy altogether. I can meet my own electric, heating, and transportation needs in a host of other ways if necessary. Besides, most of our consumption of petrolic energy is for luxurious purposes anyway. It certainly wouldn't hurt to cut back on luxuries.

    Very good

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    9 Hours Ago @ 02:05 AM
    Ethnicity
    Gender
    Posts
    1,588
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    303
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    39
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    I wish I could retake Bradford from Sharia Law, but it would still be less ideal than where my forefathers lived in Swaledale. On my other sides of the family, many of them lived in the orbit of London. Once again, I would like to see the capital freed of foreigners, but if that included removing the Normans from the establishment and returning it to Saxons, that would be the best for them. Only in those conditions would I enjoy visiting London, because I don't fit in there, Mum's side in the Home Counties notwithstanding. I've got better things to do with my life than throw it down the drain of that black hole.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Baorn For This Useful Post:


  5. #24
    Senior Member Aelfgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Online
    17 Hours Ago @ 06:24 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    8/16 English, 1/16 Scottish, 7/16 Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Lancashire Lancashire
    Gender
    Religion
    Agnostic/Panentheist
    Posts
    155
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    102
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    88
    Thanked in
    61 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Baorn View Post
    I wish I could retake Bradford from Sharia Law, but it would still be less ideal than where my forefathers lived in Swaledale. On my other sides of the family, many of them lived in the orbit of London. Once again, I would like to see the capital freed of foreigners, but if that included removing the Normans from the establishment and returning it to Saxons, that would be the best for them. Only in those conditions would I enjoy visiting London, because I don't fit in there, Mum's side in the Home Counties notwithstanding. I've got better things to do with my life than throw it down the drain of that black hole.
    You wrote "Mum" and not "Mom"

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Aelfgar For This Useful Post:


  7. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    9 Hours Ago @ 02:05 AM
    Ethnicity
    Gender
    Posts
    1,588
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    303
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    39
    Thanked in
    35 Posts
    Yes, but Noah Webster had his spellings correct regarding words like color and glamor. Colour and glamour are French-influenced spellings, probably reinforced by Francophilia in the Scottish monarchy, to go with changing Stewart to Stuart. The only thing convenient about the change to that Royal clan's name, is to differentiate the original line from the Stewards of the court and the later Lennox branch of Lord Darnley that came to rule England against Parliament's wishes.

    Dad's dad had both parents born in Bradford when Edward VII was King, whilst Campbell-Bannerman was at #10 Downing St. I had quite the imperial childhood, but Mum as well as Dad's mum are from New England Puritan families. The only way I can bridge this politically, is to vouch for England to look fondly upon America's Cromwellian government. I really tried to adhere to the CoE and then Methodism, but both are sinking ships and I would rather embrace the Godly living of Mum's ancestors where I was born. It's sad that Dad's kin are still smothered by Popery and Prelacy, so my love of Yorkshire is tempered by their being behind the times.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Baorn For This Useful Post:


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Homeland of the Haplogroup G2a3b1a?
    By Ęgir in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Tuesday, November 8th, 2011, 12:25 AM
  2. Should Vinlanders Have Their Own Homeland?
    By ulfrik in forum The United States
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: Monday, November 22nd, 2010, 08:49 AM
  3. What Do You Consider Your Homeland?
    By Georgia in forum International Germanic Community
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: Thursday, June 22nd, 2006, 11:39 PM
  4. Pictures of your Homeland
    By Eikžyrnir in forum Visual Arts & Aesthetics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Tuesday, December 14th, 2004, 08:34 PM
  5. Yugoslavia: The Dinaric Homeland?
    By torrent in forum Dinarid
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, February 15th, 2003, 12:27 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •