Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Gandhi the Non-Violent Hero of the Liberals

  1. #21
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    his more than justified anti-Britishness
    Why was his anti-Britishness "more than justified"?

    Perhaps you've picked up some of the agenda driven hatred of the British Empire from the liberal multicultural socialists

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Ederico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhydderch View Post
    Why was his anti-Britishness "more than justified"?

    Perhaps you've picked up some of the agenda driven hatred of the British Empire from the liberal multicultural socialists
    Where on earth do you get such a notion? I'm a nationalist properly-speaking, therefore against any form of imperialism. Just because in the Anglosphere, perhaps, "liberal multicultural socialists" are against the British Empire doesn't make anyone against it "liberal multicultural socialists" particularly if they don't belong in the same cultural context.

    May I inform you that my people were against their own will made a colony by usurpation of the rights that rightfully belonged to sovereign of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, that also happened after being granted assurances and promised stuff that never was respected.

    My people, as Gandhi's, were under British rule and oppression. Our history and identity was perverted through official Imperialist policies and subservience by some unworthy Maltese. To this day, and that is the tragedy of it all, is that most Maltese people don't even know this. Don't expect me to favour British imperialism, for a Maltese that's material for those that Maltese nationalists termed "meticci e rinnegati", bastards and renegades.

    In actual fact, if I am to witness history of British domination in Malta it was mostly leftists, socialists and multiculturalists that favoured the British Empire with the main historic socialist leader in Malta, also known for his anti-conservative social stances and his pro-communist allusions, that even proposed integration in the UK. Nowadays, the anglophile residue are mostly of the same lot, often unfortunately far from educated. In history, imperialists and Maltese socialists went hand in hand at least until a few years before independence, which was arrived at thanks to anti-imperialist, anti-socialist, anti-liberal (in the social sense) Maltese nationalists. As testified by declassified British documents related to the questions, after WWII the British even considered aiding the local socialists in order to crumble nationalist support. They even got people from the UK to aid in the bolstering and reconstruction of the Malta Labour Party in the same period. The party's official name, to this day, is still in the English language.

    Before WWI such allegiance was also formal, through what was the Compact, an alliance between the local pro-Imperial party led by a staunch capitalist and imperialist half-caste, Lord Gerald Strickland and the local socialists in common liason against the Maltese nationalists. This was prior to WWII. After WWII, particularly the pro-Imperialist party was politically devoid of support, while even though suffering from intense deceitful anti-nationalist propaganda the nationalists were still going on. In the 1950s, on the behest of the socialists, a referendum for integration in the UK was held. The Catholic Church and the Maltese nationalists called for a boycott and no quorum was reached. Prior to that, as attested to myself by the personal secretary of the then nationalist leader, an important figure on the road to independence, the nationalist leader was even threatened by the British governor to stop speaking out against integration. I hope you don't expect me to consider the Catholic Church and Maltese nationalists of the day as liberal, socialists and multiculturalists do you when they were the total opposite of that?

    Is that enough, or are we to believe that opposition to the British Empire, outside of Britain itself, is effectively liberal, multiculturalist and socialist a priori? In my country I've always been vocal against modern-day liberalism, multiculturalism and socialism. That cost my name getting front pages on socialist papers, being branded "the new face of Maltese nationalism", being criminally defamed and portrayed as a squadrista in a theatrical "comedy" by a local Christian Democrat (liberal leftists in themselves) organisation that even aired on national tv, and else. I don't accept being told that I picked up any form of agenda from liberals, multiculturalists and socialists. Thanks.

    Imperialism is an enemy of nationalism, a tool now used against anyone favouring European identities and a politically-applied patriotism by liberals, multiculturalists and socialists. The latter grouping is not to be blamed, but those confusing imperialism with nationalism and excusing the former are for they throw fuel on the fire. I'm a nationalist, I oppose imperialism.

    Gandhi was someone that expected his people to be free from the British yoke, he has my respect for that. That alone makes his independentist agenda more than justified.

    And by anti-Britishness, I meant his opposition to British rule over his people. Or are we to expect that while we moan and groan due to multiculturalism because it is to the detriment of our culture and sovereignty we are to applaud to British, or else, imperialism which is to the detriment of others'?

  3. #23
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    against the British Empire doesn't make anyone against it "liberal multicultural socialists" particularly if they don't belong in the same cultural context.
    When did I say it makes you one if you're against the British Empire? I never said it.

    I'm saying you may have picked up that view from them, because your view is typical of anti-British Empire people, quite biased and indeed incorrect in many respects (in fact the leftists perpetuate thorough lies about it). You share certain views with them.

    My people, as Gandhi's, were under British rule and oppression.
    What are some examples of this oppression?

    I think the British treated the Indians a lot better than their own rulers had prior to British rule.


    I have more points which I'll come to later.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    AlbionMP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 @ 05:54 PM
    Gender
    Age
    50
    Posts
    293
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    I would rather say, the British and the Brahmin class did a much better job of running the Indian subcontient, than the Dravidian / Mongrel people who are in charge today.

    India a complete and utter mess today, and it will get worse as its population continues to increase - unchecked.

  5. #25
    Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 16th, 2008 @ 08:21 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Age
    55
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    retired
    Politics
    apolitical
    Religion
    catholic
    Posts
    41
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Fafner View Post
    Why a murderer? Just because he was against the United States' imperialism policies?

    It's like what's happening today in Irak. The USA (I mean Bush government, not American people) invades the country to "free" them, killing inocent people... Isn't that a kind of terrorism?

    I'm not defending guerrilla or terrorism, but I think you've got to see both sides of the matter.

    That's what I think.

    Guevara personally pulled the trigger in the execution of hundreds of Batista's followers,( just soldiers following orders and falling captive) and other innocents which were categorized as "antirevolutionaries", and he signed death sentences for hundreds of so called "enemies of the revolution". Nice guy . The terror of 1796 and 1917 was re-enacted in Havana under the baton of comandante che guevara . I don't know what to call an individual, any individual ,who carries out an act or acts of murder; a murderer or an executioner ? or a saint ?. In the name of the universal revolution, communist revolution, wherever he set foot ( in Africa he teamed up with the criminal Kabila, half a cannibal, and went on a murderous rampage against Kabila's enemies; africa was a rehearsal for his real show in the jungles of bolivia) the soil became drenched in blood.
    He was a pocket revolutionary, idealist , good organizing leadership and like his idol Trotsky ( another mass murderer) hell bent on exporting revolution for revolution's sake. A perfect tool of the communists to carry out their dirty wars of insurgencies and revolution.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Ederico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 @ 10:37 PM
    Gender
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,264
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhydderch View Post
    When did I say it makes you one if you're against the British Empire? I never said it.

    I'm saying you may have picked up that view from them, because your view is typical of anti-British Empire people, quite biased and indeed incorrect in many respects (in fact the leftists perpetuate thorough lies about it). You share certain views with them.

    What are some examples of this oppression?

    I think the British treated the Indians a lot better than their own rulers had prior to British rule.


    I have more points which I'll come to later.
    What you state is narrow-minded, or at least limited to your British or Australian context. I took my views from no liberal, socialist or multiculturalist. I took them from British imperialist policies in Malta and the nationalist reactions to them. My views arise out of British historical injustices which gave rise to nationalist reactions in history. That means that before you point your finger towards your liberal, social and multiculturalist enemies and nationalists whose people had to suffer your domain, you should first look at your actions and how they could have resulted in opposition to the British Empire.

    Differently from those liberals, socialist or multiculturalists I expect no retribution from the British. However, the least one is to expect is the truth, and that is the only guarantee for avoiding partiality.


    What I state involves no lies and no bias, just history as I researched. My views arose through the years out of my historical research. They were neither implanted into me by family or social environment. Actually my father had a brief stint in the Royal Navy, and Malta still needs to recognise the truths about Anglo-Maltese relations when the British Empire held us under its sway.

    My qualm is with ignorant or servile Maltese who don't recognize the political history of British imperialism in Malta. However, I do not expect to be told of the justice of British imperialism. Maltese history properly sought and understood knows nothing of that sort. Political correctness however, leaves much Maltese lacking in the field. That is why there are many Maltese that are pro-British, apart from personal friendly relationships with Englishman that I myself have as well, and am happy about that.

    I will avoid serving historical details of British injustices in Malta, as that would take quite a lengthy endeavour. Actually, I intend to write a book on the matter in the future. That will perhaps counter such British-commissioned recent books as British Heritage in Malta in which one witnesses the megalitic temples, St. John's Co-Cathedral in La Valletta, the statue of Dante Alighieri in Floriana, Caravaggio paintings et cetera. I wonder what type of British heritage is that? At least they included the red telephone and mail boxes! The book was sponsored by the British High Commissioner. As far as I was concerned, I was amazed to see such a poor, and officially-sanctioned, rendition. The book, in the British High Commissioner's words, if I remember correctly, supposedly witnesses to the historical ties of friendship between "the two island races". Too bad that much that actually happened under British rule was left out, included much that was far off from friendship. eyes:

    It is obvious that you pretend to provide some form of apologetics for British imperialism. I'm an ideological nationalist, thus opposed to any form of imperialism. I'm a Maltese nationalist, thus historically aware of British usurpation and injustice in Malta and utter imperialist self-interest bar minor instances which in the complex whole of British imperialism and Malta don't really excuse and definitely don't justify British imperialism in Malta.

    As far as the British Empire is concerned, I cannot be against it, it is historical and defunct and due to it Britain is in deep trouble as immigrants from ex-colonies flocked in in great numbers. I think that nowadays the first to oppose any form of justification of British imperialism should be the British themselves, the English in particular.

    I do know that when a people ask for independence, they should be granted it and not subjected to an unwanted and self-interested rule, as happened for many British colonies including India and Malta. That is why I have a bit of respect for Gandhi, for he was a recognised Indian nationalist leader.

    As far as the British bettering off anyone, that is based on the wrong premises. A nationalist's prime concern is not material well-being. The latter is very typical for liberal, socialist and materialist people. I am not.

    Whatever happens, any material progress, is irrelevant as far as that involves an unwanted domination. Imperialists have the attitude to think that they can aid someone by force and dictation, often belittling their supposed pupils in civilisation. I do not subscribe to the notion of childlike and adult nations, where the former have to be forcefully instructed by the latter, and the latter have an ordained mission to civilise the world. Obviously, that means making those subjects as much akin to the dominator as possible. That is what the British attempted in Malta. This also reminds me on the internationalisation of the liberal, individualistic, anti-traditional, capitalistic credo having an Anglo-American impetus which has become a secular dogma for all of humanity to be subservient to. In a way, it is just an imperialism in substantially cultural and materialist terms. I object to this new form of imperialism, as I object to the form in question. Unfortunately, they seem to have the same root.

    An observation I can make is that considering that Malta's intelligentsia has its major cultural nutrition through the English language, since the Italian language is no longer Malta's language of culture and education thanks to British imperial interests, the Maltese intelligentsia is now pathetic to the core and lacking a proper identity. Ironically, Britain might have given way for the notion of a Malta detached from Italy as a people and nation, but it has stripped it of its endemic Italian intellectual nurturing thus not permitting the development of a Maltese intelligentsia that could give rise to a proper national movement. No wonder the Maltese nowadays are so not aware of their traditions, heritage and identity (and I mean, more than anyone else).

    Queen Victoria once wrote, due to problems in Ireland, that she was worried if Malta would start to give trouble. Her empire should have acted with justice and not with bullying, and she needn't have to worry nor would her statue in La Valletta suffer being covered in acid by some Maltese nationalists. The British in Malta were actually lucky, for our nationalists never opted for the Irish ways even though we were far from being treated with dignity. Our historical nationalists thus opted for a political and diplomatic way. That was just to be treated badly and in bully-like manners most of the times, unfortunately.

    The British pretended, as official policy stated, to deitalianise the Maltese and anglicize us. That is obscene and unjust, a perversion of a people's natural and traditional identity, no wonder it was resisted by Maltese nationalists wholeheartedly. Nowadays we do not have a true vestige of knowledge of our former traditional Italian culture, and we can thank British imperialism for that.

    The views I share, I share them with Maltese nationalists. If anyone else's shares them, then they are in the right on the question. Perhaps you should know that liberals, socialists and multiculturalists are not the same in each and every country. For the British they are anti-imperialist, and they should be lauded for that, in Malta they're anti-nationalist and I actively oppose them. If you're a nationalist you should take the same position, for you just discredit your cause by believing that excusing imperialism and adhering to it you have any right to your own historic lands. As far as I'm concerned, opposing immigration and multiculturalism is a matter of national rights, espousing imperialism is a matter of denying them and asserting the notion that "might is right". Well, "the might" now is anti-European (and anti-British), does it make it right?

    You just attempt to excuse wrongs which should be accepted, not justified. Your bias is more apparent than mine. I stated historical facts from my people's dealing with Britain's empire, which in Malta are not stated by "liberals, socialists and multiculturalists." Actually you'd be surprised to notice that these in Malta are mostly pro-British.

    You only give those "liberals, socialists and multiculturalists" you rightly loathe ammunition to bring you down. That happens when anyone would attempt to justify actions devoid of justice. Attempt to justify imperialism and you lose all credibility, as far as I'm concerned, for speaking of what is right and wrong on the question.

    I am personally much involved, and passionately so, in this question. Living in my country, witnessing everything in English, going to apply for stuff and having to do so in English, witnessing Maltese snobs speaking in English, witnessing our Maltese language getting Anglicized by lazy ignoramuses, having made of our Italian language something foreign, having to witness such ridiculous notions as the Maltese being of Punic/Phoenician heritage without anyone having the decency to assert the truth of our Italian heritage, et cetera, is far too much to pretend that I would have words of praise or recognition of good towards my people from the British Empire. The British, as far as any true Maltese nationalist is concerned, here did a mess. A fine example of this, is the website of the latest right-wing party to rise in Malta, all in the English language. That is because most people know written English here better than their own Maltese language. To think that in the past the pro-Imperialist party was, deceitfully, concerned for the Maltese language and wanted it promoted. It was only a move to eliminate Italian and lead to an English language hegemony in Malta. That was what the nationalists used to say, they have been proven right. Thanks, British Empire!

    This all means that you can avoid those more points that you'll come to later, and this is my last post on the question here for respect of the Germanic nature of the English and this Germanic forum. Otherwise, if history is to be discussed, I have nothing nice to state if I witness any imperialistic apologetics. In fact, I opt for silence from now on.

  7. #27
    Moderator
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Sigurd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 30th, 2020 @ 09:35 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Bavarii, Saxones, Suebi, Alamanni
    Subrace
    Borreby + Atlantonordoid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Location
    Einöde in den Alpen
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Engaged
    Politics
    Tradition & Homeland
    Religion
    Odinist
    Posts
    9,129
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    77
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    415
    Thanked in
    299 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Adalwulf View Post
    The Che shirts are ridiculous though; I mean, we're talking communist merchandise here.
    There's always Corneliu Codreanu shirts as an alternative.

  8. #28
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ederico View Post
    What you state is narrow-minded, or at least limited to your British or Australian context.
    This isn't just an Anglosphere thing, I see these anti-British lies perpetuated everywhere.

    That means that before you point your finger towards your liberal, social and multiculturalist enemies and nationalists whose people had to suffer your domain,
    Most of these people were never (except those who are British or of British origin) under the Empire.

    My qualm is with ignorant or servile Maltese who don't recognize the political history of British imperialism in Malta.

    That is why there are many Maltese that are pro-British,
    If the British were so despotic, why are there many Maltese who are pro-British?

    Also, are you suggesting that you know facts most people are unaware of? How do you know those supposed facts are correct, and not a slanted view?

    It is obvious that you pretend to provide some form of apologetics for British imperialism.
    Yes, but that doesn't mean I think everything was good. But in this modern atmosphere of great opposition to, and spreading of falsehood about the British Empire, there is a need for balance. If this wasn't the case I could afford to be more critical.

    The British Empire was certainly better than most other great historical Empires.

    I'm an ideological nationalist, thus opposed to any form of imperialism.
    Well, fair enough, I can't expect you to be pro-British. But I think your view of the nature of the British Empire is innaccurate.

    I'm a Maltese nationalist, thus historically aware of British usurpation and injustice in Malta and utter imperialist self-interest bar minor instances which in the complex whole of British imperialism and Malta don't really excuse and definitely don't justify British imperialism in Malta.
    But wouldn't you be against the British Empire even if they'd (in your opinion) ruled with a "gentle hand"?

    What I object to is exaggerations (or actual falsehoods) about what happened.

    As far as the British Empire is concerned, I cannot be against it, it is historical and defunct and due to it Britain is in deep trouble as immigrants from ex-colonies flocked in in great numbers.
    Immigration isn't an inherent aspect of imperialism, and indeed places like America are plagued with it as much as Britain, yet the immigrants aren't coming from colonies.

    I think that nowadays the first to oppose any form of justification of British imperialism should be the British themselves, the English in particular.[/B]It's the very collapse of the Empire and of Britain's power that has coincided with these problems. And again, what you're saying is exactly the sort of thing the liberal lefties say.

    I do know that when a people ask for independence, they should be granted it
    In my opinion it depends why they want independence and what the consequences would be. Most of the former British colonies have fallen back into turmoil since becoming independent.

    As far as the British bettering off anyone, that is based on the wrong premises. A nationalist's prime concern is not material well-being.
    But one can't just ignore material well-being. That would be just blinded idealism.

    Whatever happens, any material progress, is irrelevant as far as that involves an unwanted domination.
    Focusing entirely on nationalism and independence (especially if it just boils down to symbolism and little else) is as silly as focusing entirely on material well-being.

    Imperialists have the attitude to think that they can aid someone by force and dictation, often belittling their supposed pupils in civilisation. I do not subscribe to the notion of childlike and adult nations, where the former have to be forcefully instructed by the latter, and the latter have an ordained mission to civilise the world.
    There are civilised and uncivilised peoples, whether one likes it or not. In my opinion barbarity and "uncivilisation" is not a good thing.

    Obviously, that means making those subjects as much akin to the dominator as possible.
    It needn't.

    I object to this new form of imperialism,
    I object to much of it too.

    Unfortunately, they seem to have the same root.
    Absolutely not. The global culture which largely came out of America is liberal and modernist (to some extent its roots lie in the French Revolution era ideas), even somewhat Socialist (but not in an economic sense). It's certainly not traditional Anglo-American either.

    British Imperialism was entirely different. Conservative and certainly not liberal.

    An observation I can make is that considering that Malta's intelligentsia has its major cultural nutrition through the English language, since the Italian language is no longer Malta's language of culture and education thanks to British imperial interests, the Maltese intelligentsia is now pathetic to the core and lacking a proper identity. Ironically, Britain might have given way for the notion of a Malta detached from Italy as a people and nation, but it has stripped it of its endemic Italian intellectual nurturing thus not permitting the development of a Maltese intelligentsia that could give rise to a proper national movement. No wonder the Maltese nowadays are so not aware of their traditions, heritage and identity (and I mean, more than anyone else).
    The Maltese people and language aren't Italian-derived are they? If you object to British domination and influence, why don't you object to Italian?

    Perhaps you should know that liberals, socialists and multiculturalists are not the same in each and every country.
    Yes, I am aware of that. They mould their methods to fit the unique situation in whatever country they're trying to achieve their agenda.

    For the British they are anti-imperialist, and they should be lauded for that, in Malta they're anti-nationalist and I actively oppose them.
    They are always both anti-nationalist and anti-imperialist. It's possible that in Malta it suits (for whatever reason) their agenda to appear pro-British, but another possibility is that you're simply confusing pro-imperialists and liberals in Malta simply because they're both anti-nationalist. You might be just putting them in the same box.

    On the other hand, there is an unhealthy kind of nationalism which, although not liberal in the normal sense of the word, is socialist and in reality anti-traditional, even though adherents don't always realise it. I tend to associate even the word "nationalist" with this kind of ideology; the Nazis and Fascists were of this sort.

    espousing imperialism is a matter of denying them and asserting the notion that "might is right".
    Well, I don't believe in invading and making war on a country simply for the sake of conquering and adding it to an empire. But that's not generally (if it happened at all) how the British Empire grew. It was in fact remarkably peaceful and lacking in despotism as empires go

    Actually you'd be surprised to notice that these in Malta are mostly pro-British.
    I doubt that they are pro-British Empire, unless they see nationalism in Malta as a big enough problem to warrant the use of "Britishism" as an antedote.

    You only give those "liberals, socialists and multiculturalists" you rightly loathe ammunition to bring you down.
    No, they have to misrepresent what really happened in order to make people anti-British.

    A fine example of this, is the website of the latest right-wing party to rise in Malta, all in the English language. That is because most people know written English here better than their own Maltese language. To think that in the past the pro-Imperialist party was, deceitfully, concerned for the Maltese language and wanted it promoted. It was only a move to eliminate Italian and lead to an English language hegemony in Malta.
    Why do you want Italian, when it is also a foreign language? Are you in favour of some kind of Italian imperialism?

  9. #29
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Leofric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, March 13th, 2020 @ 02:18 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Zodiac Sign
    Aquarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Telecommunications
    Politics
    Libertarian/Neo-Imperialist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,193
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    11
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    26
    Thanked in
    25 Posts
    It's up to him, of course, but if Ederico doesn't respond to your questions, Rhydderch, it doesn't hurt to mention that he did say he would speak no more on this topic here out of respect for the Germanic nature of both the forum and the English. I'm familiar with some of his other online work, so I'm sure he'd be ready with well-reasoned responses — don't interpret silence, if he gives only that in this thread, as either an affront or as inability to rebut.

  10. #30
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 28th, 2011 @ 06:35 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scottish (basically)
    Country
    Australia Australia
    Location
    Victoria
    Gender
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,493
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    14 Posts
    it doesn't hurt to mention that he did say he would speak no more on this topic here out of respect for the Germanic nature of both the forum and the English.
    mmm, makes me wonder what sort of insults about the English he's got up his sleeve

    I'm familiar with some of his other online work, so I'm sure he'd be ready with well-reasoned responses — don't interpret silence, if he gives only that in this thread, as either an affront or as inability to rebut.
    Fair enough. I don't think I would have interpreted it as such, however.

    I can see that he's more informed than the usual anti-British Empire sort, and has more reason to comment on it.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Gandhi's Swadeshi - The Economics of Permanence
    By Taras Bulba in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, March 11th, 2007, 08:43 PM
  2. Gandhi Thought Black People Were Subhuman
    By Tryggvi in forum Southern Africa
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Sunday, December 11th, 2005, 05:50 PM
  3. A Moslem Fifth Column? 'Gandhi and Godse A Review and a Critique'
    By ogenoct in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, November 6th, 2004, 01:09 PM

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
  •