I'm making this thread really in the hope that this kind of discussion can be limited more to the one thread. I obviously don't expect nor ask that people religiously stick to OP topics but when they seem to never come back to it and become about other topics I think some have a right to be miffed.

So why not keep those topics to threads designed for them.

I certainly have some things to address.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

There are two posts from Bluejay I wish to address. Firstly an extract from one of his posts making a point he's pushed regularly.

'The common factor with them really is a complete lack of basic and genuine socialisation. It's not even so much about a lack of affinity for other tribes, it's that they are so far removed even from their own tribe that they can espouse views that are detached from understood norms and understandings of how people interact and get along. We can all put the world to rights in solitary confinement, and in terms of mentally that's what you see here.'

Here he's trying to push the idea that if you hold say the same opinion that the Dalai Lama holds that Europeans should be the majorities within their own homelands that this means that you're a social outcast....because no one else would think that.

The idea that this opinion requires this can be easily refuted. While today it's certainly true that an open declaration can be dangerous for your job prospects it's certainly true that if we look back to times before these persecutions these opinions were openly stated.

The parents of many posters on these forums would have been young when Powell made his 'rivers of blood' speech in 68. When opinion polls were taken afterwards support for his views saw 74 percent of people agreed with Powell, and 69 percent felt it was wrong for the Conservatives to sack him.

So were all these people social outcasts? No, perhaps it was the Bluejays and jeeagles of the world who fitted their minority positions more readily.

For me no views stand or fall based upon some opponent's clumsy character attacks. No, they stand or fall in their relationship to truth. The implication that if you hold a viewpoint that puts you in a small minority then you're a weirdo.....Yet pretty much all their social liberal views were once regarded in a similar fashion....though in those more socially conservative times they were allowed to express them without losing their jobs and were allowed their own parties....so much for today's so called democrats and social liberals.

Powell was sacked because his direction wasn't what the ruling conservative elites wanted. And believe me the state of the country and its future is mainly of their making. The modern conservative party is just the social left doing the speed limit.

However Powell back then had the pulse of the country (which jeeagles appears to think meant we were neo nazis) but the minority opinion of the economic elites held sway. Now after decades of mass immigration, propaganda to indoctrinate and law changes to frighten people into silence the social and political landscape is very different.

I was raised with this propaganda and indeed spent time spreading it. It was only later on that I learnt the wider picture of what had been omitted and what had been highlighted.

Indeed even with all this a poll by the radio station of Britain’s newspaper, the Times, revealed some eye-catching results. The general public were asked for their views on how various political figures would have fared as prime minister.

The names spanned different generations, but few would have predicted that Enoch Powell would receive the third highest approval rating, with 16 percent of those polled saying he would have made a good PM.

Joint third....for a guy who has been dead twenty three years....so much for 'social outcast'.

I will address another Bluejay post later.

Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Sep 2021 5.12pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The thread has been up a 2 and a half hours and had 148 views. So hardly a 'tumbleweed'.

Besides this is a thread where you can make all your stupid Nazi party claims and I'll happily show how wally-like that is.

Try addressing actual points.

Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Sep 2021 6.36pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Kuge made some interesting philosophical points, similar to discussions I've had in the past. They are worthy of discussion because they deal with some of the actual issues in terms of race and genetics.

However, here I'm going to address's another of Bluejay's character attacks on those who disagree with social liberalism in respect to multiculturalism and issues on ethnicity in the country. Essentially the forced path that the country's elites have deliberately chosen.

On the 'French' thread he wrote about me personally.

'Difference being with me it would be wholly inaccurate, and with you, based on your behaviour it clearly is not. You don't give plenty of time and space to the likes of neo nazi Mark Collett if you're 'hanging with the homies' the next day. The laughable scope and allowances you give your own views compared to your hyper negative fixation on mundane views has been oft highlighted and rightly so. No-one open to others in a half way normal and balanced way goes that route. Since you have an eternal issue with minorities, you get to realise than in indulging at the fringes you are clearly, provably much more in the minority than any colour or creed you waste your time obsessing over. As such, expect to receive what you dish out.'

Aside from the double standard of previously complaining about 'pile ins' and then here supporting them if he agrees let's look at the other gems seemingly being pushed.

Here similar to jeeagles, he seems to be suggesting that if you hold my view that it means that you have a heavy dislike for other races (with whom I worked with and taught for many years). The implication seems to be that if someone is leading a party that has views you don't agree with then you can't then support that party without being a supporter of that leader.

Let's address this:

I made the Dalai Lama point earlier but essentially this angle is no different to saying that if you voted Labour last election that you were a supporter of Mao.

Hear me out.

Mao was the Chinese leader responsible for the murder of an estimated 25-60+ million people, probably more than Hitler and Stalin combined. But because Corbyn's shadow chancellor John McDonnell waved Moa's little red book on economic and other theories around in the houses of parliament and has been...along with Corbyn an communist sympathizer for decades that this means if you voted Labour you agreed with them too.

Mao communism, which McDonnell cheered about was an ideology responsible for tens of millions more unnecessary and avoidable deaths than any other....independent of it being by starvation or by the bullet in the back of the head.

So if you voted Labour did that mean you supported that by the sheer association......associated with being a neo communist - lock step with Moa or IRA terrorists because Labour's leader was a fan..

No, I'd say most people voted Labour because they believed in the manifesto.

There is little different with the leader of PA.....it has a manifesto...support it or don't dependent upon that and then after reading it remember that the elites won't even allow it to be a political party.

Also lets address this PA obsession that Bluejay has. I think I've made it clear that he wants to continually say that if you support the idea that countries should have native majorities within them then you are extreme and out of the normal...even though this opinion is commonplace all over the world.

It's a view I might say that differs little from the earlier mentioned Tibetan situation (once important to the left), and is the same argument that South Africa should be ruled by the majority black South African population and not replaced or ruled by a European one.....However, if you listen to these guys if you hold this opinion then this means you are essentially supporting hatred of non Europeans.

This isn't an honest or fair interpretation. There are many great non white social conservatives that I support but that doesn't fit their narrative.

PA, like all organisations is a broad church. Yes, there are valid criticisms of its current leader and yes no one has to agree. However, when you look at their manifesto there won't be much different from a Ukip one because in truth it's the same support base.

To show you that the narrative people like Bluejay and jeeagles have that this is a party of neo nazis I'm going to link you to a podcast of its deputy leader Laura Towler and her husband.

[Link]

Watch it and tell me how jack boot it is. Then perhaps some balance and nuance can be given instead of half truths and misrepresentations by people who in all honesty aren't really interested in fair assessments.

What I support is social conservativism and I'll support parties that honestly are a reflection of that.

Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Sep 2021 8.57pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Yep, I think that's fair enough.

I think I want to hang my boots up on this topic now and just go back to supporting the club as much as it might appear contradictory to some, but it doesn't to me.

Unless I'm addressed on this stuff then others can fight these never-ending stories. Similar to something you once said on here to me Dan, there must be other things to do.

Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Sep 2021 8.58pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

OK Dan, so which part of that do you object to and why?