This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Glazier#1 27 Nov 23 2.13pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I have no issue answering the question, which you seem to think is a big deal. It's something I and others have answered many times before. But I'll say again, you have some cheek exactly because you're all about asking questions and then ignoring those put to you. Tell me, why do you deserve the respect of complying with what you ask? This isn't a 'you get to order others around' forum. If you ask questions then have the decency to also answer them. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Nov 2023 2.04pm) Yup. No answer.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 27 Nov 23 2.35pm | |
---|---|
The reason we have mass immigration is multi factored. Let me make it plain who the people are with the agendas to support mass immigration into first world countries. 1) The Banking lobby. Modern Government is essentially working for interest groups and donors more so than any majority, because these groups are the main funding for these parties and the ones giving them jobs once their political careers end....he who pays the piper. The banking lobby want mass immigration as more people means houses thus mortgages become more expensive and thus they and the government make more money. The business lobby want more mass immigration as more people means wage suppression for the job marketplace and less training requirements for them. Less houses mean more renters, which means more money for landlords who buy up more properties thus even less home owners...one consequence breeds another. The progressives want more mass immigration because....Well, many books have been written on that one...but let's be trite and just say....Daddy issues. Immigrants want mass immigration because they want a better life. However leaving aside the nationalist arguments that I have against non European immigration for crime, cultural and social cohesion reasons there are numerous long term economic reasons to be against the effect of mass immigration....Some of which I have just detailed. Graphs literally show house prices rising from the late nineties once immigration levels went significantly up....It's hardly rocket science..they are just not spoken about in the mainstream, because they are worse outcomes for the working classes....and done deliberately for short term gain....Which is the main criticism of democracy in a neoliberal era. I'll say again, policies deliberately pursued for short term gain by left and right for the same reasons. They don't build the houses and infrastructure because that's very expensive and instead do this....even though it literally worsens everything longer term. That's not even touching the stagnation of real wages while inflation has outpaced it making people poorer day to day...but that's another chunk of neoliberalism. It's a matter of some amusement that these anti worker policies are supported in the modern day by the mainstream left and their fruitcake progressive wing...which to be fair to them is most of their base. But the stark reality is that....even though many of them aren't smart enough to understand it....these people are foot soldiers for the same aims of big business and the rich bankers because a bit of rainbow flag and pro out group talk gives them a stiffy. Anyone with an historical understanding of these movements has to laugh. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Nov 2023 4.54pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Glazier#1 27 Nov 23 2.43pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
The reason we have mass immigration and hence more criminal is multi factored. Let me make it plain who the people are with the agendas to support mass immigration into first world countries. 1) The Banking lobby. Modern Government is essentially working for interest groups more so than any majority, because these groups are the main funding for these parties....he who pays the piper. The banking lobby want mass immigration as more people means houses thus mortgages become more expensive and thus they and the government make more money. The business lobby want more mass immigration as more people means wage suppression for the job marketplace and less training requirements for them. The progressives want more mass immigration because....Well, many books have been written on that one...but let's be trite and just say....Daddy issues. Immigrants want mass immigration because they want a better life. However leaving aside the nationalist arguments that I have against non European immigration for crime, cultural and social cohesion reasons there are numerous long term economic reasons to be against the effect of mass immigration....Some of which I have just detailed. Graphs literally show house prices rising from the late nineties once immigration levels went significantly up....It's hardly rocket science..they are just not spoken about in the mainstream, because they are worse outcomes for the working classes....and done deliberately for short term gain....Which is the main criticism of democracy in a neoliberal era. I'll say again, policies deliberately pursued for short term gain by left and right for the same reasons. They don't build the houses and infrastructure because that's very expensive and instead do this....even though it literally worsens everything longer term. That's not even touching the stagnation of real wages while inflation has outpaced it making people poorer day to day...but that's another chunk of neoliberalism. It's a matter of some amusement that these anti worker policies are supported in the modern day by the mainstream left and their fruitcakes progressive wing...which to be fair to them is most of their base. But the stark reality is that....even though many of them aren't smart enough to understand it....these people are foot soldiers for the same aims of big business and the rich bankers because a bit of rainbow flag and pro out group talk gives them a stiffy. Anyone with an historical understanding of these movements has to laugh. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Nov 2023 2.38pm) Well ,thank you for that but it really doesn't answer the question about why immigrants are referred to as 'Fighting - age youth' rather than simply 'Youth' Have I missed something, Stirling?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 27 Nov 23 3.09pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Glazier#1
Well ,thank you for that but it really doesn't answer the question about why immigrants are referred to as 'Fighting - age youth' rather than simply 'Youth' Have I missed something, Stirling? Obviously that's because they are mainly young men and being a minority most of them will retain their ethnic in group preference.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Glazier#1 27 Nov 23 4.21pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Obviously that's because they are mainly young men and being a minority most of them will retain their ethnic in group preference. But why does that necessitate them being referred to as 'Fighting age'?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Glazier#1 27 Nov 23 4.24pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Glazier#1
But why does that necessitate them being referred to as 'Fighting age'? I might move to another country and prefer to stick with other Brits of my age and be in my twenties but nobody would refer to us as 'Fighting age' men' we'd be called 'young men' or 'Young British men', wouldn't we?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 27 Nov 23 4.41pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Glazier#1
I might move to another country and prefer to stick with other Brits of my age and be in my twenties but nobody would refer to us as 'Fighting age' men' we'd be called 'young men' or 'Young British men', wouldn't we? I don't really get why you find that offensive. It's just an accurate description....not the only one but hardly a big deal. If a war turned up those are the sex and age of the people being conscripted: not old women. Not that the vast majority of them come here to fight for us. When the BLM protests/riots happened no one was concerned about girls twerking aggressively. But apparently working class people should be putting out the welcoming mat, even though it directly works against them.....None of that makes sense to me. But hey.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
BrentisBack Beckenham 27 Nov 23 4.54pm | |
---|---|
I’ll answer it. It’s just another weaponisation from the right and a way for them to make immigrants sound further like enemies. It’s quite transparent really. But you won’t get any of them to admit this of course.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 27 Nov 23 5.05pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by BrentisBack
I’ll answer it. It’s just another weaponisation from the right and a way for them to make immigrants sound further like enemies. It’s quite transparent really. But you won’t get any of them to admit this of course. Read my long post...posted at 2.35. It shouldn't matter to you what the right thinks or doesn't think. If you politics is just informed as an opposition then you're just playing the cultural war. The reality is that immigration isn't good for the working classes but it is good for the wealthy....well short term, but that's all the wealthy need to care about. The old left knew this. All you are doing is supporting big business and rich bankers and the net effect works against the working classes. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Nov 2023 5.06pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
eaglesdare 27 Nov 23 5.20pm | |
---|---|
It seems that the Dublin riots did indeed bring global eyes onto the situation in ireland. And especially the draconian "hate speech" bill they are trying to pass. With the likes of Elon musk getting involved and investigating Ireland twitter files. And piers Morgan talking about the situation. And many more in America and Australia. I guess you were right earlier in the thread stirlingsays. Not.oftennwe disagree on somthing. If as I said a candle lit vigil should have happened we would not have seen the massive media attention outside of Ireland putting pressure on the Irish government. But then I have never condone that riots and violence and burning things is the answer. Edited by eaglesdare (27 Nov 2023 5.22pm) Edited by eaglesdare (27 Nov 2023 5.22pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Glazier#1 27 Nov 23 5.22pm | |
---|---|
It is redolent f the same use of language employed by Yaxley-Lennon and the EDL, as well you know. All the flim-flammery you use to talk around the subject is in bad faith. I find it offensive, as if I have to explain, because in times like these what we need is a proper conversation about these things not people like you stirring up hatred and suspicion. I expect you to come back with the usual stuff about me being a leftie and 'we didn't start it' so I'll spell it out for you, I abhor the use of violence from anywhere and I abhor violence being advocated in the name of religion - any religion. Is it true that an armed conflict would suit you because, in the end, you see it as the only, unavoidable, way of returning to the way we were: a white, Christian-valued population? If that means cleansing the country of all the immigrants that have come here over the generations and tainted our way of life, then so be it? Regrettable but the only way?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
cryrst The garden of England 27 Nov 23 6.33pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Glazier#1
It is redolent f the same use of language employed by Yaxley-Lennon and the EDL, as well you know. All the flim-flammery you use to talk around the subject is in bad faith. I find it offensive, as if I have to explain, because in times like these what we need is a proper conversation about these things not people like you stirring up hatred and suspicion. I expect you to come back with the usual stuff about me being a leftie and 'we didn't start it' so I'll spell it out for you, I abhor the use of violence from anywhere and I abhor violence being advocated in the name of religion - any religion. Is it true that an armed conflict would suit you because, in the end, you see it as the only, unavoidable, way of returning to the way we were: a white, Christian-valued population? If that means cleansing the country of all the immigrants that have come here over the generations and tainted our way of life, then so be it? Regrettable but the only way? You don’t half post some bollox Edited by cryrst (27 Nov 2023 6.34pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.