Sooooooo predictable.

You're not debating the points. You're just resorting to name calling.

Even when you are claiming to debate you aren't, you are just boring everyone with dressed up monologs about how you dislike immigrants. There isn't a debate to be had with the likes of you any more, modern Britian has moved on.

It's not an insult contest, I haven't insulted you. Called you out. The insults are a one way street Stirlingsays and that tells me I know it makes a difference to you because you always start throwing your toys out the pram.

Have a lovely evening!

Challenged?

I don't mind responding to you....as you are more dishonest than boring.

You think Powell was a failure? In truth he was more of a democrat and elitist than he was ambitious. He knew what he was doing when he made that speech, his IQ was off the page. If he had been more dishonest he could have tried for PM and then enacted his policies....but as he himself said, he just wasn't prepared to play the mucky game.

Powell wanted to draw a line in the sand and have it said officially and honestly what was happening and the road the elites were travelling the country down. He made it plain that this road was self destructive and madness for the continuance of heritage and ancestry. He made it explicit that it would end in the submission of, and the disowning of England/Britain's heritage via her replacement.

If failure is being correct in prophecy- then Powell failed most brightly.

But I've made it known previously that my enjoyment of these kinds of posts is lessening....I've kind of made my point and while I'll talk about certain topics if pressed my desire to go on and on in circle fashion with different posters is just less....that's just factual.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Oct 2021 7.49pm)

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

I regard today as far more nuts than Britain was in 68.

Today we have identity politics...well for some we have and it's a direct result of...well, frankly the path that Powell warned against all those years ago.

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

I don't know why people would bring this sort of stuff up from decades ago, unless, as seems to be their want these days, they need to find something to be offended by.

It was a different world back then.

Most of the offended seem to be younger people, who weren't even born back then and have no idea what the world was like. People weren't all looking to be offended like they are today.

Probably most of these youngsters would have laughed at programmes like 'Love Thy Neighbour' and 'In Sickness and in Health' because that was the times. I know I laughed at the black bloke calling the white bloke a H0nkey in LTN, and as for Marigold in Alf Garnett, his comebacks were cutting and hysterical. In fact the programmes usually ended up with the white person ridiculed or the black person gaining the upper hand/high ground.

I acknowledge that times have changed, and now everyone has to be a bit more careful, but the older generation are now living in fear of innocently slipping up just in case some poor little snowflake unnecessarily makes their life a misery on social media, just so they can get a few 'likes'.

I'll state again, Britain in 68 was far less 'nuts' than it is today, and I'll also state that it was far more cohesive and at ease with itself.

You 'wouldn't deny that 'identity politics has gone too far'....oh that's interesting to know. Well, it's come straight out of social liberalism with its ever strengthening leftish tinge. Well, that is your particular flagpole and it doesn't take much common sense to know that the genie isn't going back into the bottle.

So as far as I'm concerned your politics is associated with the very aliment you apparently detest. Yet I've read you several times support the victimhood culture of minorities, which does of course indirectly create identity politics itself....but like the leftists you believe some is justified.

Here yet again, you bring up PA, which wasn't part of this discussion. In my view previous experience has taught me that you aren't really a good faith person to discuss this subject with but for the benefit of those that are reading this I'll provide some ballast and tackle what you've said point by point.

You try to say that because I believe that a leader should reflect its party (which I do) that this is somehow at odds with supporting Collet as PA leader.

Yet I have never said that I support Collet as PA leader.

I have said several times that I support the manifesto and hence logic should have led you to that conclusion. So, in rather plain language I don't think that PA has a leader that best reflects it.

As I don't think you're thick I can only conclude that this is your usual bad faith rendition of my position possibly due to your emotive reactions.

Next you claim that Collet is a neo Nazi....Has he actually said this? Or is this you speaking for him or the leftist sites that you have no doubt visited and regard as honest. Again, perhaps you should contact Collet himself instead of speaking for him.

I will agree with you that he has views that I don't support, however I broached this point in another thread...a point that you completely ignored where I compared the Collet situation to that of Corbyn leading the Labour party. I stated that not only did Corbyn have controversial views well known in advance but tellingly he employed his long term friend McDonnell as his number two. McDonnell of course once admitted to being a communist and he went on to wave Mao's little red book in the commons.....Mao, murdered far more than Hitler or Stalin. All odious mass murderers.

Yet I've never saw you on here writing about your distaste of Corbyn supporters for their acceptance of Corbyn and the far larger contingent of communists in their party. And of course Labour stood much more chance of gaining power than PA ever will.

Next point, If a regional member made a joke about 'gassing kikes' then that is distasteful....but people made bad taste jokes everyday and no doubt also exist in other parties.

I find your assertion that a member was in National Action more serious as PA isn't doesn't support violence towards its aims. Do you know that this person supports violence now? How do you know that your claims are even true? Are they from an objective source? Are you suggesting that PA supports violence because that is false.

What I will say is that supporting a manifesto does not mean that you support the views of everyone in that organisation. As I said at the beginning a party should reflect its members and the manifesto reflects their agreed consensus positions. The PA manifesto nor I are in no way associated with National Action or neo Nazis and only a dishonest description could suggest it.
.

Here you make several tangled points that I'll try my best to answer.

What derogatory language have I used to describe minority groups?

Yes, I'm against the teaching of same sex relationships to young children. I'm very against it for several reasons.

Yes, I would say broadly that similar to the Dalai Lama I support the rights of historical ancestry to land claims. This is commonplace all over the world and indeed it's your position that is the minority outside of the self destroying west.

As for Powell and the 'Whip hand' context. You are not being accurate when you relate those words. His speech wasn't about having superiority over non whites or agreeing with treating non whites poorly. It was about the ancestral right of the British to protect and remain the majority within their own lands. There would be no 'whip hand' issue in a homogeneous society. Powell made it clear that The whip hand' would result from the very act of increasing the immigration population until they indeed held sway..an heterogeneous society.....something which indeed is happening now.....and I suggest that if there was an 'whip hand' being used by the British then all these foreigners would never have struggled desperately to get here.

Errrr....What I experienced was physical and could have taken my life without some luck, it wasn't something as tame as 'unkind attitudes' as you like to think.....what someone thinks of me has never been my motivation for taking a position. I'm far more interested in truth over convenience.

Here you make several mistakes in a rather arrogant and simplistic attempt to analyse why I hold my positions. Firstly I'll make the observation that your statement here could be related to the entire non white identity movement....Yet all I've hear from you is you justifying why they think what they think and being lenient or not commenting when they show ethnic preference...which has been done quite a few times on this forum.
Yet for the white boy we see criticism if they equally also determine that identity is a recourse.

I don't deny identity politics as a right for any group within heterogeneous societies.....Indeed, I regard that outcome as inevitable. What I do is point out hypocrisies, not deny people the right of ethnic association. I suggest that my view is a practical one while yours I contend is an ever decaying fantasy more akin to the old coke advert.

[Link]

My experiences in Brixton growing up of course provide a background to my views now. However, it's inaccurate to believe that they created them. Anyone who has read me over the years knows that back in 2009 (a good twenty three years after those events) I was a civic nationalist and pretty much a default nineties EU skeptic Tory who believed that cultural integration could work....if only the will was there. This is still the opinion of many conservatives today....mainly because they want it to be true, rather than having given it serious thought....it's easier to believe a convenient lie than it is to proclaim an unpleasant truth.

My views largely changed once I started looking into the topic seriously around 2015/16 once I had more time to.

You seem to be suggesting that I treat an individual's worse because of race. That's not true, and you won't find instances where I've done that. My positions are on group realities, ancestral rights, and on what I believe causes the least damage to western societies.

Again, this suggestion that I'm somehow fooled by Mark Collet, someone I've heard probably far more than you have. There are legitimate criticisms and there are people in PA I don't agree with but I wager my view of PA is more accurate than your obsession with that photo.

I'm not even a member of it, hell I could talk about Britain first for example.

Also this idea that I haven't led a life with multiple influences with a broad input of opinions....again, an incredibly arrogant and faulty assumption. There is a considerable intellectual movement behind what I now know, yet there you are with your Nazi stereotypes. You talk like I support National Action or something....You are like jeeagles but just with a higher IQ and better descriptions.

You have built a reductionist understanding of my motivations for agreeing with ancestral rights, even though once again your viewpoint finds itself in a minority outside of the west....So are they all neo Nazi supporters too?

In my view this is because you're fundamentally an egalitarian who wants social liberalism to work. You're willing to ignore the evidence to the contrary because it fits your fragile emotional make up.....which I suggest runs rather too freely and is willing to make ugly and malformed arguments when the shaky ground of your ideology is challenged.

There you go Wordy...have some quick and easy assumptions made about you...I wager they are more accurate than yours.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Oct 2021 5.45am)

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

Anyway, this is a thread about Geoff Hurst. Not another Stirlingsays threat about how he feels sorry for himself.