National Action

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

National Action

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Stirlingsays 07 Sep 17 12.28pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Thing is, that a) they're aren't many communists out there, and b) these days the UK Left are mostly democratic in their pursuits. It must be nearly 45 years since there was a real act of left wing terrorism committed in the UK, by the Angry Brigade who bombed the Post Office Tower. Outside of Irish Republican terrorism such as the INLA the UK has only really seen far left violence linked to protests rather than terrorism. Even the Angry Brigade in its short life, only left one person very slightly injured. They far left just doesn't have the same history of violence and threat to the UK citizens that's seen with the Far Right, and isn't politically violent in the same way as say the National Front or National Action. Where as we have seen acts and attempted acts of terrorism from the far right, admittedly these don't seem to be prolific, but they do seem to be fairly constant. Had the UK had the same kind of situation with the far left that Germany and Italy have had (ala Baader-Meinhoff and Brigade Russo I'd agree), but it hasn't really, arguably the Animal Liberation Front has been more prolific as a terrorist threat in the UK than the far left. The far left in the UK as a 'Street Movement' has been dead for about 25 years. If you are going to support the removal of the far right from jobs.....the exception of course being any involvement in or planning of attacks. But if you are going to do that then you need to also support the removal for the far left from jobs. Otherwise the accusation of bias and inconsistency is a valid one. The idea that one is more cuddly than the other is a tad amusing....The far right and the far left often have much more in common than they realize. However, for me, I don't support thought crime. What matters to me is competence in a job.....now it may be unrealistic to expect people to divorce their politics from the duties of their job. But they must always be given the opportunity to.....We must not make windows into people's souls...so to speak. I support reform though debate where possible. Those activists who always exist that have plans to take action are the responsibility of the state to deal with. '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

Stirlingsays

07 Sep 17 12.28pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Thing is, that a) they're aren't many communists out there, and b) these days the UK Left are mostly democratic in their pursuits. It must be nearly 45 years since there was a real act of left wing terrorism committed in the UK, by the Angry Brigade who bombed the Post Office Tower. Outside of Irish Republican terrorism such as the INLA the UK has only really seen far left violence linked to protests rather than terrorism.

Even the Angry Brigade in its short life, only left one person very slightly injured. They far left just doesn't have the same history of violence and threat to the UK citizens that's seen with the Far Right, and isn't politically violent in the same way as say the National Front or National Action.

Where as we have seen acts and attempted acts of terrorism from the far right, admittedly these don't seem to be prolific, but they do seem to be fairly constant.

Had the UK had the same kind of situation with the far left that Germany and Italy have had (ala Baader-Meinhoff and Brigade Russo I'd agree), but it hasn't really, arguably the Animal Liberation Front has been more prolific as a terrorist threat in the UK than the far left.

The far left in the UK as a 'Street Movement' has been dead for about 25 years.

If you are going to support the removal of the far right from jobs.....the exception of course being any involvement in or planning of attacks.

But if you are going to do that then you need to also support the removal for the far left from jobs.

Otherwise the accusation of bias and inconsistency is a valid one.

The idea that one is more cuddly than the other is a tad amusing....The far right and the far left often have much more in common than they realize.

However, for me, I don't support thought crime.

What matters to me is competence in a job.....now it may be unrealistic to expect people to divorce their politics from the duties of their job. But they must always be given the opportunity to.....We must not make windows into people's souls...so to speak.

I support reform though debate where possible. Those activists who always exist that have plans to take action are the responsibility of the state to deal with.

'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

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Sep 17 12.35pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Any group using violence against the state and its citizens/subjects has to be stopped. The use of force has to have an elected mandate as we are a democracy. I'd agree with this as far as the UK goes - Even the IRA agree with this. I think its different in some countries around the world, where freedom is genuinely under threat from state violence - and armed resistance is the only option. But even in Ireland, this has largely been dismissed as a 'necessity'. Originally posted by Stirlingsays However, the rise in the far right is inevitable. You are right, both feed each other. When bodies hit the floor from attacks it's inevitable within any society. To an extent, their popularity can be tracked to Islamist Sulfist terrorism, but they've always been there - its just that their appeal is wider now - People don't become Neo-Nazis and Fascist terrorists because of Muslim terrorism, they get sympathy and a degree of acceptance in society. Its also important to remember that National Action sin't just 'anti-Muslim' its anti-semetic, anti gay and racist (it held the White Man marches). They're not the EDL, BNP etc who hold some degree of legitimacy and distance, they actively embrace the ideals of the very hard far right. Originally posted by Stirlingsays Only those with their heads in the sand paper over the reality. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2017 12.16pm) I think the focus of Intelligence has to be on Islamist threats, as they're a primary threat to the UK at present, however it would be unwise to commit all resources to a single threat. We still have to keep an eye on dissident republican Irish groups, some of the Loyalist groups and the far right - because these all have a history of threat. Its important for the intelligence services to cultivate approaches to each of the threats according to their needs and resources - notably cultivate assets and obtaining intelligence. We dropped the ball in the 90s by not seeing the growing threat of Sulfist / Islamist terrorism, because we were trying to utilise them as an asset for change and influence in the middle east (creating in the process a safe haven - for groups like Al-Qaeda affiliates to operate in) - which is probably the real reason why the UK never saw attacks in the 90s - A lot of the groups that would become a threat, were operating financially and logistically out of the UK. Plus of course, the more active the far right become, the more it will increase the radicalisation of Muslims in the UK - Which is a problem "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Sep 17 12.35pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Any group using violence against the state and its citizens/subjects has to be stopped.

The use of force has to have an elected mandate as we are a democracy.

I'd agree with this as far as the UK goes - Even the IRA agree with this. I think its different in some countries around the world, where freedom is genuinely under threat from state violence - and armed resistance is the only option.

But even in Ireland, this has largely been dismissed as a 'necessity'.

Originally posted by Stirlingsays
However, the rise in the far right is inevitable. You are right, both feed each other. When bodies hit the floor from attacks it's inevitable within any society.

To an extent, their popularity can be tracked to Islamist Sulfist terrorism, but they've always been there - its just that their appeal is wider now - People don't become Neo-Nazis and Fascist terrorists because of Muslim terrorism, they get sympathy and a degree of acceptance in society. Its also important to remember that National Action sin't just 'anti-Muslim' its anti-semetic, anti gay and racist (it held the White Man marches).

They're not the EDL, BNP etc who hold some degree of legitimacy and distance, they actively embrace the ideals of the very hard far right.

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Only those with their heads in the sand paper over the reality.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2017 12.16pm)

I think the focus of Intelligence has to be on Islamist threats, as they're a primary threat to the UK at present, however it would be unwise to commit all resources to a single threat. We still have to keep an eye on dissident republican Irish groups, some of the Loyalist groups and the far right - because these all have a history of threat.

Its important for the intelligence services to cultivate approaches to each of the threats according to their needs and resources - notably cultivate assets and obtaining intelligence. We dropped the ball in the 90s by not seeing the growing threat of Sulfist / Islamist terrorism, because we were trying to utilise them as an asset for change and influence in the middle east (creating in the process a safe haven - for groups like Al-Qaeda affiliates to operate in) - which is probably the real reason why the UK never saw attacks in the 90s - A lot of the groups that would become a threat, were operating financially and logistically out of the UK.

Plus of course, the more active the far right become, the more it will increase the radicalisation of Muslims in the UK - Which is a problem

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 07 Sep 17 12.38pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger To put it in it's simplest terms. Within the next two centuries, 'White' people will represent only 10% of the world's population. At the current rate, there will be nowhere on Earth where they are in a majority. It won't be my problem or yours but if you consider the future political/religious implications of that, then you know that White Europeans and Americans will have a lot to worry about in the future. That isn't some Right wing fantasy, that will be a reality, like it or not, which will fuel a defensive and combative attitude against a growing number. Technologies from genetics research will ensure that things like skin colour and racial lines don't disappear....much in the same way conservation works today. But white people becoming a minority group?....yep, it's going to happen. One of those 'enrichments' about globalization apparently.....Maybe we'll all get forced into the Welsh hills like the druids before us. I'm a variant of Anglo Saxon by culture. It's a concept....This aspect is in real danger....This is what concerns me personally. All the genetic aspects like skin colours, intelligence, sexualities......all these areas will be become the domain of technology. None of them...in that sense are in threat. But for sure....in countries where skin colour is idealogically more important...poland/US....eventually you are going to see race based resistance......You already see gated communities in the US.....Eventually it will probably be a race thing entirety. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2017 12.42pm) '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

Stirlingsays

07 Sep 17 12.38pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

To put it in it's simplest terms. Within the next two centuries, 'White' people will represent only 10% of the world's population.
At the current rate, there will be nowhere on Earth where they are in a majority. It won't be my problem or yours but if you consider the future political/religious implications of that, then you know that White Europeans and Americans will have a lot to worry about in the future.
That isn't some Right wing fantasy, that will be a reality, like it or not, which will fuel a defensive and combative attitude against a growing number.

Technologies from genetics research will ensure that things like skin colour and racial lines don't disappear....much in the same way conservation works today.

But white people becoming a minority group?....yep, it's going to happen. One of those 'enrichments' about globalization apparently.....Maybe we'll all get forced into the Welsh hills like the druids before us.

I'm a variant of Anglo Saxon by culture. It's a concept....This aspect is in real danger....This is what concerns me personally.

All the genetic aspects like skin colours, intelligence, sexualities......all these areas will be become the domain of technology. None of them...in that sense are in threat.

But for sure....in countries where skin colour is idealogically more important...poland/US....eventually you are going to see race based resistance......You already see gated communities in the US.....Eventually it will probably be a race thing entirety.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2017 12.42pm)

'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

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Sep 17 1.01pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays If you are going to support the removal of the far right from jobs.....the exception of course being any involvement in or planning of attacks. But if you are going to do that then you need to also support the removal for the far left from jobs. Otherwise the accusation of bias and inconsistency is a valid one. The idea that one is more cuddly than the other is a tad amusing....The far right and the far left often have much more in common than they realize. However, for me, I don't support thought crime. What matters to me is competence in a job.....now it may be unrealistic to expect people to divorce their politics from the duties of their job. But they must always be given the opportunity to.....We must not make windows into people's souls...so to speak. I support reform though debate where possible. Those activists who always exist that have plans to take action are the responsibility of the state to deal with. Its worth noting that traditionally, its been very hard to get security clearance if you were a member of the Communist party, Member of CND, Irish Republican etc. But the cold war is done, the threat of Communism and the far Left is over really. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Sep 17 1.01pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

If you are going to support the removal of the far right from jobs.....the exception of course being any involvement in or planning of attacks.

But if you are going to do that then you need to also support the removal for the far left from jobs.

Otherwise the accusation of bias and inconsistency is a valid one.

The idea that one is more cuddly than the other is a tad amusing....The far right and the far left often have much more in common than they realize.

However, for me, I don't support thought crime.

I support reform though debate where possible. Those activists who always exist that have plans to take action are the responsibility of the state to deal with.

Its worth noting that traditionally, its been very hard to get security clearance if you were a member of the Communist party, Member of CND, Irish Republican etc. But the cold war is done, the threat of Communism and the far Left is over really.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Sep 17 1.07pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger To put it in it's simplest terms. Within the next two centuries, 'White' people will represent only 10% of the world's population. At the current rate, there will be nowhere on Earth where they are in a majority. It won't be my problem or yours but if you consider the future political/religious implications of that, then you know that White Europeans and Americans will have a lot to worry about in the future. That isn't some Right wing fantasy, that will be a reality, like it or not, which will fuel a defensive and combative attitude against a growing number. In terms of global populations aren't they a minority anyhow? Maybe with that in mind, white Europeans and White Americans should maybe have considered how they treated the rest of the world, historically speaking. Internationally, our history of engagement with the rest of the world has been one of exploiting others - or more correctly exploiting others, to exploit them on our behalf. We invaded and took over 1/3rd of the world. It might have been worth considering just how that might affect future generations of whites, before we started shooting the uppty locals. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Sep 17 1.07pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

In terms of global populations aren't they a minority anyhow? Maybe with that in mind, white Europeans and White Americans should maybe have considered how they treated the rest of the world, historically speaking.

Internationally, our history of engagement with the rest of the world has been one of exploiting others - or more correctly exploiting others, to exploit them on our behalf.

We invaded and took over 1/3rd of the world. It might have been worth considering just how that might affect future generations of whites, before we started shooting the uppty locals.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 07 Sep 17 1.08pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Its worth noting that traditionally, its been very hard to get security clearance if you were a member of the Communist party, Member of CND, Irish Republican etc. But the cold war is done, the threat of Communism and the far Left is over really. Kind of makes sense if you are anti the actual state you're working for. If you are a foot soldier in the forces or any other normal job then as long as you do your job then I don't care what non violent stuff you believe. If you are a member of a far right group or a communist I would probably stop you rising to take charge of significantly high up posts however. They would have to give this stuff up. What I'm against is this idea that people aren't allowed to earn a living because 'insert reason' we don't like. There are plenty of people I don't like earning a living.....As long as they don't threaten me or others I don't have an issue with it. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2017 1.09pm) '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

Stirlingsays

07 Sep 17 1.08pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Kind of makes sense if you are anti the actual state you're working for.

If you are a foot soldier in the forces or any other normal job then as long as you do your job then I don't care what non violent stuff you believe.

If you are a member of a far right group or a communist I would probably stop you rising to take charge of significantly high up posts however. They would have to give this stuff up.

What I'm against is this idea that people aren't allowed to earn a living because 'insert reason' we don't like.

There are plenty of people I don't like earning a living.....As long as they don't threaten me or others I don't have an issue with it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2017 1.09pm)

'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

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Sep 17 1.11pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Technologies from genetics research will ensure that things like skin colour and racial lines don't disappear....much in the same way conservation works today. But white people becoming a minority group?....yep, it's going to happen. One of those 'enrichments' about globalization apparently.....Maybe we'll all get forced into the Welsh hills like the druids before us. I'm a variant of Anglo Saxon by culture. It's a concept....This aspect is in real danger....This is what concerns me personally. All the genetic aspects like skin colours, intelligence, sexualities......all these areas will be become the domain of technology. None of them...in that sense are in threat. But for sure....in countries where skin colour is idealogically more important...poland/US....eventually you are going to see race based resistance......You already see gated communities in the US.....Eventually it will probably be a race thing entirety. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2017 12.42pm) It is? I'm of Romany decent - when I tell people I have to explain it by using a derogatory terms people understand. My cultural heritage in the UK barely even exists anymore (and has all manner of laws preventing aspects of it). Luckily I can pass easily for Anglo-Saxon. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Sep 17 1.11pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Technologies from genetics research will ensure that things like skin colour and racial lines don't disappear....much in the same way conservation works today.

I'm a variant of Anglo Saxon by culture. It's a concept....This aspect is in real danger....This is what concerns me personally.

All the genetic aspects like skin colours, intelligence, sexualities......all these areas will be become the domain of technology. None of them...in that sense are in threat.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2017 12.42pm)

It is? I'm of Romany decent - when I tell people I have to explain it by using a derogatory terms people understand. My cultural heritage in the UK barely even exists anymore (and has all manner of laws preventing aspects of it). Luckily I can pass easily for Anglo-Saxon.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Sep 17 1.16pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Kind of makes sense if you are anti the actual state you're working for. If you are a foot soldier in the forces or any other normal job then as long as you do your job then I don't care what non violent stuff you believe. If you are a member of a far right group or a communist I would probably stop you rising to take charge of significantly high up posts however. They would have to give this stuff up. What I'm against is this idea that people aren't allowed to earn a living because 'insert reason' we don't like. There are plenty of people I don't like earning a living.....As long as they don't threaten me or others I don't have an issue with it. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2017 1.09pm) I think the problem is that National Action don't believe in non-violent stuff. They're specifically pro-violence. I'd be wary of saying that racist, pro-violent politics in a military that almost exclusively is deployed in active service in areas of the middle east, might be something of a problem and risk. Also of course, there is the risk of access to things like explosives and firearms, and those making their way into the wrong hands. The US has a massive problem with this (both with gang members and political extremists, and gangsters). Worth noting, that in the 70s a number of Soldiers got done for training National Front members. Same kind of applies with the Police and BNP - The BNP are a racialist organisation - and that's a problem when you have police officers, who ascribe to racist agenda. I don't think you can rely on them not being prejudicial, or it being a problem given the Police Forces history. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Sep 17 1.16pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Kind of makes sense if you are anti the actual state you're working for.

If you are a foot soldier in the forces or any other normal job then as long as you do your job then I don't care what non violent stuff you believe.

If you are a member of a far right group or a communist I would probably stop you rising to take charge of significantly high up posts however. They would have to give this stuff up.

What I'm against is this idea that people aren't allowed to earn a living because 'insert reason' we don't like.

There are plenty of people I don't like earning a living.....As long as they don't threaten me or others I don't have an issue with it.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2017 1.09pm)

I think the problem is that National Action don't believe in non-violent stuff. They're specifically pro-violence. I'd be wary of saying that racist, pro-violent politics in a military that almost exclusively is deployed in active service in areas of the middle east, might be something of a problem and risk.

Also of course, there is the risk of access to things like explosives and firearms, and those making their way into the wrong hands. The US has a massive problem with this (both with gang members and political extremists, and gangsters).

Worth noting, that in the 70s a number of Soldiers got done for training National Front members.

Same kind of applies with the Police and BNP - The BNP are a racialist organisation - and that's a problem when you have police officers, who ascribe to racist agenda. I don't think you can rely on them not being prejudicial, or it being a problem given the Police Forces history.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 07 Sep 17 1.18pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 In terms of global populations aren't they a minority anyhow? Maybe with that in mind, white Europeans and White Americans should maybe have considered how they treated the rest of the world, historically speaking. Internationally, our history of engagement with the rest of the world has been one of exploiting others - or more correctly exploiting others, to exploit them on our behalf. We invaded and took over 1/3rd of the world. It might have been worth considering just how that might affect future generations of whites, before we started shooting the uppty locals. But Jamie....As we can't enjoy the achievements of our ancestors because we didn't partake in it....hence we can't take responsibility for their perceived transgressions either. Remember that one?.....I know...I'm being a little sh1t. I don't personally connect to the past using 'white people'....I'm English/British/European/Western.....the colour of my skin is an attribute not a defining characteristic. As for the 'exploiting' stuff....really? Is this really a sensible way of talking about the past? This is an aspect of human nature....not of human skin colour. Humans exploit other humans.....they did it in the past and they do it now and they will continue to do it in the future for as long as we exist. It's nature. All that changes is the popularity in the form of the exploitation. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2017 1.24pm) '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

Stirlingsays

07 Sep 17 1.18pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Internationally, our history of engagement with the rest of the world has been one of exploiting others - or more correctly exploiting others, to exploit them on our behalf.

We invaded and took over 1/3rd of the world. It might have been worth considering just how that might affect future generations of whites, before we started shooting the uppty locals.

But Jamie....As we can't enjoy the achievements of our ancestors because we didn't partake in it....hence we can't take responsibility for their perceived transgressions either.

Remember that one?.....I know...I'm being a little sh1t.

I don't personally connect to the past using 'white people'....I'm English/British/European/Western.....the colour of my skin is an attribute not a defining characteristic.

As for the 'exploiting' stuff....really? Is this really a sensible way of talking about the past? This is an aspect of human nature....not of human skin colour.

Humans exploit other humans.....they did it in the past and they do it now and they will continue to do it in the future for as long as we exist.

It's nature.

All that changes is the popularity in the form of the exploitation.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2017 1.24pm)

'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

Hrolf The Ganger 07 Sep 17 1.26pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 In terms of global populations aren't they a minority anyhow? Maybe with that in mind, white Europeans and White Americans should maybe have considered how they treated the rest of the world, historically speaking. Internationally, our history of engagement with the rest of the world has been one of exploiting others - or more correctly exploiting others, to exploit them on our behalf. We invaded and took over 1/3rd of the world. It might have been worth considering just how that might affect future generations of whites, before we started shooting the uppty locals. Inevitably, a technologically superior culture will exploit a lesser one. That is just how it is. Equally, a majority who has a political advantage will generally put themselves first. Personally, I don't have guilt about the exploits of Empire builders and invaders. I frown upon their methods but acknowledge the consistency of human nature in such things. A non White majority will not care a twopence about Whitey either, so let's not kid ourselves that we are the bad guys to serve some self loathing indulgence.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

07 Sep 17 1.26pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Internationally, our history of engagement with the rest of the world has been one of exploiting others - or more correctly exploiting others, to exploit them on our behalf.

We invaded and took over 1/3rd of the world. It might have been worth considering just how that might affect future generations of whites, before we started shooting the uppty locals.

Inevitably, a technologically superior culture will exploit a lesser one. That is just how it is.
Equally, a majority who has a political advantage will generally put themselves first.
Personally, I don't have guilt about the exploits of Empire builders and invaders. I frown upon their methods but acknowledge the consistency of human nature in such things. A non White majority will not care a twopence about Whitey either, so let's not kid ourselves that we are the bad guys to serve some self loathing indulgence.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 07 Sep 17 1.34pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 I think the problem is that National Action don't believe in non-violent stuff. They're specifically pro-violence. I'd be wary of saying that racist, pro-violent politics in a military that almost exclusively is deployed in active service in areas of the middle east, might be something of a problem and risk. Also of course, there is the risk of access to things like explosives and firearms, and those making their way into the wrong hands. The US has a massive problem with this (both with gang members and political extremists, and gangsters). Worth noting, that in the 70s a number of Soldiers got done for training National Front members. Same kind of applies with the Police and BNP - The BNP are a racialist organisation - and that's a problem when you have police officers, who ascribe to racist agenda. I don't think you can rely on them not being prejudicial, or it being a problem given the Police Forces history. I don't know enough about this group to say whether this description is accurate or not. Like I say though....if someone is planning action, or in a group that plans action against the state or its citizens/subjects then their removal and detention is completely valid. What have this group actually done? How long have they existed? I don't know these things. When we start going onto the BNP and what jobs they can and can't do....It starts to ring bells.....though keeping them out of the Police makes sense. But are you essentially saying Jamie that these people can only have jobs that don't involve other people? Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2017 1.38pm) '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

Stirlingsays

07 Sep 17 1.34pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Worth noting, that in the 70s a number of Soldiers got done for training National Front members.

I don't know enough about this group to say whether this description is accurate or not.

Like I say though....if someone is planning action, or in a group that plans action against the state or its citizens/subjects then their removal and detention is completely valid.

What have this group actually done? How long have they existed? I don't know these things.

When we start going onto the BNP and what jobs they can and can't do....It starts to ring bells.....though keeping them out of the Police makes sense.

But are you essentially saying Jamie that these people can only have jobs that don't involve other people?

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Sep 2017 1.38pm)

'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

Stirlingsays 07 Sep 17 1.37pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Inevitably, a technologically superior culture will exploit a lesser one. That is just how it is. Equally, a majority who has a political advantage will generally put themselves first. Personally, I don't have guilt about the exploits of Empire builders and invaders. I frown upon their methods but acknowledge the consistency of human nature in such things. A non White majority will not care a twopence about Whitey either, so let's not kid ourselves that we are the bad guys to serve some self loathing indulgence. Seconded. What matters is how we treat people now.....and how well they tan shouldn't make a difference. '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

Stirlingsays

07 Sep 17 1.37pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Seconded.

What matters is how we treat people now.....and how well they tan shouldn't make a difference.

'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

Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

National Action

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors