This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Calais migrant trouble
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
jamiemartin721  Reading 18 Aug 15 4.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 18 Aug 2015 4.23pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Aug 2015 4.12pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 18 Aug 2015 11.10am
It's the delusional internationalists that worry me, like believers in the EU - doomed to failure. Isn't the UK, by its very nature, internationalist, having consisted previously of the UK and Commonwealth, The Empire and long back, the Union of four different countries and cultures (and back before then Wales and Scotland). Its been a very long time since it was a isolationist single nation. Your examples prove my point. The Commonwealth is nothing really these days (bit like the UN in that respect) and riven by divisions. The Empire of course came apart largely in violent insurgencies. Members of the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland seek independence. In all your examples nationalism reasserts itself. Trying to create artificial 'nations' of different races, religions, language and culture is doomed to failure. Great answer. Personally I'm not sold on the EU, I can see some benefits from it, but I'm not sold on the ideas of the EU being increasingly influential in social and domestic policy. I can see the advantages of things like the European Court and the EU Trade block and especially a EU police force, but the whole 'Right to work wherever' and TITP (or whatever) are questionably about establishing the primacy of the EU over its member states.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| leggedstruggle Croydon 18 Aug 15 4.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Aug 2015 4.27pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 18 Aug 2015 4.23pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Aug 2015 4.12pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 18 Aug 2015 11.10am
It's the delusional internationalists that worry me, like believers in the EU - doomed to failure. Isn't the UK, by its very nature, internationalist, having consisted previously of the UK and Commonwealth, The Empire and long back, the Union of four different countries and cultures (and back before then Wales and Scotland). Its been a very long time since it was a isolationist single nation. Your examples prove my point. The Commonwealth is nothing really these days (bit like the UN in that respect) and riven by divisions. The Empire of course came apart largely in violent insurgencies. Members of the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland seek independence. In all your examples nationalism reasserts itself. Trying to create artificial 'nations' of different races, religions, language and culture is doomed to failure. Great answer. Personally I'm not sold on the EU, I can see some benefits from it, but I'm not sold on the ideas of the EU being increasingly influential in social and domestic policy. I can see the advantages of things like the European Court and the EU Trade block and especially a EU police force, but the whole 'Right to work wherever' and TITP (or whatever) are questionably about establishing the primacy of the EU over its member states. I think you and I agree on more things that people would expect, I certainly agree with what you just put. We just need to avoid discussing cakes and we will be ok.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 18 Aug 15 4.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
TTIP is all about removing law away from governments to give more powers to multinationals. Should warrant it's own thread really.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 18 Aug 15 5.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 18 Aug 2015 4.23pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Aug 2015 4.12pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 18 Aug 2015 11.10am
It's the delusional internationalists that worry me, like believers in the EU - doomed to failure. Isn't the UK, by its very nature, internationalist, having consisted previously of the UK and Commonwealth, The Empire and long back, the Union of four different countries and cultures (and back before then Wales and Scotland). Its been a very long time since it was a isolationist single nation. Your examples prove my point. The Commonwealth is nothing really these days (bit like the UN in that respect) and riven by divisions. The Empire of course came apart largely in violent insurgencies. Members of the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland seek independence. In all your examples nationalism reasserts itself. Trying to create artificial 'nations' of different races, religions, language and culture is doomed to failure. Well,lets look at the USA.Not a bad example of an "artificial" nation created out of different languages,ethnicities and religions (English,French,Spanish,catholic,protestant) which,as such,is not inherently doomed to failure. Canada being I'd say another example. Australia is a good example of a nation developed since the war through policies of mass immigration from all over the place)and multi culturalism which is not,as such,doomed to failure. The British Empire didn't end in the main because of violent insurrection but because the broke "rulers" embarked upon a deliberate policy post 1950 of working towards granting independence to almost all colonies,in a domestic climate moving more towards anti-colonialism and starting to look more towards continental Europe. Edited by legaleagle (18 Aug 2015 5.35pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
pefwin  Where you have to have an English ... 18 Aug 15 5.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TheJudge at 17 Aug 2015 7.38pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 17 Aug 2015 6.20pm
Quote TheJudge at 17 Aug 2015 3.09pm
LOL. The religious person gets indignant about "sense" and "facts". Sigh !
Hmmm. This has got old before it's barely started. It could fall below my threshold of bothering to respond before too long.
Not old, not bored.
"Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Stirlingsays 18 Aug 15 5.34pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 18 Aug 2015 5.27pm
Well,lets look at the USA.Not a bad example of an "artificial" nation created out of different languages and religions (English,French,Spanishcatholic,protestant) which,as such,is not inherently doomed to failure. Canada being I'd say another example. Australia is a good example of a nation developed since the war through policies of mass immigration from all over the place)and multi culturalism which is not,as such,doomed to failure. The British Empire didn't end in the main because of violent insurrection but because the broke "rulers" embarked upon a deliberate policy post 1950 of working towards granting independence to almost all colonies,in a domestic climate moving more towards anti-colonialism and starting to look more towards continental Europe.
That's a very poor understanding of how both America and Australia were created.
'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 |
 |
| legaleagle 18 Aug 15 5.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Aug 2015 5.34pm
Quote legaleagle at 18 Aug 2015 5.27pm
Well,lets look at the USA.Not a bad example of an "artificial" nation created out of different languages and religions (English,French,Spanishcatholic,protestant) which,as such,is not inherently doomed to failure. Canada being I'd say another example. Australia is a good example of a nation developed since the war through policies of mass immigration from all over the place)and multi culturalism which is not,as such,doomed to failure. The British Empire didn't end in the main because of violent insurrection but because the broke "rulers" embarked upon a deliberate policy post 1950 of working towards granting independence to almost all colonies,in a domestic climate moving more towards anti-colonialism and starting to look more towards continental Europe.
That's a very poor understanding of how both America and Australia were created. No,Stirling you miss the point,They were both created "artificially of course by subjugation and killings of indigenous people.But that not pertinent to my point in response to the poster I was responding to,who was,of course talking precisely about nations "artificially" created and you can't get much more "artificial" than the origins of the creation of the USA. The USA is not "doomed to failure" because of it being at root constructed on people of a different race or language.The situation of black people arises from the perversity of slavery.But,in some ways the USA (in terms of immigrants who came by choice) and settler groups there by choice at or near the outset,shows precisely how an artificial creation made up of people of differing religions,language or ethnicity is not automatically doomed to failure. Australia is,in overall terms,a stunning example,of the ability to successfully build up a country with mass immigration from all over the place of people of different languages and cultures and a policy of multi culturalism
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Catfish Burgess Hill 18 Aug 15 5.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Aug 2015 5.34pm
Quote legaleagle at 18 Aug 2015 5.27pm
Well,lets look at the USA.Not a bad example of an "artificial" nation created out of different languages and religions (English,French,Spanishcatholic,protestant) which,as such,is not inherently doomed to failure. Canada being I'd say another example. Australia is a good example of a nation developed since the war through policies of mass immigration from all over the place)and multi culturalism which is not,as such,doomed to failure. The British Empire didn't end in the main because of violent insurrection but because the broke "rulers" embarked upon a deliberate policy post 1950 of working towards granting independence to almost all colonies,in a domestic climate moving more towards anti-colonialism and starting to look more towards continental Europe.
That's a very poor understanding of how both America and Australia were created. I don't think he intended a definitive history.
Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TheJudge 18 Aug 15 5.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 18 Aug 2015 5.37pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Aug 2015 5.34pm
Quote legaleagle at 18 Aug 2015 5.27pm
Well,lets look at the USA.Not a bad example of an "artificial" nation created out of different languages and religions (English,French,Spanishcatholic,protestant) which,as such,is not inherently doomed to failure. Canada being I'd say another example. Australia is a good example of a nation developed since the war through policies of mass immigration from all over the place)and multi culturalism which is not,as such,doomed to failure. The British Empire didn't end in the main because of violent insurrection but because the broke "rulers" embarked upon a deliberate policy post 1950 of working towards granting independence to almost all colonies,in a domestic climate moving more towards anti-colonialism and starting to look more towards continental Europe.
That's a very poor understanding of how both America and Australia were created. No,Stirling you miss the point,They were both created "artificially of course by subjugation and killings of indigenous people.But that not pertinent to my point in response to the poster I was responding to,who was,of course talking precisely about nations "artificially" created and you can't get much more "artificial" than the origins of the creation of the USA. The United States model is hardly a desirable one is it. People are divided down racial and religious lines and organised crime among minorities is rife.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 18 Aug 15 5.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 5.40pm
Quote legaleagle at 18 Aug 2015 5.37pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Aug 2015 5.34pm
Quote legaleagle at 18 Aug 2015 5.27pm
Well,lets look at the USA.Not a bad example of an "artificial" nation created out of different languages and religions (English,French,Spanish,catholic,protestant) which,as such,is not inherently doomed to failure. Canada being I'd say another example. Australia is a good example of a nation developed since the war through policies of mass immigration from all over the place)and multi culturalism which is not,as such,doomed to failure. The British Empire didn't end in the main because of violent insurrection but because the broke "rulers" embarked upon a deliberate policy post 1950 of working towards granting independence to almost all colonies,in a domestic climate moving more towards anti-colonialism and starting to look more towards continental Europe.
That's a very poor understanding of how both America and Australia were created. No,Stirling you miss the point,They were both created "artificially of course by subjugation and killings of indigenous people.But that not pertinent to my point in response to the poster I was responding to,who was,of course talking precisely about nations "artificially" created and you can't get much more "artificial" than the origins of the creation of the USA. The United States model is hardly a desirable one is it. People are divided down racial and religious lines and organised crime among minorities is rife. The "race" issue arises from the perversity of slavery. Yes,USA has a lot of crime and crazies but a very large population.The crime aspect (and don't confuse crime with gun laws)doesn't arise,for example,from the USA being built of people of differing ethnicities and religions (ie Spanish,French and British) or the successful integration overall of huge numbers of immigrants (coming of their own choice) from all over the place,be it, Italy,Germany,Latin America or Korea.Leaving gun crime out of it (arising I'd say from their crazy gun laws,statistics indicate our "violent crime" per head of population is not a lot different to the US.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 18 Aug 15 5.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 18 Aug 2015 5.27pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 18 Aug 2015 4.23pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Aug 2015 4.12pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 18 Aug 2015 11.10am
It's the delusional internationalists that worry me, like believers in the EU - doomed to failure. Isn't the UK, by its very nature, internationalist, having consisted previously of the UK and Commonwealth, The Empire and long back, the Union of four different countries and cultures (and back before then Wales and Scotland). Its been a very long time since it was a isolationist single nation. Your examples prove my point. The Commonwealth is nothing really these days (bit like the UN in that respect) and riven by divisions. The Empire of course came apart largely in violent insurgencies. Members of the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland seek independence. In all your examples nationalism reasserts itself. Trying to create artificial 'nations' of different races, religions, language and culture is doomed to failure. Well,lets look at the USA.Not a bad example of an "artificial" nation created out of different languages,ethnicities and religions (English,French,Spanish,catholic,protestant) which,as such,is not inherently doomed to failure. Canada being I'd say another example. Australia is a good example of a nation developed since the war through policies of mass immigration from all over the place)and multi culturalism which is not,as such,doomed to failure. The British Empire didn't end in the main because of violent insurrection but because the broke "rulers" embarked upon a deliberate policy post 1950 of working towards granting independence to almost all colonies,in a domestic climate moving more towards anti-colonialism and starting to look more towards continental Europe. Edited by legaleagle (18 Aug 2015 5.35pm) The USA started from a 'clean sheet', did not have established race, language, religion and culture - apart from the indigenous population who were more of less 'ethnically cleansed' (you would have thought they would have welcomed the vibrant diversity of the immigrants wouldn't you?) The USA does indeed have communities of different races etc. They get on well don't they? No suggestion of racial tensions, riots etc? Also, each nationality revels in their particular 'heritage' - ask the American Irish or Italians what nationality they identify with. Canada? The English speaking Canadians get on really well with the French speakers don't they? No calls for an independent French state within Canada is there? Australia of course ethnically cleansed its indigenous population and is now experiencing the usual problems of mass immigration of people of different race, religion, language and culture. British Empire ended peacefully? What apart from America, Canada, Ireland, South Africa, India, Malaya, Cyprus, Kenya, Southern Rhodesia, Palestine, etc
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TheJudge 18 Aug 15 6.01pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 18 Aug 2015 5.46pm
Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 5.40pm
Quote legaleagle at 18 Aug 2015 5.37pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 18 Aug 2015 5.34pm
Quote legaleagle at 18 Aug 2015 5.27pm
Well,lets look at the USA.Not a bad example of an "artificial" nation created out of different languages and religions (English,French,Spanish,catholic,protestant) which,as such,is not inherently doomed to failure. Canada being I'd say another example. Australia is a good example of a nation developed since the war through policies of mass immigration from all over the place)and multi culturalism which is not,as such,doomed to failure. The British Empire didn't end in the main because of violent insurrection but because the broke "rulers" embarked upon a deliberate policy post 1950 of working towards granting independence to almost all colonies,in a domestic climate moving more towards anti-colonialism and starting to look more towards continental Europe.
That's a very poor understanding of how both America and Australia were created. No,Stirling you miss the point,They were both created "artificially of course by subjugation and killings of indigenous people.But that not pertinent to my point in response to the poster I was responding to,who was,of course talking precisely about nations "artificially" created and you can't get much more "artificial" than the origins of the creation of the USA. The United States model is hardly a desirable one is it. People are divided down racial and religious lines and organised crime among minorities is rife. The "race" issue arises from the perversity of slavery. Yes,USA has a lot of crime and crazies but a very large population.The crime aspect (and don't confuse crime with gun laws)doesn't arise,for example,from the USA being built of people of differing ethnicities and religions (ie Spanish,French and British) or the successful integration overall of huge numbers of immigrants (coming of their own choice) from all over the place,be it, Italy,Germany,Latin America or Korea.Leaving gun crime out of it (arising I'd say from their crazy gun laws,statistics indicate our "violent crime" per head of population is not a lot different to the US.
For many reasons, people just don't mix too well.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.