Wilhammer Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 This is too funny - propaganda foot shooting....(found on the BGG) http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/82468-far-right-british-national-party.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 That is just too funny. You couldn't make it up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Yet another smidgen of proof that racists/anti-immigrationists aren't quite as smart as they claim to be. =P 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Just last week I saw this quote from our dear Pauline Hanson, who tries desperately to invoke some military historical wet spots whilst showing an utter ignorance of actual events: Asked why she was standing for election again, Ms Hanson said it was because she was passionate. "It's the same as the diggers going off to fight at Gallipoli for our freedom and our rights. Why shouldn't I keep fighting for our rights?" she said. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 As kids they must have missed the joy of making this classic Airfix model... Edit - Found where the BNP got the image http://www.skinbase.org/rate.php?skins=45665 - pretty good hires render for wallpaper 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 The success of right-wing political parties depends on a number of universal variables, although their strenght might fluctuate one nation to another. Found it. Knew I read a paper on the subject. For those interested: http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/qmss/seminars/2008-crossnat/documents/Lubbersetal.pdf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winston smith Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 FWIW a month or two back I received a questionnaire from my local Labour MP seeking my views on immigration, am I concerned about it?, should they be required to speak English?, should immigrants be subjected to a specific extra tax? etc Last week I again received a similar questionnaire from the same source, basically asking the same questions though the 'tax on immigrants' question had been dropped It’s bloody depressing to see the party decide exactly how racist they're prepared to be in order to counter the likes of the BNP Interestingly neither questionnaire sought views on immigrants becoming MPs, ..., Gisela Stuart is my M, she was born & raised in Germany 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Racist? I thought race was as in 1 here from Chambers race2 noun 1 any of the major divisions of humankind distinguished by a particular set of physical characteristics, such as size, hair type or skin colour. 2 a tribe, nation or similar group of people thought of as distinct from others. Anyway I have no problem with skin colour or country of origin but I can understand why people feel there must be some sort of limit. Competing for scarce resource - jobs, housing, quality of life the native settlers feel put-out. Hardly surprising - a very natural animal response. Whereas politicians, journalists, and sociologists higher in society do not feel threatened at all. After all without all those Polish builders how would they have their houses, and second houses been refurbished : ) Now if we lived in a vast country with resources to b e conquered and land cheap one might see the influx as a great asset - however both Australia and the US, who might fit the criteria, have rigorous immigration limits. Racist? - no not racist, simply a desire to live a comfortable life in your native land. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 By winston smith It’s bloody depressing to see the party decide exactly how racist they're prepared to be in order to counter the likes of the BNP Well, that's democracy for you. If the "establisment" does not repsond to popular requests and demands the "establisment" will undergo uncontrolled changes. Look what happened to the Germans when they let Hitler run free with his ideas. IMO it is not racism if you want to curtail immigration. I'm sad to say instantaneous shake-n-bake (in cultural history timeframe) multiculturalistic society living in harmony is a fairy tale. Or more like a failed rab rat experiment made on people instead of rats. Funnily enough this seems to be a Europe-wide phenomenon. Interestingly neither questionnaire sought views on immigrants becoming MPs, ..., Gisela Stuart is my M, she was born & raised in Germany Stuart does not strike me as particularly German family name. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Thats because its her married name ...... Gisela Gschaider Stuart (born 26 November 1955 as Gisela Gschaider) is the Labour Member of Parliament for Birmingham Edgbaston in the United Kingdom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 By dieseltaylor Thats because its her married name ...... Ah....... might have guessed. Seems the Germanic race is expanding globally... Cue Arnold Schwatsenegger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Nice happy co-habitation of different nationalities, races, religons, etc occurs as a fairy tale every now and then - but it never lasts long. Maybe in 50 years there will be some realisation of this - but alas it's jsut wishful thinking by liberals* extending their ideas to the limits. there have been eras where there has been more or less tolerance - the Roman Empire wasn't too bad...mostly.....many other rulers have taken a pragmatic approach - "it doesn't matter what race/religon yuo are as long as you do what I say".....but such attitudes invariably fall apart sooner or later. IMO we've got 100k+ years of evolution where keeping "us" against "them" was a survival trait to get over...and it ain't gonna happen soon! I have no doubt the last 20 years ** will shortly be consigned to history too..... * - I count myself as a liberal.....but I like to think I have more pragmatism than the idealist also often referred to as "the looney left" ** - 'cos that's as long as this idea has been extant for "the west" this time around - the allies had no problems with "ethnic cleansing" of Germany after WW2 and it's not so long they were lynching "people of colour" in the 'states, they were seizing Maori land here in NZ as lately as 1952, and only gave Aboriginals full voting rights at State and Commonwealth level in the '60's......... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Nice happy co-habitation of different nationalities' date=' races, religons, etc occurs as a fairy tale every now and then - but it never lasts long.[/quote'] That's utter bull****. You need to look into history before 19th century, the time before national states, and you will see that it was the norm, not the exception. Evolution doesn't know races, religions or nationalities, it only knows clans and families. But I suppose states, national states in particular, are also going to fall apart any time now, because they've only existed for a brief moment..? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Moors (North African Muslims), Jews, and Christians in Iberia (now Portugal and Spain)were just fine living together for several centuries (pre-1492). Eventually, though, the Christendomic potentates (kings and such) to the north got tired of not having as much land and riches as before the Moors took over, so they spent a couple more centuries steamrollering the Moors out of Iberia and then torturing to death all those left who did not readily consent to converting to Christianity (i.e. the Spanish Inquisition). (Gross oversimplification, I know, but I don't have time to write out the whole history, nor would most people have the patience to read it.) Throughout history, there have been times when a given group drove away or killed all those of any different group as well as times when numerous groups lived relatively at peace with one another. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 yep - every peaceful period has been ended by some sort of bloody pogrom.......as soon as there's any sort of threat people start looking for scapegoats, imagineing dangers, etc. clans, families - doesn't mater what social groupings her are - they are all susceptable to conflict - it doesn't have to cause anything to fall apart sergei - there is plenty of conflict around the world today in societies that are not "falling apart" - but the conflict is still real and part of the constant change that is going on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 The things that traditionally cause conflict are usually related to the unequal distribution of wealth, freedom and power. Equalizing education, maximizing individual opportunity to prosper and avoiding the accumulation of all the wealth and power in the hands of a minority elite, are all good ways to make for a more enduring, equitable society. A rational populace should normally elect more rational leaders. Such leaders should be able to work out the issues related to climatological change and energy resources; issues that would otherwise be another source of conflict if left unresolved. Do that across many nations and we should see considerable reduction in conflicts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Yeah - another 100k years of evolution might start getting rid of the instinctive quest for power........ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 The things that traditionally cause conflict are usually related to the unequal distribution of wealth, freedom and power. Equalizing education, maximizing individual opportunity to prosper and avoiding the accumulation of all the wealth and power in the hands of a minority elite, are all good ways to make for a more enduring, equitable society. A rational populace should normally elect more rational leaders. Such leaders should be able to work out the issues related to climatological change and energy resources; issues that would otherwise be another source of conflict if left unresolved. Do that across many nations and we should see considerable reduction in conflicts. I would hope that you are right. However...in my years on earth, I've become convinced that the human urge to choose up sides and go at each other until much blood has been spilled and much property laid waste to appears to be hard wired into our neurosystems. I suppose there are ways in which that subsystem could be deleted from our equipment, but if anybody has successfully identified them, they seem to be remaining awfully mum about it. Another dark and evil conspiracy perhaps? Where is Kettler when you need him? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 War is good for the survivors. Not so good for the dead. That's evolutionary pressure right there. The only way out is to make resources not worth fighting for. The best way to do that is to make trade more profitable than resources. One of the great strenghts of capitalism is binding everyone together in a trade network and making breaking out of that less beneficial than staying in it. That works on a macro and micro level. So if each culture in a multi-cultural society can benefit the other then things can work out. If that stops happening then the majority tends to eat the other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 So if each culture in a multi-cultural society can benefit the other then things can work out. If that stops happening then the majority tends to eat the other. Consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. AFAIK with all the carnage there has never ever been any attempt to sabotage the water supply of either side. So far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 War is good for the survivors. Not so good for the dead. That's evolutionary pressure right there. The only way out is to make resources not worth fighting for. The best way to do that is to make trade more profitable than resources. One of the great strenghts of capitalism is binding everyone together in a trade network and making breaking out of that less beneficial than staying in it. That works on a macro and micro level. So if each culture in a multi-cultural society can benefit the other then things can work out. If that stops happening then the majority tends to eat the other. This presumes that people will behave in a rational way. They do not always do so. In fact, one can probably defend a claim that they seldom do so. Fortunately for the good of the race, not all irrational behavior is entirely antagonistic to the rational goals of self-interest. But it is still a hazardous way to go about things. It is within our grasp to do something irretrievably and terminally stupid. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 10, 2009 Share Posted March 10, 2009 Consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. AFAIK with all the carnage there has never ever been any attempt to sabotage the water supply of either side. So far. Nope. Last time round the Palestinian water and sewer infrastructure was taken out. It also regularly shuts down when the Israelis turn off the electricity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted March 10, 2009 Author Share Posted March 10, 2009 Nope. Last time round the Palestinian water and sewer infrastructure was taken out. It also regularly shuts down when the Israelis turn off the electricity. The '67 war had a significant cause factor with Syria trying to divert the Sea of Galilee to prevent Israeli use of it as a fresh water/irrigation source. The '67 War was also about Palestine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Nope. Last time round the Palestinian water and sewer infrastructure was taken out. It also regularly shuts down when the Israelis turn off the electricity. Just because you have to carry the water by hand does not mean it is not available or contaminated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Just because you have to carry the water by hand does not mean it is not available or contaminated. It does when the two are mixing. That's basic sanitation. Overflows of sewage = contamination of waterways and groundwater, which is where you're getting your drinking water from unless you have a desal plant. And if your WTP and or STP has been taken out physically or through lack of power, there aint much you can do to stop everything flowing all over the place. BBC story Haaretz story You may also be surprised to glean from the above story that when you don't have electricty, you don't have water pumps. And if pipes are broken, nothing comes out of the other end anyway. So carrying it by hand is only an option if you happen to live near a well. Of course, you could just walk down to the local creek if there happens to be one. And if it's not ankle deep in raw sewage. (See above.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.