The Jews - what is my correct stance as a nationalist?

[Hartlepool]

I n my honest opinion the English Nationalist stance on the Jewish people at the present time is to support them in their never ending quest for freedom in their land of Israel.

[Marilyn]

Hee Hahhhh .. ride em cowboy, rollin rollin rollin Rawhide !!

Glory be .. where did that come from

[InnocentNewborn]

I n my honest opinion the English Nationalist stance on the Jewish people at the present time is to support them in their never ending quest for freedom in their land of Israel.

So we expend all our advantage to help a competitor who will not reward us one bit. Great idea!

[InnocentNewborn]

No, you aren't just saying. You're trying to insult, simple as. No debate, so what? You call someone a "double act" implying there is no debate there, and what are you doing?

It's called hypocrisy.

We are like opposites attracting in some ways. Because I do respect you even when I have a different (yet open to change since I am open minded) view. I love it when the trolls think we are a double act!

[Marilyn]

I'm confused about this. Do I separate the two or not? Nick appeared to support Israel and Jews but what is the situation now?

Israel and the jews have told him to go suck up to the muslims instead.

[InnocentNewborn]

Nick thinks he has to cower when accused of "anti semitism" so he looks around for ways to make it seem he has no problem with the Jews. But of course he cannot ignore the problem when they are trying to snatch nationalism to serve zionism.

[Wowbanger TIP]

“colonist”????? What’s that?
If all immigrants were to leave then the crime rate probably would go down. But it wouldn’t solve the problems that immigration has shown us to be a major problem. Dealing with immigration is an issue that needs to be tackled, it does have an impact on the country, but you kick out all the immigrants and what? We still need immigrants in the future, you still need to deal with welfare, education, crime, rights and responsibilities. But if you think that one thing is going to solve all of this, then you are wrong.

colonist [ˈkɒlənɪst]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who settles or colonizes an area
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an inhabitant or member of a colony

I didn't argue that it would solve all problems, only one thing is going to solve all problems and that is giving people the power to try and solve their own. I said that, as stupid as the argument "send em' all back" on lots of levels is, it is correct in stating that it would reduce crime. And why exactly do we "need immigrants"? Are you suggesting this mighty nation state of 63 million people requires a couple of hundred thousand people from poorer countries every year else it stops functioning?

Immigration causes crime, but not ALL crime, which is the point here.

No it isn't, the discussion was about how to solve immigrant crime not ALL crime.

I did not say dismantle the welfare system. I said change it. My person view is that welfare should be given to those who have earned it. If you haven’t paid into the system for 5 years, you get nothing. That means immigrants, that means young kids etc. That’s not saying the state would not support young people, but that young people would have to earn this money in one way or another, like staying on in education and achieving certain goals, or doing “voluntary work”, or joining the armed forces, or something similar.

"Paid into the system", so a bank robber who had paid his taxes out of his "earnings" is a citizen but a man who was claimed by the system on the day he was born isn't because he hasn't indentured himself to some organisation whose principle activities result in the destruction of that man's nation, society and community for a period of at least five years? A man who works as a volunteer with troubled kids isn't a citizen whilst the Director of the Board at Tax Dodgers Inc is? Since "the system" doesn't apparently want these people is it not fair that they are then not bound by its rules and demands? If they are to receive nothing why should they pay anything?

Well that might be the case. You look at say the black British population, many came here to do rubbish jobs, to improve their lot, they were not the bright sparks of their country in many cases, and over time some have moved up, others have stayed where they are. But that doesn’t mean they commit crimes because they are black, many commit crimes for a variety of reasons that have to do with poverty, to do with mental illnesses, to do with many different things, and you need to look at these and make an educated opinion about how to deal with it, rather than simply say it’s because they’re black.

Actually it is usually the most dynamic of any society who have the balls to leave everything they have ever known and take a chance on a life somewhere completely different. Which is why migration is not just an attack on one nation, but two. It is also incorrect to say "black people came here to do the rubbish jobs" as if they all decided out of the goodness of their hearts to move to the UK in order to alleviate us of the need to sweep our own streets. (as is occasionally asserted by the media "lets help the mother country! because it needed more help in 1948 than it did in 1943 obviously) They came out of a pure mercenary calculation about their chances in the UK Vs wherever they came from, just like every single immigrant to and from anywhere there has ever been.

But anyway this whole debate is missing the point completely. It does not actually matter if black communities are more inclined to criminality, and they are; for whatever reason. That is an argument made by people who are scared to talk about their real issues with colonization, or are trying to make an argument Marxist style materialists like yourself might understand or are too stupid to articulate what they think.

Check this out, it would not matter if every single immigrant was a wonderful citizen who voluntarily doubled the tax they paid, refused all state assistance and spent their free time polishing lampposts and in general Good Works. Because this is not an argument about how to deliver the maximum number of Ford Suburbias to the population, it is an argument about who we are as a community and a nation. We might be the most savage and lawless society on the planet, but we still have a right to exist, a right to govern our own affairs and a right to follow our own path to our own destiny. Immigration challenges all of that, it denies us all of those rights. That is why nationalists are upset about it, not because of “the colour of people’s skin” or the slightly increased probability of getting your phone jacked on the High Street.

[Dan Dare]

^

Have a green one.

[Mike]

colonist [ˈkɒlənɪst]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who settles or colonizes an area
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an inhabitant or member of a colony

I didn't argue that it would solve all problems, only one thing is going to solve all problems and that is giving people the power to try and solve their own. I said that, as stupid as the argument "send em' all back" on lots of levels is, it is correct in stating that it would reduce crime. And why exactly do we "need immigrants"? Are you suggesting this mighty nation state of 63 million people requires a couple of hundred thousand people from poorer countries every year else it stops functioning?



No it isn't, the discussion was about how to solve immigrant crime not ALL crime.




"Paid into the system", so a bank robber who had paid his taxes out of his "earnings" is a citizen but a man who was claimed by the system on the day he was born isn't because he hasn't indentured himself to some organisation whose principle activities result in the destruction of that man's nation, society and community for a period of at least five years? A man who works as a volunteer with troubled kids isn't a citizen whilst the Director of the Board at Tax Dodgers Inc is? Since "the system" doesn't apparently want these people is it not fair that they are then not bound by its rules and demands? If they are to receive nothing why should they pay anything?






Actually it is usually the most dynamic of any society who have the balls to leave everything they have ever known and take a chance on a life somewhere completely different. Which is why migration is not just an attack on one nation, but two. It is also incorrect to say "black people came here to do the rubbish jobs" as if they all decided out of the goodness of their hearts to move to the UK in order to alleviate us of the need to sweep our own streets. (as is occasionally asserted by the media "lets help the mother country! because it needed more help in 1948 than it did in 1943 obviously) They came out of a pure mercenary calculation about their chances in the UK Vs wherever they came from, just like every single immigrant to and from anywhere there has ever been.

But anyway this whole debate is missing the point completely. It does not actually matter if black communities are more inclined to criminality, and they are; for whatever reason. That is an argument made by people who are scared to talk about their real issues with colonization, or are trying to make an argument Marxist style materialists like yourself might understand or are too stupid to articulate what they think.

Check this out, it would not matter if every single immigrant was a wonderful citizen who voluntarily doubled the tax they paid, refused all state assistance and spent their free time polishing lampposts and in general Good Works. Because this is not an argument about how to deliver the maximum number of Ford Suburbias to the population, it is an argument about who we are as a community and a nation. We might be the most savage and lawless society on the planet, but we still have a right to exist, a right to govern our own affairs and a right to follow our own path to our own destiny. Immigration challenges all of that, it denies us all of those rights. That is why nationalists are upset about it, not because of “the colour of people’s skin” or the slightly increased probability of getting your phone jacked on the High Street.

How often does 'need immigrants' have to knocked on the head? Even the Lords committee on immigration concluded there was a negligible benefit. We've got around 3 million immigrants we imported since 1997 surplus to labour requirements given the level of demand at present and likely for many years to come. There are no quick dodges to evade this problem in economic policy.

[jamesUK]

How often does 'need immigrants' have to knocked on the head? Even the Lords committee on immigration concluded there was a negligible benefit. We've got around 3 million immigrants we imported since 1997 surplus to labour requirements given the level of demand at present and likely for many years to come. There are no quick dodges to evade this problem in economic policy.

Mike, I was told yesterday that Phillip Blond, of Red Toryism fame, holds economic views similar to Distributism. Is that good or old-hat as I think it is. Perhaps I should push Mishan?