[genie_in_a_butthole]

@emmalush wrote:

@genie_in_a_butthole wrote:

Some people!!

So by now saying you are part English, albeit, possibly 99.9% English, you are not 100% by your own admittance, thank you, point proved.

When did i say i wasn’t 100% English :D point proved??

Some people!!

I would ask you then, in relation to the line “a character product of them, plus what ive learnt myself”, to maybe start writing posts about your opinions rather than simply pasting other peoples, which you seem to have a tendency to do.

Your ask has been noted, and jotted down as recyling material. The initial opinions of others i post here, then become my opinions too, else i’d be wasting my time doing it.

Nice try to try and blag me away from it, but you see, ive come accross your mob before.

I value your right to share your opinion with anyone who cares to listen.

so you yourself are criticising the system that allows your party to spread its word.

Firstly, it would do you well to realise, like so many fail to, to read the next bit carefully, i am not, and never have been, a member of ANY political party in my entire lifetime. The BNP is NOT my party. I am but your average voter in the street who can be persuaded to vote for any party, i choose the BNP on policy.

If i believe that what the BNP get, or are doing is wrong, i will say so. If my life is to be more successfull than it is, i need BNP to exist in mainstream society. That may never happen, i know that, but its about what you believe. I am a proud English bi-sexual woman. I dont do this lightly. I want decency on our streets, i am afraid of this nightmare old gang bringing my country to its knees. Criminals should be locked up proper, i shouldn’t have to go to work to fund the EU at a yearly loss of £2.5 billion, its a joke.

Not only did you not see these results, you didn’t see or read about the programme that you cited as being fact.

I watched most of the programme…

The scientist in question that i directly quoted, was from a programme you claimed to validate and prove yout point.

Is he wrong on the DNA?

Is he right to say im not English?

If you believe that the Prime Minister runs this country (which i don’t, but thats a different debate) then let us look at who has been in power since the end of WW2.

Banks and military run my country. Blair is but a puppet.

of which Enoch Powell was Minister for Health under Harold Macmillan and an integral member of the cabinet until he refused the position upon Sir Alec Douglas-Home. Yes, Enoch Powell, the man so oft quoted by the BNP and other far right organisations.

He warned of rivers of blood, he is partly right, weve had streams. Did he encourage non white foreigners to work in our hospitals?

“Anyone born in England can call themselves English, i dont have to. Anyone born outside of England, is a foreigner”. This actually makes no sense in relation to what you have quoted. You stated that by saying “Our Societys”, you meant “people in England”. By initially using the word “our” and then by clarifying what you meant with the explanation “people in England”, then you don’t have to call yourself English but you already have, thus making what you have said here both preposterous and hypocritical.

Whether i like it or not, there are people in my country i’d rather not be here. Describing them as “our” is just to make that point.

“Is it biggotry to dissasociate yourself from the BNP?”
Disassociation has no relevance to the word “bigot”.

Is it intolerance to dislike the BNP?

Do you see yourself gaining anything from these disscussions with me? How much do you like me?

(Probably not at all …. Ed)

Emma, my initial post stated quite clearly that by correlating 2 historical events, the possibility remains that you could have moorish DNA, you refuted this by citing a programme incorrectly. The programme you cited actually unequivocably justified my point. You said “NOT ONE had any African ancestry”, whereas the truth turned out to be NOT ONE was 100% English (as per your incorrect naming of the title) and in fact and they all had some DNA from either Africa or the Middle East. This needed clarification, which i found. You then backtracked and reinstated a different point citing Occam’s razor, a principle open to interpretation. You have now, to an extent, conceded you are not 100% British which in essence proves my initial point, that the possibility remains that you have no idea of your ancestry and as such, the very notion of multiculturalism that you reject out of hand, might actually be part of your very existence. This proves my point, by saying “When did i say i wasn’t 100% English point proved?? “, that not only doesn’t prove your point, because you never made a point, i did. Your rejection of the point i made has been disproved by the very evidence you used in an attempt to refute my point.
“The initial opinions of others i post here, then become my opinions too, else i’d be wasting my time doing it.”, now whilst i concede, it is unlikely that a true original thought can occur, i contest that by simply recycling others opinions which then become your opinions, you demonstrate how easily you are influenced and how open you are to being manipulated by the likes of Nick Griffin, who as i have already posted on a different thread has said in a speech he made in April 2001 to the American friends of the BNP –

“So, what are we now doing with the British National Party? Well we tried to simplify its message in some ways and to make it a saleable message. So it’s not white supremacy or racial civil war or anything like that, which is what we know in fact is going on”.

He is actually telling you himself, he is sanitising his message to make it saleable (inferring that the message in itself is unsaleable) to people, he continues that even though the saleable message isn’t white supremacy, that is in fact the truth of the matter. As i previously stated, i wondered just who would buy that message, now i know that people like yourself who are prone to believeing a “saleable message” even though it conceals the real message that is “what we know in fact is going on” and all you do by saying “The initial opinions of others i post here, then become my opinions too” is admitting that fact.

Your next paragraph reveals to me, that you don’t have any real sincere belief in what you are posting. You obviously spend a lot of time looking at articles, copying them, pasting them on here presenting yourself as an advocate of these opinions, yet away from the computer and a hidden identity, you haven’t even shown yourself as a supporter. I stand corrected, the BNP, i now realise isn’t your party and you only choose the BNP when your identity is hidden. If, as you have stated “i choose the BNP on policy”, then surely through your own choice, the BNP is your party. What you are saying is contradicting itself within the same paragraph. You choose the BNP as your party but they are not your party???
I applaud your ‘integrity’, that if you disagree with a policy you will say so, but as i have yet to see this happen on these boards, either you agree with all the policies or i doubt the validity of that statement. I will stand corrected if you can show me a post where you criticise any policy of the BNP. I am saddened that you feel your personal success can only be achieved by a politcal party, i personally feel anyones success is achieved through personal motivation albeit within a governing system.
If you watched the programme and then cited its findings so blatantly false, then you were either intentionally lying or paid little or no attention to the programme, again, if this was the case demonstrating your lack of actually grasping what you are listening to (or reading etc). You tell me, do you have a limited attention span and pervert what you listen/read to suit you needs or are you simply a liar?
Its strange how you infer the scientist could now be wrong concerning the DNA, but no mention of this was made when you tried to use it to refute my point?
To some extent i agree with you regading “banks and military run my country”, although, ironically, that could actually be perceived as a Marxist point of view. I have already stated in a different thread, “You decide, the puppet on the left hand or the puppet on the right, all the same to me”, which accurately reflect my views on this matter, which you now seem to agree with.
“Whether i like it or not, there are people in my country i’d rather not be here. Describing them as “our” is just to make that point”. You have no personal ownership rights to any country (in my opinion), There are people who live near me, who i would prefer didn’t live on the same street as me, but what right do i have dictating to them? They have as much right as me to live there? You feel England is your home, i get that, but there are “people in (this) country (you would) rather not be here” who also consider this to be their home. The fact that their great, great grandparents were born on different land albeit under the banner of the British Empire, doesn’t make this any less their home, because as i have demonstrated, your ancestors may too, not have been born on this very land. Are you designating a statute of limitations on the length of ones ancestral heritage actually being born on this land denotes ones right to call it home….ridiculous.
The literal definition of intolerance denotes a refusal to accept ideas or ways of behaving that are different from your own, we are all intolerant of something by definition. You are intolerant of my beliefs by the very definition of the word.
I have nothing to gain personally from these discussions and i can’t really see your point in that statement. Do you have anything to gain from pasting BNP material on these boards when they are not your party? Do you have anything to gain from answering my posts? It seems the only reason i can see from you asking this is and then trying to infer i have a personal reason for them is your desire that i leave you to post views i disagree with unchallenged? I disagree with you and and the opinions you paste onto this site and as such, like you have stated in this post, if i disagree with something, i will say so.

[genie_in_a_butthole]

@emmalush wrote:

@genie_in_a_butthole wrote:

I didn’t wrongly assume anything, i looked at what you had written. You did not write “Nick Griffin, defender of decent people” did you?

You are the biggest wrongfull assumer i have ever come accross. What i meant by defender of decency is NOT for you to decide. Are you a wanabe dictator?

Maybe you should try and actually write what is in your mind or does it get lost in translation between your brain and your fingers, it seems without the benefit of “copy and paste” you are lost.

Insults…

By the way, you know nothing about my political persuasion, sex, age etc because i have chosen not to inflict these on others on a chat sites message boards, now whose jumping to conclusions and assumptions.

ME, but are they wrong? You preech the opposite political view to the BNP, so you must surely be a far left extremist. You have a feminate name…ish, spose it could be male. You are making a damn hard effort to make me look bad. You’ve insulted me. You joined recently, but seem to know more than just a fortnight of what ive been doing, fairenough you could’ve read alot, but…you could be poster mr bigastuff, he was like you. He couldn’t hack it anymore, left in a huff. Seemed so dedicated, there are resemblences…oh yeah, he was keen to point out my spelling mistakes :D it was as if i should write with 100% accuracy just for him…if memory serves me well, he didn’t quote like me, rather like you, could be wrong.

It seems strange to me Emma, that you have such a basic grasp of the English language. I reitterate, you quite clearly made the post “Nick Griffin, defender of decency”, it would actually have been an assumption on my part to assume you meant, “Nick Griffin, defender of decent people”. Although somewhat sarcastic, when i said “Maybe you should try and actually write what is in your mind or does it get lost in translation between your brain and your fingers, it seems without the benefit of “copy and paste” you are lost.” , i was actually, as result of you saying “I meant”, referring to the fact that when you write a message yourself, it seems you say things you don’t mean and you then blame the reader. This has happened countless times and you keep making excuses or blaming someone else. YOU are responsible for your posts and if you are unable to accurately reflect what you are trying to say, which seems to be the case, then you should refrain from posting. When you wrote “Nick Griffin, defender of decency”, you specifically stated that the person mentioned was maintaining an argument for the recognized standards of decent or proper behavior. Yet, now you say, what i meant to say was that Nick Griffin is maintaining an argument for people who believe in the recognized standards of decent or proper behavior. If you cannot see the difference, then you never will and debating the issue with you is pointless. The more you post Emma, the more your inability to grasp the things you are talking about is coming across.
Emma, i have not preeched any political point of view in any post, are you saying that anyone who doesnt support the BNP is a far left extremist? This is such a preposterous statement it is unreal. The name i have used in here is “Genie_in_a_BUTTHOLE”, now your views on anal sex are of no interest to me, but how anyone would perceive that as an effeminate name, is beyond me. Did you possibly only look at the word “Genie” and ASSUME it read “Genie_in_a_bottle”. Another classic case of looking at the very thing you go on to comment on, this seems to be becoming a regular occurance.
I am not trying to make you look bad Emma, you are doing way to good a job of that yourself, contradicting yourself within posts and threads, citing “evidence” to support points that actually had you looked at the evidence totally and unequivocable refutes them…please, i have debated many issues, with many people over my time, but very rarely has the other person actually done this much to harm their own point of view.
I have never, prior to these posts had any communication with you, i have, a few years ago, been a member of these boards but not with any name you would know. I don’t know how important posting on here is to you, but for me and i suspect, this other guy it is merely a temporary distraction in my life. It is absolutely impossible for you or anyone else to have any kind of effect on me that would cause me to leave in a huff, because your posts and have no importance in my life.
Your constant grammatical and spelling mistakes were highlighted by me to point out that the weight of your posts is clearly pasted from other places, i accept this was maybe a low form of criticism and actually made my posts seems somewhat personal. I will refrain from this, however, grammar is of huge importance, because it can totally change the content of your message, so i may have to clarify these things as they occur, but i shall refrain from personalising it as stupidity.
I constantly quote you, but i am used to using language and punctuation to do this rather than message board functionality, i apologise if this confuses you, but using quotation marks is how i have been educated to quote someone.
After reading these boards recently, it seems a common theme is paranoia that everyone is in fact someone else, i can assure you Emma, you may have known me under a different name, a few years ago, as a few people on here know, but i have very rarely posted on these boards and never to debate issues, so you are wrong and i suggest sticking to the points at hand rather than starting to make ASSUMPTIONS regarding who you think i might be.

[genie_in_a_butthole]

@emmalush wrote:

@genie_in_a_butthole wrote:

Nelson Mandela,
these few names alone hardly constitute “low life scum”.

The thing to remember when you’re reading genie’s posts is, that he/she/it is a far left extremist, quite possibly a marxist, especially to defend nelson mandela, who gained his wealth on the back of the people who got him into power.

Nelson Mandela standing at a funeral singing kill the white man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXqFQw2hc

By the way Emma, having watched that link, Mandela actually sings the words Ama-Bhulu, Bhulu on its own translates as whites as indicated by the subtitles, however, ama-bhulu, specifically translates as “Boers” meaning people with a certain political point of view, the equivalent of singing “death to slaveholders” or “death to inmates” or “death to communists”. I hope i have clarified that matter for you.

[genie_in_a_butthole]

@emmalush wrote:

@genie_in_a_butthole wrote:

Nelson Mandela,
these few names alone hardly constitute “low life scum”.

The thing to remember when you’re reading genie’s posts is, that he/she/it is a far left extremist, quite possibly a marxist, especially to defend nelson mandela, who gained his wealth on the back of the people who got him into power.

Nelson Mandela standing at a funeral singing kill the white man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcOXqFQw2hc

I have never given you any information about my political leanings, and to only quote one of the names i mentioned in a weak effort to prove your assumption is stupid. You have hailed Nick Griffin as “defender of decency” on these boards, let me quote him from a speech he made in April 2001, “So, what are we now doing with the British National Party? Well we tried to simplify its message in some ways and to make it a saleable message. So it’s not white supremacy or racial civil war or anything like that, which is what we know in fact is going on”. I wonder who would be so lacking moral fibre and intelligence to buy into this man…now i know.

[genie_in_a_butthole]

@emmalush wrote:

@genie_in_a_butthole wrote:

I actually agree with you in relation to animal rights Emma but my belief came from personal experience and belief and not from reading/watching propaganda.

Are you saying that what happened in that film is fake?

Explain the personal experience?

I have self respect Emma and as such do not feel this is the place to divulge anything about myself whatsoever.

[genie_in_a_butthole]

@emmalush wrote:

genie, we could get seriously bored with your essay…
de·cen·cy
–noun, plural -cies.
2. conformity to the recognized standard of propriety, good taste, modesty, etc.

Its not about his history, the decency is the good hard working men and women who he defends.

It is my right to claim tony blair is a horrible man, much more than you described Nick, but also, a blair fan could say the opposite, and that is their human right.

One person’s decency, is anothers nightmare.

I didn’t make up anything to do with anyone’s life, i very clearly invented a story about a persons “death”

I cant make out what you mean here, did you make something up, or didn’t you…

you simply paste from the BNP website without looking into the facts, this demonstrates a naivety and a character prone to being easily manipulated by any given propaganda. I prefer to make my own mind up about such matters.

On the other thread, i accused you of wrongly assuming too easily…im fed up already of having to tell you off.

I would respond to this but upon reading it twice, i actually have nothing to respond to as you pose nothing and ask nothing.

[genie_in_a_butthole]

@emmalush wrote:

@token_male wrote:

As much as we love you Emma i think you should let genie have this one…

Just in case you’re thick, i’ll spell out for you again, what i meant about Nick being the defender of decency.

He is the defender of the good hard working people (decency) who support him.

SO, genie wrongly assumed that i meant. She’s making a regular habbit of it.

genie is a marxist, left wing extremist, she will say anything, do anything, blag you in anyway she can to make what i say “look” bad.

I didn’t wrongly assume anything, i looked at what you had written. You did not write “Nick Griffin, defender of decent people” did you? Maybe you should try and actually write what is in your mind or does it get lost in translation between your brain and your fingers, it seems without the benefit of “copy and paste” you are lost.

By the way, you know nothing about my political persuasion, sex, age etc because i have chosen not to inflict these on others on a chat sites message boards, now whose jumping to conclusions and assumptions.

[genie_in_a_butthole]

@emmalush wrote:

@genie_in_a_butthole wrote:

I am glad you say “My skin colour and nationality is part of my character”. “PART” being the operative word, by admitting in this sentence that Nationality and skin colour only denote “PART” of your character, you are saying you are so much more than these 2 things.

Part can mean 99.9%. Alot of who and what i am character wise explains my Englishness and skin colour. My parentage is as white and English for many generations. I am a character product of them, plus what ive learnt myself.

Your nationality is not part of your character, but you dedication to your nationality is, there is a difference.

Your? Is it petty to point out little spelling mistakes?

Were we to say skin colour in and of itself is part of ones character, then so is eye colour, hair colour etc.

Is this the correct way of writting?

your statement “Anyway, not one of them had african ancestry” is not only factless but untrue. Andrew Graham Dixons results were as follows:
“The results came as a surprise. In my first test, I came out as 85 per cent European; 11 per cent East Asian; 4 per cent Sub-Saharan African and 0 per cent Native American. Andrew Graham Dixon (Daily Telegraph, 05/11/06).

I hold my hands up, i was wrong. I didn’t see this chap’s results, i appologise.

Atleast, not everyone has African DNA. Maybe we all have “alien” ancestrial DNA?

“how many ‘English’ people currently lived in England?” . The scientist thought about it. ‘At a rough guess? Er, zero.’ Such a thing would only have been possible if a particular social group, isolated from the rest of society, had inbred for centuries.

Why should a scientist be the dictating decider of my nationality?

Multiculturalism wasn’t and isn’t an experiment. It has arrived on these shores simply as a result of cause=effect.
Cause – The British Empire travels the globe conquering many smaller, less technologically advanced countries and continents, thus making the inhabitants of these shores, part of the British Empire and as such, British subjects.
Effect – Hundreds of years later, the descendents of these subjects, travel to Britain to live and are by defauly as BRITISH as you.

It is an insult of you to call me british, please dont do it again.

At the time of the end of the last WW, England was in a desperate state. From then on, the ever growing liberal extremists that have run this country, have saw fit to multiculturalise it. At this point, they didn’t know if it would be a success, thus it was an experiment. Earlier, you tried to claim as fact, a scientists opinion. A scientist will test something as an experiment before deciding whether its workable. The fact that our multiculturalised society has created major disasters, proves that it has been a failed experiment.

In the 70’s, i like you thought it was a good thing.

By clarifying “our societys” as meaning people IN England, this surely includes anyone residing in England as they make up (according to your clarification) part of our society. This must then also include people of other races and nationalities as they constitute part of our society.

Anyone born in England can call themselves English, i dont have to. Anyone born outside of England, is a foreigner.

By this, you are agreeing that you are a human being, as is everyone of every race. In effect you are now saying you belong to part of a group that includes all colours, all nationalities etc. So, by what you are saying…we are all one and the same albeit with differences. Thank You, you have highlighted my point precisely.

In the large context of things, i am human, just like Africans. That doesn’t mean that i associate myself closely with them. Infact, i feel very distant from them. I feel much closer to a white Dutchman, than an African/Indian ancestral son/daughter born in England.

The fact bigots like yourself do not accept him in England doesn’t make this any less him home.

Is it biggotry to dissasociate yourself from the BNP?

Can you please quote properly, makes for easier reply, thanks. Just highlight what you want quoted, and press the quote button.

Some people!!

So by now saying you are part English, albeit, possibly 99.9% English, you are not 100% by your own admittance, thank you, point proved. The point made initially didn’t concern your immediate parentage, it concerned the possibility of your ancestral heritage, which, more or less, you have by the inclusion of the word “part”, conceded may not be 100% English. I would ask you then, in relation to the line “a character product of them, plus what ive learnt myself”, to maybe start writing posts about your opinions rather than simply pasting other peoples, which you seem to have a tendency to do. Ironically, if i may refer to your posting on a different thread to highlight my point.
In your “BNP earn public funds of nearly £670,000” thread, you begin by pasting only SELECTED paragraphs from an article in “The Scotsman”. This article in its entirety criticises the fact that a party can receive these funds simply by having 32 members standing…however you then concede that “Personally i think its barmy that an organisation can earn £670,000 of tax payers money, just because they have 32 people willing to stand. What if we all did it? There must be 10?/15? groups of people taking £670,000 of tax payers money to put their word accross, could be £10,000,000 Million being spent here”, so you yourself are criticising the system that allows your party to spread its word. You then, in a later post, paste a link to the party political broadcast that these monies funded. I would honestly question, if you even read half of the articles you paste.

I do apologise for not proof reading my last post, this was due to be being called away from the computer, as a result i made the grammatical error of putting “you” instead of “your”. Seeing as “You” is a word in the English language, that wasn’t a spelling mistake, so if you feel the need to try and correct people, try to correct them correctly.

Not only did you not see these results, you didn’t see or read about the programme that you cited as being fact. I don’t want your admission you were wrong, my personal satisfaction came from proving you were full of lies and propaganda, which was easy with 5 minutes basic research into what you said and stated to be fact. To my surprise not only was your statement a complete lie, but the very thing you cited, actually disproved everything you had said.

“Appologise” can be spelt either “Apologise” or “Apologize” but not “Appologise”, thats how to correct someone correctly.

“Is this the correct way of writting?”
Upon rereading the sentence “Were we to say skin colour in and of itself is part of ones character, then so is eye colour, hair colour etc” then i would agree, it isn’t the correct way of WRITTING, but makes perfect sense to anyone who can read my WRITING.

You then say “Atleast, not everyone has African DNA. Maybe we all have “alien” ancestrial DNA?”. In an attempt at being mildly sarcastic, you have again actually admitted my point, that as an individual, neither you, me or anyone actually has any idea what DNA they consist of.

The scientist in question that i directly quoted, was from a programme you claimed to validate and prove yout point. Isn’t it strange how without knowing any facts whatsoever, you not only use something, you also make things up within it and then purport these as facts, but when i use the very same thing, quoting directly from it, which not only disprove your point but also totally contradict it, then all of a sudden it becomes irrelevent and of no proof whatsoever.
Does your mind work like this – “I’ll use this as they won’t know any difference and will take it as verbatim and fact, oh no, they did know the difference, i shall now totally disregard it”, thank you Emma, you have just highlighted your hypocrisy.

“It is an insult of you to call me british, please dont do it again”, i had so very many things i wanted to type in response to this, but realise personal jibes only undermine my point, so i have refrained (sorely tempted though).

Are you then saying that liberal extremists have run England since the end of WW2. Okay…by your definition of liberal extremism, i take it that means anyone that doesn’t want to go a lynching and hang yourself a little brown fella. Do you actually have any idea what you are talking about? If you believe that the Prime Minister runs this country (which i don’t, but thats a different debate) then let us look at who has been in power since the end of WW2.

1945 – Clement Atlee (Labour)
1951 – Winston Churchill (Conservative)
1955 – Sir Anthony Eden (Conservative)
1957 – Harold Macmillan (Conservative)
1963 – Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Conservative)
1964 – Harold Wilson (Labour)
1970 – Edward Heath (Conservative)
1974 – Harold Wilson (Labour)
1976 – James Callaghan (Labour)
1979 – Margaret Thatcher (Conservative)
1990 – John Major (Conservative)
1997 – Tony Blair (Labour)

I apologise if i missed anyone, but i used an external source. Let us take a look at that list, 7 conservative and 5 labour, of which Enoch Powell was Minister for Health under Harold Macmillan and an integral member of the cabinet until he refused the position upon Sir Alec Douglas-Home. Yes, Enoch Powell, the man so oft quoted by the BNP and other far right organisations.

“Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood” – Enoch Powell 20th April, 1968.

Excuse the saracsm, but does that seem to perpetuate your statement that “At the time of the end of the last WW, England was in a desperate state. From then on, the ever growing liberal extremists that have run this country, have saw fit to multiculturalise it.”

“Anyone born in England can call themselves English, i dont have to. Anyone born outside of England, is a foreigner”. This actually makes no sense in relation to what you have quoted. You stated that by saying “Our Societys”, you meant “people in England”. By initially using the word “our” and then by clarifying what you meant with the explanation “people in England”, then you don’t have to call yourself English but you already have, thus making what you have said here both preposterous and hypocritical.

“Is it biggotry to dissasociate yourself from the BNP?”
Disassociation has no relevance to the word “bigot”. If i were to dismiss your arguments without reading and understanding them, then i would be demonstrating bigotry, but seeing as i both read, understand and disagree with them, then no, disassaociating (which i haven’t done, as i have never associated myself with them) does not make one a bigot.

“Can you please quote properly, makes for easier reply, thanks. Just highlight what you want quoted, and press the quote button”, i actually am quoting properly, maybe not in “justchat” terms, but in terms of grammar and the English language. They are called quotation marks for a reason. If you are dyslexic Emma, please let me know and i will refrain from correcting your spelling and am sorry for mocking your inability to write cohesive sentences.

[genie_in_a_butthole]

@genie_in_a_butthole wrote:

@emmalush wrote:

And your point is…

I spose you think that im not allowed to feel proud of my nationality and skin colour?

In a recent programme on channel4, several everyday members of our white society took part in finding out their % DNA history.

NOT ONE had any african ancestry.

Since 1948, the multicultural experiment has set out to brainwash our society’s population into thinking we all eminate from Africa, meaning we are all “one”.

Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one.

In 2007, the facts are who and what i am, white and English.

A pro multiculturalist said recently, words to the effect of, ive been living here all my life, but my family roots all come from Hungary. If i went to Hungary, i would feel like a stranger.

You can be proud of anything you like, i prefer to be proud of the content of my character rather than diminishing it to that of the colour of my skin or the country/empire i happened to have been born under.

Which programme was this? How many people took part? What were the exact findings of this exploration into DNA history?
You can’t just say something and thus make it fact.
I simply stated that by following history, the POSSIBILITY remains that ancestrally you could have Moorish dna flowing through your veins.

“Since 1948, the multicultural experiment has set out to brainwash our society’s population into thinking we all eminate from Africa, meaning we are all “one”.
Elaborate on “multicultural experiment”, also by “our society’s” (excuse the pluralisation, i am aware it should be societies) are you referring to British Society, Society as a whole, English Society…What?
Its “emanate” by the way.
We are all individuals, now you seem to prefer to place yourself under the banner “White and English”, others prefer the banner “human beings”, others “Earthlings”. I prefer not to think of myself as “part of a group”, i am an individual and as such afford the right to unequivocal freedom of thought, unlike yourself evidently.

Occam’s razor (also spelled Ockham’s razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or “shaving off”, those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

By quoting this theory, which is open to interpretation, the simplest explanation could be interpreted as being –
Oldest human remains found in Africa (to date) therefore we all emanate from Africa.
I don’t subscribe to that theory but seeing as you cited it.

Your point in the last paragraph actually seems to be saying that irrelevent of ancestral history, a person is more accepted in the country they were born in and grew up in…thus actually betraying your entire belief system because by proxy a black man/woman born and raised on English soil should be accepted and feel more at home here rather than the country of his ancestors and as such is as English/British as you.

Here we go again…

In relation to point 1.
I am glad you say “My skin colour and nationality is part of my character”. “PART” being the operative word, by admitting in this sentence that Nationality and skin colour only denote “PART” of your character, you are saying you are so much more than these 2 things. Your nationality is not part of your character, but you dedication to your nationality is, there is a difference. Were we to say skin colour in and of itself is part of ones character, then so is eye colour, hair colour etc.

In relation to point 2.
By only pasting and responding to part of a sentence as you pedantically have, you only serve to highlight, i hesitate to say it, but your stupidity. The entire sentence read “You can be proud of anything you like, i prefer to be proud of the content of my character rather than diminishing it to that of the colour of my skin or the country/empire i happened to have been born under” rather then “/empire i happened to have been born under”. So as is very evident i was not specifically talking about any country/empire. So had you actually read the sentence and understood it, your question not only would be irrelevent but also rhetorical.

In relation to point 3.
You failed to answer any of the questions i raised, so i decided to find out myself. I am really pleased with myself for having done some research here because it proves not only do you make statements with no basis of evidence, but that you actually completely lie.
The programme you were referring to and quoting as fact, was actually called “So you think you’re English?”. 8 white people who considered themselves English were tested, including Lord Tebbitt, Carol Thatcher and Andrew Graham Dixon.
Now heres where we see something very interesting, your statement “Anyway, not one of them had african ancestry” is not only factless but untrue. Andrew Graham Dixons results were as follows:
“The results came as a surprise. In my first test, I came out as 85 per cent European; 11 per cent East Asian; 4 per cent Sub-Saharan African and 0 per cent Native American. In my second test, my European DNA was broken down further into 60 per cent Northern European, 23 per cent South Eastern European, 12 per cent South Asian and 5 per cent Middle Eastern.” – Andrew Graham Dixon (Daily Telegraph, 05/11/06).
He continues – “The test results were filmed live, so that we captured that initial jaw-dropping moment – and jaw-dropping it certainly was when some people’s world view started to collapse around them as they were told they might have ancestors in Africa, or even Mongolia. Carol Thatcher, to her credit, took the news of her Middle Eastern origins particularly well, although her twin brother Mark’s response to her wisecrack about his habit of getting lost in the desert can only be guessed.”
I could continue, because the programme you CITED actually 100% proves my point and totally disproves your point, sorry Emma, theres a lesson to learn here about actually knowing what you referring to, scientists on the programme YOU CITED, said on that programme when presented with this criterion as a measure of Englishness and using it as a guide, and asked “how many ‘English’ people currently lived in England?” . The scientist thought about it. ‘At a rough guess? Er, zero.’ Such a thing would only have been possible if a particular social group, isolated from the rest of society, had inbred for centuries.
Heres the article in full –
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2006/11/05/svgenetic05.xml

In relation to point 4.
Point 3 answers your remark here about the silliness of saying things as fact without actually knowing.

In relation to point 5.
I intentionally used the words “could” and “possibly” to say you may have, not that you did, although now having looked into the programme you CITED, i am more inclined to use the words, “probably” and “likely”.

In relation to point 6.
Multiculturalism wasn’t and isn’t an experiment. It has arrived on these shores simply as a result of cause=effect.
Cause – The British Empire travels the globe conquering many smaller, less technologically advanced countries and continents, thus making the inhabitants of these shores, part of the British Empire and as such, British subjects.
Effect – Hundreds of years later, the descendents of these subjects, travel to Britain to live and are by defauly as BRITISH as you.

In relation to point 7.
By clarifying “our societys” as meaning people IN England, this surely includes anyone residing in England as they make up (according to your clarification) part of our society. This must then also include people of other races and nationalities as they constitute part of our society.

In relation to point 8.
I have never stated we are one race, but again, by being pedantic and trying to gain some semblance of validity, you have only highlighted your stupidity. By saying we are all individuals, i have not in any sense of the word “individual” made any kind of statement regarding being “one race”.

In relation to point 9.
By this, you are agreeing that you are a human being, as is everyone of every race. In effect you are now saying you belong to part of a group that includes all colours, all nationalities etc. So, by what you are saying…we are all one and the same albeit with differences. Thank You, you have highlighted my point precisely.

In relation to point 10.
I am an individual, who can be placed ,by language, into certain groups.

In relation to point 10.
Okay, i will clarify, as someone born on English soil but also not accepted in the country of his Ancestry, be default, that makes England more of his home. The fact bigots like yourself do not accept him in England doesn’t make this any less him home.

[genie_in_a_butthole]

@slayer wrote:

@genie_in_a_butthole wrote:

@slayer wrote:

@genie_in_a_butthole wrote:

However you feel though with regards to prisoners rights, any given society is best judged by its treatment of its worst members. As Dostoyevsky said “The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons”.

I take it that by “entering prisons”, you can see the low life scum that infest them and truly see what society we live in that breeds the pestilence that rape and murder 2 year old girls. Unfortuante it is that you can see them in a prison as hanging from a rope would be a much better place for them

{quote=”genie_in_a_butthole”] I never said i “enter(ing) prisons”, as should be very clear from both the quotation marks before and after that sentence and the fact i say, “As Dostoyevsky said” before the quote.
If you are saying that by simply being in prison that makes a person “low life scum”, lets take a brief look at some people who have spent time in prison around the world over the years.

Nelson Mandela,
Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
Fyodor Dostoyevsky,
Jean Genet,
Oscar Wilde,
George Jackson,
Brendan Behan,
Francois Marie Arouet (Voltaire) etc etc etc

I could continue but i will save you time having to google the names, these few names alone hardly constitute “low life scum”.

You have taken a direct Dostoyesky quote to support your argument which preceeds the quote ergo you support and adhere to the inference in the quote- I didnt say “you said”- I referred directly to your supporting quote. Listing names of renowned people through the ages who have been incarcerated to support the idea that prison does not have “low life scum” is as ludicrous as me listing some of the worst perpetrators of criminal activity to support that it does.

Simple statement- entering a prison would allow you to see low life scum face to face- it would allow you to see a helluva lot more but it doesnt detract from the fact that leeches on the face of humanity exist there.

@genie_in_a_butthole wrote:

Now lets accept the reality that laws change, what is accepted today was once imprisonable. People sit in prison for a multitude of offences ranging from rape and murder to non-payment of fines and tax evasion. These inmates, although seperated by the length of sentence and nature of the crime are all living in the same prison system under the same rules. Should an 80 year old man who refused to pay his poll tax have all his dignity removed and be treated as “low life scum”? I suggest not.

Where have i said ALL prisoners should be treated the same- i merely referred to the fact that certain crimes would be better served by the guilty hanging from a gibbet (perhaops having first had molten metal poured down their throat, though that may be a tad too extreme :D )

@genie_in_a_butthole wrote:

By using the of crime of “rape and murder 2 year old girls” (excuse the grammar, but this was quoted directly from you), you have used the vilest of crimes in an attempt to justify your point that ALL prisoners should be immediately condemned as “low life scum”, this shows a complete ignorance of the reality of the situation and the British legal system. The thread was “prisoners human rights”, encompassing both the severe crimes and petty crimes that people currently sit inside a cell for. Should a person who rapes and murders a 2 year old girl be executed or as you put it “hang from a rope” is a different question and not remotely relevent to this thread and nor is the strictness and leniency of any given sentence for any given crime. All that is relevent is the rights of those that are imprisoned.

It is pertinently relevant- why shoudl human rights be extended to those wish to impose their foulest abuses of others basic human right to live. And please please do not state anything about “stooping to their level” etc. Certain crimes (child murder and rape for a starter) go beyond evil and part of the punishment should be a removal of all but the basic human right of food and water

To get back to the question originally imposed we must also apply common sense, if a person is treated harshly and demeaned for a prolonged period by a system and is then released back into a society that in their mind caused this treatment, resentment and bitterness are created thus creating the likelihood of a more serious crime being commited upon release and a circle of release – conviction – prison is perpetuated doing nothing for the inmate or society unless that individual breaks it (like John McVicar, Stanley Tookie Williams etc). Now i am not for one moment suggesting that inmates should be afforded a life of luxury whilst incarcerated, but i am saying basic human rights should apply and an inmate should be afforded the protection from other inmates and officers that society is afforded by the very nature of the prison system.

[/quote]

Lets first look at your original posting –

“I take it that by “entering prisons”, you can see the low life scum that infest them and truly see what society we live in that breeds the pestilence that rape and murder 2 year old girls.
Unfortuante it is that you can see them in a prison as hanging from a rope would be a much better place for them”

By following the quoted phrase “entering prisons” with the word “you” meaning me, you are saying i must have seen the “low life scum”. I corrected this be saying i have never entered prisons and seen the “low life scum” (according to you) that inhabit them as a result of entering said prison.

At what point in this post have you differentiated between offenders crimes. I would concur that some people in prison have commited vile crimes and could be considered “low-life scum”, i never stated otherwise, but by naming these people i have demonstrated that simply by being imprisoned does not immediately cause you to be considered “low-life scum” as your original post implies.

Your overly embellished phrasing of “leeches on the face of humanity exist there” is very colorful and evocative, but does nothing to detract from the point i made, which i shall reitterate and clarify. Just by being imprisoned, a person cannot automatically be deemed to be “low life scum” although, dependent upon the crime leading to incarceration, society as a large may deem you to be so. The important wording in that sentence is “dependent upon the crime”, something with which you have made no distinction towards.

Look again at your original posting, by the use of words such as “infest” you make little or no distinction between inmates. I responded that your original post makes no such distinction and simply responded that a distinction needs to be made. The topic of this thread and initial post also makes no such distinction and as such encompasses all prisoners. If you agree a distinction needs to be made, which you have done when you say “certain crimes would be better served by the guilty hanging from a gibbet”, then you are saying different crimes merit different treatment. As this is not the case in the British prison system, as my original post clearly states, then human rights should relate to at least some inmates, this thread never makes that distinction and as such is relevent to every and all offenders, therefore negating your original posts implications.

The subject of capital punishment and/or alternative methods of punishment is not relevent to this thread simply because this thread is entitled “Prisoners Human Rights” and nothing relating to sentencing.

I am glad by this next paragraph that you are making a distinction between inmates crimes and were the thread to have been entitled “Should human rights be afforded to those inmates who have committed child murder and rape”, then we would be having a different discussion, it wasn’t called that and still isn’t.

“It is pertinently relevant- why shoudl human rights be extended to those wish to impose their foulest abuses of others basic human right to live. And please please do not state anything about “stooping to their level” etc. Certain crimes (child murder and rape for a starter) go beyond evil and part of the punishment should be a removal of all but the basic human right of food and water”

[Author]

Posts