They want to see Buckingham Palace become a mosque

[August]

But Dude it's a direct and detailed plan to take over your country! He even threatened your QUEEN! Now you Brits once went to war because of the ear of some Sea Captain named Jenkins and now you allow such threats to go unpunished in your own country?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

But Dude it's a direct and detailed plan to take over your country! He even threatened your QUEEN! Now you Brits once went to war because of the ear of some Sea Captain named Jenkins and now you allow such threats to go unpunished in your own country?

Primarily because these days most Brits don't give a flying rats arse about that kind of thing and if they do and speak about it they are assumed to be BNP. Most Brits care more about the X Factor and Jedward than they do about Buck House.
Sad state of affairs, but that's the UK now for you, and the major parties won't touch anything like immigration or racial tension with a ten foot barge pole because it'll blow up in their faces and people will accuse them of being fascist and so on and so forth.
It's for this reason and the underlying racial and religious tensions in the UK that the BNP is becoming more popular, and I say thank god for that, because it's got the main parties scared and they have finally realised that they will actually have to address the issues that the BNP thrives on to undermine their support and prevent a Weimar.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Oberon

the major parties won't touch anything like immigration

WHAT?!
Immigration is one of the main opposition batons.
All three major parties list immigration on their online major policies
lists.

Immigration has been a BIG political topic for the major parties forever
and a day.
Things haven't got much past the “if you want a n_____r for a
neighbour, vote Labour” days. It's just the language that is toned down.

@Tribesman

Another interesting post Samurai, but firstly may I suggest that you read it again and then go back and read your first post in this topic.
Secondly I would like you to focus on that first post of yours and then re-read the posts I wrote.
Can you then combine the two stages and apply the criticisms in your last post to your first post.

But I think the problem is illustrated by

My comments to you were more of a general observation of the posts of yours that I have read.

so you were writing in a topic but not about the topic, yet were criticising what was written in the topic because of who had written it not what was written.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Nice to see you again, Tribesman. How was your trip?

I have to confess, I'm a little honored by the fact that you took the time to compose such a thorough response.

Alright, here we go.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

OK Lancecorporal,

Thats simple, Rednecks are seen as backwards idiots with very strange views that they hold strongly and which no amount of reasoning will get them to reconsider or reappraise, just like the muslim fundamentalist idiots in the opening article are.

Lol. I don't think there are many groups that aren't viewed that way by some group or the other.
I get your point, but I think you're making a bit of a logical leap, there. I can't recall any information suggesting that theocracy and suicide bombings are indicative of Rednecks(or Christian Fundamentalists, whicever you prefer), nor are they generally guilty of trying to impose their religion upon others by force. Certainly there are some who do that, I've met a couple, but most of them don't. The fact that they are politically (if not morally) tolerant of other religions suggests that they might not be so impervious to reason as you suggest.

Etymology notwithstanding, modern "rednecks" are generally independent persons with strong moral convictions (amongst other things), but they rarely assault others' beliefs or freedoms with anything more dangerous than sermonizing or general b-ing.
I suppose the argument could be made that their vehement defense of anti-abortion and anti-biomed research laws could be construed as an assault upon the freedoms and beliefs of others, but it is still a far cry from trying to massacre people in defense of forced religious rule.

My point is that they are not "just like" Islamic fundamentalists. Compared to Islamic fundamentalists, Socialists, and the variety of other "ists" and "isms" they are relatively forward thinkers in that they stalwartly defend individual rights, even if that is just because they are more interested in the preservation of their own rights.

I am a redneck. I ride horses and shoot guns. I know how to steer-wrestle and tie a calf. My mom lives in a trailer. I have a personalized "yee-haw" and a rebel yell that I am particularly proud of. I have a reasonably developed work ethic. I strongly believe that there is a God, and that he is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and merciful. I believe in the preservation of personal liberty for everyone at any cost, because life is nothing without freedom. Does this somehow equate me with radicals who blindly seek to impose their societal and belief structures upon everyone without exception through the indiscriminate use of deadly force?

Call them what you will, but "rednecks" are remarkably prevalent in the central and southern US - regions which are, coincidentally, considered economic powerhouses, even within the US. Ironic, considering that the more liberal, and therefore, "educated" regions have suffered from a mass migration of industry, commerce, and the associated prosperity, don't you think? Do you suppose that may be due to the backwards and strange views that rednecks held, reflected in their legislature? Very curious.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Back to the etymology of the term .
You refer to late 19th early 20th century and call it of questionable provenance.
The term in America is established in the early 19th century, there are at least 3 publications from the same decade which use it specificly in that manner, though as an interesting side note "cracker" which has even earlier origins was being applied specificly to scottish and ulster-scots presbyterian settlers in Georgia 70 years earlier than the 1830s use of redneck to describe them.
Also of interest with the link to the confederacy is that one of those 1830s literary references to rednecks was written by an anglican minister whose descendant became a rather famous confederate general.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the General was either Stuart or Forrest; Stuart, because of the Scottish name, or Forrest, because I suspect you might seek to equate rednecks with the KKK. How far off was I? I enjoy a bit of trivia.

Back to the etymology question. During your absence I actually found two credible references to the term "redneck" that pre-dated my supposition, so I'm going to give you that point. It seems that you've learned this redneck something.

Visit the Knights party website, I am unsure if it is permissible to post link to it on this forum due to the nature of the material it contains. Or look at a certain ulster-scots presbyterian minister giving a speech to the EU.

I found a white supremacist site, which appears to be the political face of the KKK.
I deduce from your statement that you are equating the actions of Scottish clergy with those of extremist groups in the US. May I humbly suggest that the work of clergymen in a relatively racially homogenous nation might not reflect the political attitude of a completely different group of people in a much larger and racially, politically, and ethically heterogenous nation?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That would take a post which would make Skybirds longest contributions seem like mere footnotes.

I'd like to read that post. Skybird's contributions sometimes exceed the text limit, and I've had the privilege of reading some of his .pdf essays, which are much longer, I assure you. I have no fear of reading.

I would be very interested in a post which somehow divorces the cause of the Three Kingdoms' Wars from the political desire to impose universal religious beliefs.

If you have the time to write it, I have the time to read it.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

There were many contributing factors, State rights were the main issue but also the issue over new states and the issue of slavery in territories which wanted statehood. Bleeding Kansas is a good example of a precursor to the war.

No, Bleeding Kansas is a good example of a recruiting incentive for the war. The North was not willing to go to war over slavery, as had been demonstrated on numerous occassions, not the least of which was the Northern tolerance of slave states within its' alliance well after the war had begun, and finished.
The North went to war because the state-industrial complex would not tolerate dissent when it came to eliminating competition from foreign enterprise in the form of a tariff. Special interests were proportionately just as active then as they are today, my friend, as was the inherent immorality of fiat power. Men of power were willing to send other men to their deaths for the preservation of their own selfish interests.

what is funny is that you appear to make assumptions about my views on that topic when I have written nothing about it and then go off on those assumptions.

But you have written things about it. Many of your previous posts indicate that you believe in socialist or centrist ideals. In fact, you support that hypothesis in your next paragraph.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

...though what makes that even funnier is that people were hailing Irelands recent "economic miracle" with its unrestricted free market approach coupled with de-regulation and corporate tax reductions as a great success that other countries should emulate, when the truth is that it is a thoroughly corrupt country

Please allow me to stop you right there. I have no doubt that corruption is a problem in Ireland but why is it a problem? What caused it? What kind of a problem is it?

I'm going to hazard an educated guess and suggest that most of the corruption involves the principle political party and parties that are a lot like it or directly support it. I'm also going to guess that the corruption generally falls under the category of "bribes and political favors". I'll bet that a lot of it also involves corporations "skirting the rules" and using or somehow ignoring legislative barriers to further their own agendas, and I'll bet that most of those actions ultimately serve the purpose of outlawing competition in production, trade, and labor.

I say this because I know that Ireland is a notoriously centrist nation, almost on par with what the US is rapidly becoming. Where political harmony reigns, there is power. Where there is power, there are those who seek it. Where those who seek power are present, there are invariably a number of them who seek it for personal gain, if not all of them. Where power is used for personal gain, there is immorality, because the use of power over others to further one's own agenda is immoral. Where there is immorality, there is corruption.

That is why I say that there is no "third way", an ideal that I know must be championed in Ireland simply because of its' political structure, which I I have deduced from the opinions you have heretofore presented. Isn't it interesting that I could know all that with a very limited understanding of Ireland beyond its' geographical location and government?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

which was following the same path that Thatcher used of an artificial bubble which will inevitably be followed by a massive downturn(though the difference is that Britain had the capacity to ride out the downturn better). Even calling it the Celtic Tiger should have been a clue for those who were hailing it as a success if they had looked at the pattern the asian tigers economies followed.

Corruption or no, Ireland still ranks somewhere in the 30's for GDP, worldwide. Pretty impressive for such a small nation with such limited resources. The Asian Tiger economies are similarly impressive, despite their vulnerability to global economic trends. The standards of living have been improved a great deal, even if they are not yet on par with the US. The US has spent most of its two hundred and thirty-three year history fostering a free market economy. It has spent all of that time fostering a more free-market than nations with comprable resources, so the discrepancy is understandable.

Thatcher's Britain continues to suffer from the exact same malady that your nation does: the continued and increasing presence of an overbearing and corrupt state made of people who seek to impose their will upon others. Economic freedoms can only do so much in the face of overtaxation and plutocracy. Sooner or later, they will slow down and be reversed as an established power structure takes root and grows.

So once again you made an assuption and went off on it, but this time managed to attribute a position to me which was more akin to that which many of the republican(and Democrat) politicians were using.

That is because your position is ultimately the same. You can spout ideals and legislative initiatives all you want, but at the end of the day you are still trusting the person who does the best job of asking you to cede your money and your freedom to them in exchange for the promise that they will "make it all better".

Originally Posted by Tribesman

That is strange since I often just pose questions (sometimes quite cryptic) for people to answer for themselves.

They may seem cryptic to you, but they aren't to some of us. They are just evidence of your inability to defend your position and a perversion of Socratic method. If you're going to use questions to teach, you should probably make them more clear, or at least discontinue the use of emoticons as responses. People aren't going to respond to with introspection, they'll just think you're a dick.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Did I refer to you as such?

Not specifically, but you treat me as such, on occasion, including most of this occassion.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

See above.

See above.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Actually I question just about everything, and if the state told me it was tuesday I would check a calendar before I believed it to be true.

That's probably the wisest thing I've ever seen you type.

Question the state. Question others. Question me. Question yourself. As biological machines, we are only as good as the information we posess. Querying others is sure to enhance our understanding of ourselves and the world, so long as we have the proper means of filtering information.

My worry is that you lack those means. Your consistent and casual disregard of others' views on this forum suggests that you do not question or even believe your own views by virtue of the fact that you can't be bothered to defend them with anything more than insult, real or implied. What you usually post implies that you are a product of indoctrination, seeking to prove the truth you have been taught and oblivious to outside influence.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I'd like to see a little proof. The virtues and failings of any person or group are ultimately defined by their actions (heh, kind of like rednecks and jihadists). Show me some real proof of the validity of your views, logical or emprical, and I, as well as others, will be more inclined to adopt your perspectives.

Two quick things Samurai.
If you look at the 3 sources I put as preceeding Hackett then you should see Longstreet was the general and his uncle was the writer.
Secondly, that racist political site you found, was it run by a "christian" pastor who came out of the rocky mountain gospel institute?

[August]

So what makes it ok to use such racist pejoratives anyways?

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Thatcher's Britain continues to...

Excuse me for butting in here but can I ask you to clarify what you mean? I would normally assume that by "Thatcher's Britain" you mean Britain as it was in the 80's, but you followed it with "continues to" which suggests you actually mean Britain today? I'm probably just being dense... but are you saying that Britain today is the same as it was under Thatcher? I'm not trying to disagree with anything you said, I'm just trying to understand that bit of it.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Excuse me for butting in here but can I ask you to clarify what you mean? I would normally assume that by "Thatcher's Britain" you mean Britain as it was in the 80's, but you followed it with "continues to" which suggests you actually mean Britain today? I'm probably just being dense... but are you saying that Britain today is the same as it was under Thatcher? I'm not trying to disagree with anything you said, I'm just trying to understand that bit of it.

Your interjection is most welcome, you are not being "dense" at all, only inquisitive, and I will be happy to address your arguments. Through discussion, we may discover that I am the one who is dense.
In truth, it is I who should be offering apologies, since I did not make my point more clear.

I am not saying that Britain today is the same as it was under Thatcher. What I am saying is that Thatcher's Britain of the 80's has suffered under political agendas since her departure. it still exists, to some degree, but it has been largely destroyed by centrist agenda.

Since Thatcher, new legislation has been imposed and companies both dometstic and extranationial have found ways of taking advantage of that legislation to secure their own positions, not to mention politicians.

For comparison, consider the US. As I said to Tribesman, it has a history of supporting the free market more than other nations. Diregarding its' resources and size, the key word is "more". Business, and the associated prosperity, is always attracted to the most favourable venue. If it cannot establish a place in a social-industrial complex, it will simply seek the next most favourable place, usually a less-established social-industrial complex or a free market. Basically, it goes where the prospects for success are most favorable.

Under Thatcher's reforms, the United Kingdom began to advance in the way that a free-market nation should. Though the advances were rapid, they were not instantaneous, and much of the population became disillusioned with them. They turned instead to promises of prosperity and reform that were never quite delivered.

One of the curiosities of human nature is the willingness to exchange prosperity for the promise of greater and supposedly more expedient prosperity based upon rhetoric alone. I blame it on our genetic nature, which equates positive social interaction with reproductive potential. Actual success can be superceded by the promise of greater success delivered in superior wording. It all comes from being a social species. I'll be happy to explain more along that line of reasoning via PM, but I don't think it responsible to just display it in public. If I am right, it kind of ruins the "fun" for everyone, and if I am wrong it kind of ruins the "fun" for everyone for no reason.

In any case, the point is that Thatcher's reforms never really got a chance to impress themselves upon the public consciousness. I have no doubt that she was mostly right in her views, but the political structure did not change enough in time to vindicate them. Despite the leaps Britain made under Thatcher's reforms, the ingrained power structure managed to mitigate and even reverse them with a yet-undelivered promise for greater success. In short, the success of the free market could not override the public desire for instant gratification.

[Shearwater]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

My point is that they are not "just like" Islamic fundamentalists. Compared to Islamic fundamentalists, Socialists, and the variety of other "ists" and "isms" they are relatively forward thinkers in that they stalwartly defend individual rights, even if that is just because they are more interested in the preservation of their own rights.

Just to add my 0.02€:

Keep in mind that many 'isms" lie at the root of American society, among them concepts such as liberalism (meaning Classical liberalism, not the present-day 'liberals'), republicanism and individualism. An 'ism' in itself does not necessarily denote excess or radical... well, ism.
Concerning socialism: The whole idea of socialism can't be separated from the industrial revolution, and it's no coincidence that Marx wrote his major works in the country that set the whole revolution in motion. Though it had a heavy impact on both Europe and North America, it's essential to realize that the circumstances under which that process took place were different in some crucial areas:
While Europe had to deal with the fact that its population grew steadily in an already populated country, the US - despite immigration - were almost virgin soil by comparison. The result was a worker surplus Europe, but a worker shortage in the US. Thus, work in Europe was ridiculously cheap while comparably high wages in the US led to a process of steady rationalization.

All of the major problems socialism sought to adress - the most severe of them being mass poverty - were a direct result of the worker surplus. The root of socialism is, in a sense, humanitarianism. To say that it was simply some clever spin by a lazy bum who sought to increase his personal power (as some have suggested) is missing the point by a couple of leagues (in which he didn't succeed, by the way). As I've said before - good analysis, bad prognosis. And if I might add, some of the most brutal and inhuman regimes implemented by the very people that claimed to bring its goals about. The charming thing about socialism is that it lends itself so wonderfully to abuse in a humanitarian disguise.
I'm not trying to defend socialism or any ideology here. I just want to say: Credit where credit is due.

Just wanted to point it out. (I know it's a simplification and way OT.)

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I believe in the preservation of personal liberty for everyone at any cost, because life is nothing without freedom.

That, and human dignity.

Make no mistake - freedom has always been fragile and delicate, and I would agree that Islamic fundamentalism could well be its largest threat today. But speaking about government and trust in it: I'm uneasy about people who seek to defend "Western civilization as we know it" through questionable means. The moment we are willing to take this bait and stop asking these questions, we have done more for the fundamentalists than they could hope for.

@Lance: By the way, I don't know how long it takes you to write these posts, but I think most of them are really well composed.

[clive bradbury]

To bring things back on track, and to answer Neal's initial question:

'Isn't this treason? Why don't the British just kill these guys?'

Because in the UK at least, we can still recognise a numpty when we see one.

[Skybird]

Clive,

just because I see you being online and haven't seen you since long - have you gotten my apology from some months ago: for me having messed up that old second chess match of ours? It's still a sting in my soul that I left you stranded due to my own fault and thoughtlessness.

Please see the very last post here:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=141556

Oh my.. Same old news over and over and over again. Islamic madness agains the entire world.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

It's for this reason and the underlying racial and religious tensions in the UK that the BNP is becoming more popular, and I say thank god for that, because it's got the main parties scared and they have finally realised that they will actually have to address the issues that the BNP thrives on to undermine their support and prevent a Weimar.

A two-sided sword, though I tend to agree that the failure of the establoishement paves the way for more extremist poltical actors stepping onto the stage, and maybe that even is needed - if the established powers do not act. I read this morning that Geert Wilders runs for prime ministre 2011 - and that his party currently leads the Duch polls (says Der Spiegel). But we have seen in Germany repeatedly in the past years how grassroot movements and citizen groups trying to raise resistance to Islam and allowing (or being helpless against) rightwing groups taking over their fight, brought all such ambitions into public discredit over being called Nazism and racism. Even in the forum here the formula "opposing Islam = xenophobia + racism + islamophobia" is very popular with some.

Which makes being called a racist and xenophobe and islamophobe a compliment certifying your healthy reason and ratio.

Interesting how terms get turned into meaning all and nothing anymore.

But we have seen in Germany repeatedly in the past years how grassroot movements and citizen groups trying to raise resistance to Islam and allowing (or being helpless against) rightwing groups taking over their fight, brought all such ambitions into public discredit over being called Nazism and racism.

That is because the groups deal in absolutes which don't work, plus of course they are usually led by idiots like Wilders or Griffin and attract a disproportionate number of morons which give them a bad name.

It's for this reason and the underlying racial and religious tensions in the UK that the BNP is becoming more popular, and I say thank god for that, because it's got the main parties scared and they have finally realised that they will actually have to address the issues that the BNP thrives on to undermine their support and prevent a Weimar.

Nothing new, when I was living in Britain the BNP wanted to kick all the Irish out.
Apparently we are all terrorist supporters, don't intergrate and are part of a global plot by the Vatican.
Now its the Muslims turn, if they get rid of all the Muslims they will only find someone else to blame, probably the Jews again.
BTW do the BNP still do their protests outside M&W and Mark&Sparks?

Funnily enough though, when I was living in Germany it was the brits not the Irish that got the grief from the locals.