The other day an article (debate) was started on the Huffington Post -
Anyway I posted on this - and got a reply, which became a bit of a debate - initally I thought it was a liberal lefite type - and although I suspect their political allaegiances are not mine - I did think we agreed more than differed. So I thought I would post the debate here - to see what people think.
And if like me - you think we agree, more than not - begs the questions 'why are we arguing. what are we argueing about and why cant we do something together to get us out of this mess'?
Pym: Multicultural - I think you are using this debate to discuss immigration. We as a country, as a community as individuals have always been, and always will be multicultural - no one is 1 dimensional. The liberal left (facists) would have us believe that immigration has made us multicultural - chicken korma, JLS they cry. But this is just replacing the culture we have - and not allowing our own culture to develop and breathe - we can cook, and make music.
They never talk about the negative side - muslim pedophile gangs for example - which those same liberal left (facists) call groomers - a much nicer word. Or the vigilante muslim patrol - which are not vigilantes they are colonisers and criminals harrassing and threatening people - I could go on, but suspect this reply stands a good chance of getting pulled.
Speech is free - if you agree with me. Must have an open and honest debate about immigration - providing its not open or honest.
But the worst thing this arguement has done is taken away the future of our people - they had an opportunity to shape their own culture - and they have deprived them of this - to make them feel good about slavery and colonisation - sacrificed to the God of liberalism.
Please feel free to get in touch with me - both if you agree or not (if not argueing is unlikely to change my mind - so make sure you
Georgerobo74: If you're not open to the possibility of someone changing your mind why invite someone to try?
P: I am open to the possibility - although at this moment I would prefer for people who feel the same as me to contact - my experience of the debate is that sooner or later I will be called a racist, or some other extreme name designed to lessen my arguement.
But I live in hope
G:Positing something along those lines requires some pretty rigorous evidential consolidation otherwise you leave yourself wide open to being seen as basing your argument on presumption and conjecture. When that happens being accused of racism won't be done to lessen your argument, it will be the conclusion made by your opponent based on the strength and validity of it. It will also greatly depend upon terminology and use of rhetorical devices which can sometimes give away an inherently negative not objectively considered argument You would prefer like minded people to comment because you seek reassurance that someone will have your back. To be fair, on HuffPost you will find such support. However you will still be expected to provide damn good arguments that are based on solid, pragmatic and considered evidence that are not governed by pre-existing perspectives otherwise you will be deemed as such because that will be the implied motivator behind it.
P: You've done a very good job of proving my point.
G: Would you care to prove me wrong?
P: I think we are going to get caught up in a never ending spiral of uncertainty - A paradox wrapped up in an enigma (to coin a phrase). A couple of thoughts spring to mind, firstly - it is impossible to prove a negative - I can not prove i am NOT a racist, no moe than you can prove god does NOT exist to a christian (guessing you are not 1), secondly as long as you have that card 'you is a racist' then I will always be waiting for you to use it - so there can be no trust. So to answer your question - yes I would like to prove you wrong, but I am worried that all my effort will be futile, no matter how hard i try - you can call me racist and win.
G: I wasn't asking you to prove to me that you are not a racist, I was asking you to prove that your argument is based on something other than prejudice or conjecture. If you can show me impartial evidence that may be a good start.
P: Do you mean prove that we have always been multicultural, as individuals, communities and a country - no i dont think i can prove it to your satisfaction - do not have time. But let me ask you - are you saying the opposite?
G: For starters let's go back to your original comment I replied to:The use of liberal (fascist). Fascism is an nationalistically authoritarian system that seeks unification through totalitarian and mass mobilisation. While it has been argued to belong to both sides of the political spectrum, your idea of liberalism being fascist would not tally with the concept of immigration because fascists see immigration as undermining nationalistic unity. So where is your evidence that the liberals you are referring to for one thing are in position to allow this, and for another thing are fascists?"They never talk about the negative side" - "they" being the liberals I presume? Considering that the only mildly left wing orientated mainstream news channel is channel 4 and the newspapers include ones such as the Guardian who have discussed the instances you refer to at length, which liberals are you talking about?"The vigilante muslim patrol, which are not vigilantes they are criminals and colonisers harassing and threatening people" - Your point is well met but to what significance do the vigilante Muslim patrol play in represent Muslims in Britain in their entirety? While it is undeniable that gangs have been responsible for several instances of violence, where is your case for arguing against any Muslim being here?"Sacrificed to the God of liberalism." Elaborate on that one.
P: Facism - 1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control
Centralied govt, suppression of opposition (BNP /EDL etc)
The muslim movt. benefits from groups like the muslim patrol because as a community they get power, a voice, a name and they create fear to oppose them - we see this in classic form today - the BBC shows a positive show about Islam, while dropping a negatie one - censorship. Just because its not govt - does not mean it is not dangerous - I think it is more dangerous.
I do not think I have argued against muslims being here -never ever said. dont get me wrong - it is something I would not argue against - but it is unobtainable - its a numbers and percentages game now I'm afraid.
The most compelling example is the press using the word groomer when describing - well you konw what. remember an 11 year old gril was raped, threatened, prossstituted, branded - 'grooming' they call it.
I disagree with you about the news - they are all soft on islam - even the mail will not call them pedophiles or racists. They deliberatly target white girls.
G: You don't watch much of the BBC news if you think all they present is a positive perspective on Islam. You only need look at their reports on the Middle East to know the imagery used is meant to convey a sense of danger in some of these organisations' ideology."Groomer" is not used to soften an issue. Grooming is the deliberate act of raising a child to be sexually assaulted by other people or by the people involved (perhaps both). Paedophilia implies a singular localised context whereas grooming describes an act paedophiles can do within a network. If anything it is more damning.The Mail not adopting more evocative terminology can be explained by it's tenuous grasp of journalism. It simultaneously tries to be taken seriously but poor journalism and blatant political allegiance render it's overall validity doubtful. To combat this, in some issues that prove to be particularly inflammatory to their audience, they adopt a more middle of the road approach in terminology. It is disguise, nothing more
P: I think we agree on more that at first seems - I think we agree that we have always been multicultural, we agree that muslim patrol are not vigilantes - we may disagree over the impact of the owrd 'groomer' but I suspect we agree that this issue is not being fully disclosed.May I use our discussion on my blog as an example of the debate left and right has (I know I dont like the left right either), and the agreements we share?
G: So long as it's not one of those 'look at the stupid lefty' things I have no problem.
PS - Just for the record I dont think G is a stupid lefty, but I do think they could call me a racist, and although we are building trust - it is not yet established - but I do think we agree more than not.
