Utopia Talk / Politics / keep up the good work seb

Sam Adams Member	Mon Dec 02 21:57:16 http://x.com/BjornLomborg/status/1863556124965761277 In addition to your antisemitism, high tax and high regulatory nonsense, you have also made your electricity more expensive than everyone in europe. Even germany. Congrats on unlocking yet a new level of incompetence. Whats next?
Seb Member	Tue Dec 03 01:51:44 Incorrect Sam. If you follow back to the data and correlate with tax etc. you will notice the spike corresponds with natural gas prices spiking. The price of green energy is benchmarked to gas prices, and on top of that the UK's highly marketised retail power providers (lots of very small outfits that buy energy from providers though a market operated by national grid to sell retail) went hugely underwater during the Ukraine price surge and the regulator has allowed them to claw it back through higher daily service charge prices. Once more, Sam observes something, and randomly attributes it to one of his pet hates without bothering to check.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Dec 03 02:04:44 [Sam Adams]: "Whats next?" Probably a scheme to freeze pensioners in their homes because the cost of heating is "too high" while simultaneously spending billions to house foreign invaders. Like this, for instance: http://x.com/Will_Tanner_1/status/1863396501042413996
Seb Member	Tue Dec 03 04:54:25 Pensioners benefits have risen faster than wages for the last 15 years and the median pensioner has the same income as the median worker.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 03 04:56:17 Meanwhile under labour, processing of refugees applicants had increased hugely reducing the number of people that are housed by the state. Either accepted, and must house themselves, or rejected and deported. The "hotels for migrants" was a problem created entirely by the conservatives decision to block refugee processing.
jergul large member	Tue Dec 03 05:08:39 Given likely British involvement in NS bombing...you are probably literally correct on why electricity is very expensive. It is however not Seb's fault that the UK is on an island. For the other reason why electricity is most expesive there. Unless you are thinking about Nuclear power as a price driver in the UK of course. But I dont think you are going there.
murder Member	Tue Dec 03 06:47:05 A Republican pretending to give a shit about British pensioners while the MAGA party is planning to dismantle Social Security and Medicare in the US.
murder Member	Tue Dec 03 06:57:03 "The "hotels for migrants" was a problem created entirely by the conservatives decision to block refugee processing." You understand that neither CC or Sam recognize the Conservative Party as conservative, right?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Dec 03 07:48:45 He does not. In the same manner he shrugged and said ”we just had an election”, and then was forced to kind walk it back saying he was for electoral reform. I mean have conservatives and liberals and left and right. Right? So, go and vote :-)
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Dec 03 07:56:11 Yeah, sebfag is too retarded to realize that the Tories are not conservative. He will simultaneously say that he's glad that right-wing elements such as conservatives are systematically kept out of governance *and* that the failures of governance can be blamed on "conservatives". It's an unfalsifiable position based in circular logic. It fails at even the lightest scrutiny and so is something so absurdly stupid that only a bureaucrat or a leftist could believe it.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 03 15:40:09 Jergul: Being an Island isn't really relevant. Basically a bunch of financial orgs that provided hedging contracts for renewables made out like bandits when electricity prices spiked (being linked to gas prices) and sent electricity prices much higher than they would otherwise have been wiggly that pricing mechanism. Thereafter it's really a giant bail out of energy retail firms. Murder: If a lunatic tells you the moon is made of cheese, do you indulge them or stick to the facts. Conservatives have always been the party of rent seekers. Liberals have always been the party of commerce, trade and enterprise. They can say it's not conservative the way that the Trots say the Soviets aren't communist, and we can laugh at them for it.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 03 15:49:57 Nim: "we just had an election”, and then was forced to kind walk it back saying he was for electoral reform" You have seriously shitty reading comprehension Nim. Being for electoral reform doesn't mean you don't respect the results of the current electoral system. Labour won. The Tories won a bunch of elections with many of the same issues. I support STV, but that doesn't mean I think it's ok to demand a rerun just because I think my party would do better under other rules. The Tories had 15 years to bring in PR, they even had an referendum on the issue where they campaigned against it. In fact, they even abolished it for London elections only two years ago over the wishes of the London electorate. If they are suddenly converts, they should call on Labour to introduce a bill for the next election. In the meantime, Labour won under the FPTP system the conservatives were arguing was the gold standard only two years ago, and form the fully elected govt and the cons are the opposition. There's no constitutionally valid reason to hold a new election, even if I'd like to see the next one done by STV.
Seb Member	Tue Dec 03 15:51:49 CC: The Tories are conservative. It's you that's not conservative, you just appropriated the name for a set of ideas that lack the coherence needed to be called a political ideology.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Dec 04 00:19:58 [sebfag (low-IQ useful idiot, Regime sycophant)]: "The Tories are conservative. It's you that's not conservative, you just appropriated the name for a set of ideas that lack the coherence needed to be called a political ideology." There you go, lying again. What, exactly, are the Tories "conserving", you faggot? The gains of leftists from 5 years ago? They couldn't even conserve their own leadership. They put an Indian Punjabi and then a Nigerian anchor baby in charge when even Labour hasn't done that level of DEI race-baiting (yet). People of the West know that they are living under a uni-party Regime that makes decisions independent of the will of the people. Most actual Englishmen would be happy living in poverty if it meant actually having a nation, but the Labour–Tory uni-party is still telling the lie of "immigration for GDP". You're not fooling anyone, you liar. We know that the only reason that you have to pretend that the Tories are conservative is because the lie gives the uni-party Regime more power to manufacture consent. Your mountain of lies has an expiration date. "Every lie [you] tell incurs a debt to the truth," and that debt will soon be paid. There will be no remorse for people such as yourself — your ideology and absolute unwillingness to concede to a single pro-West issue has assured it. ************** ************** But you can clear it all up by answering this one question: What is the minimum acceptable amount of White people in England? ************** ************** ... In other news, there's an expanded version of that chart that shows that freezing pensioners in their homes is worth it if funds can be allocated not just to foreign conquerors but to the lie of "Net Zero" and the slavery of foreign aid as well: http://x.com/AkkadSecretary/status/1864030639135051832
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 01:26:37 The same thing they always have always conserved CC: the ability of the rentier class to extract rents. That's literally their raison d'etre. Political parties are as much or more about *who* they represent than *what ideology* the represent. For the conservatives that's doubly so, ideology being a retail pitch for the rubes like you.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 01:35:31 No no divine right of kings mean we own the land and should get to charge rent. No no, we must be self sustaining in corn, and it's very important that we set minimum prices for corn that just happens to be grown on our estates. No no, capitalists take the risk you see, that's why the power of unionised labour should be capped to prevent them bidding up wages. No no, regulation is strangling the economy, that's why you shouldn't take action to enforce competition laws against monopolies. What's the running theme from 18th century onwards? Preference for keeping the top on top and the bottom at the bottom, and rents flowing upwards.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 01:47:43 "What is the minimum acceptable amount of White people in England?" This is a truly bizarre question. Let's imagine then some number n. Let's say the number dropped below n to n-1 and became "unacceptable", say because a white person died of old age. Are you arguing the state should be compelled to then eliminate a non-white person? Or have a white woman forcibly impregnated to produce a white baby? What does "acceptable" mean in this context? My view is none of this is the states business at all. Someone's skin colour isn't something I want the state regulating. That's anathema to British values and institutions (something conservatives would claim to want to preserve). Indeed the general prevailing English culture of individualism would also be that it isn't the state's role to be going around defining the "correct culture" for people to abide by, such matters are handled within society itself. Citizenship is a different matter, and I think you are conflating the two !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, what is the maximum airspeed velocity of a fully laden swallow? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 02:30:27 What in your view, CC, is the minimum acceptable amount of white people in England?
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 02:30:27 What in your view, CC, is the minimum acceptable amount of white people in England?
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Dec 04 03:52:06 [sebfag (low-IQ useful idiot, Regime sycophant)]: "The same thing they always have always conserved CC: the ability of the rentier class to extract rents." Notice sebfag's inversion here. The "conservatives" are conserving progressivism's death cult policies, so they are "conservatives" rather than an extension of progressivism. He cannot even maintain a consistent definition while lying about what they are; he has to invert their very meaning in the process of defining them. Like I already said, in sebfag's mind, "conservatives" are merely conserving the gains of leftism. [sebfag (low-IQ useful idiot, Regime sycophant)]: "Political parties are as much or more about *who* they represent than *what ideology* the represent." False. A system is what it does. The uni-party is an anti-White genocide-machine that is designed to important conquerors and destroyers bent on the annihilation of the West, so *that* is what it represents — *not* the people nor the people's ideology. [CC]: "What is the minimum acceptable amount of White people in England?" [sebfag (low-IQ useful idiot, Regime sycophant)]: "This is a truly bizarre question. Let's imagine then some number n." Wow, I knew that sebfag would either not answer at all or commit some semantic bullshittery, but this exceeded expectations. Fucking retard sitting here writing retard formulas that take the number as some literal absolute "n-1" condition — zero imagination outside of mathematical language. But here is sebfag's admission nevertheless: [sebfag (low-IQ useful idiot, Regime sycophant)]: "My view is none of this is the states business at all." I.e., there is no point at which the genocide of White people will become *un*-acceptable to sebfag. If it merely "happens" that Regime policies result in the absolute annihilation of White people and subsequently their replacement by bomalians who live in garbage-based Zerg creeps, then that must be a simple reflection of "the people" as some meaningless economic unit in a "propositional nation" — the absolute Bolshevism of it. Now do Israel, seb. [sebfag (low-IQ useful idiot, Regime sycophant)]: "Indeed the general prevailing English culture of individualism would also be that it isn't the state's role to be going around defining the "correct culture" for people to abide by," Wow, yeah. sebfag is absolutely evil. Again, I've pointed this out before, but in sebfag's ideology.. • literally *anyone* from *anywhere* can become a true Englishman if they merely hold a British passport. It says it right here on the paper! You're English! • immigrants merely have to assimilate! But assimilate to what? Assimilate to the previously unassimilated majority's shifting culture? • There is no "correct culture" so there is no assimilation. So, by sebfag's ideology, England does not even exist as a culture nor as a people that must be inherently preserved. The culture of England can be entirely stripped to its bones and replaced, and the White people who have composed its society since its foundation can be absolutely annihilated, and it would not even register as "bad" anywhere within sebfag's ideology. This is the conclusion of managerialism. If the anti-human annihilation "procedure" is correctly followed, then it is all quite quite in order and happened correctly. Did you file the right papers? It must be okay! Did malicious oligarchs from invader nations convince the mob of invaders that the mob should have more free stuff? It must be okay! "[You got a loycense for that genocide? Oh! You do! Quite right then, carry on.]" seb is evil. [sebfag (low-IQ useful idiot, Regime sycophant)]: "What in your view, CC, is the minimum acceptable amount of white people in England?" It's very simple, sebfag. Notice that I will not need to obfuscate like yourself. What was the acceptable amount of White people in England before the Bolsheviks who won WWII began their projects? In 1950, White people were an absolute majority in England at 99.99%: http://com...ding_projections_in_the_UK.svg So, the acceptable amount of White people in England is 99.99%. Achieving this number in the present circumstances is a matter that I have addressed repeatedly: • A complete stop to all welfare, benefits, public schooling, and routine medical care for anyone not of English stock • Laws making it illegal for non-English stock to hold land, property, titles, or vote or to hold governance positions, work in the bureaucracies, work in banks, or work in finance • the death penalty for anyone who has attempted to remove the inheritance of or degrade the prosperity and property of English farmers • Anyone of foreign stock who cannot speak English is automatically deported • Mass-deportations of foreigners going all the way back to those naturalized in 1950 • A stop to anti-White anti-Natalist Bolshevik propaganda (e.g., ESG/DEI) • A re-start of the normal pre-Bolshevik culture of England which already included natural "Thesmophoria Festival" logic of encouraging the formation of family units as the foundation of society • Tax breaks for White families which incentivize more and more children, and tax penalties and disenfranchisement for White adults that do not have children or who marry foreigners • Voting rights only for White families that have earned the franchise via combinations of difficult service, land ownership, property ownership, aversion to debt, the adoption of Western religions, and other indicator's that display a purpose in the survival of England's ancestral people and its everlasting culture Now, now, sebfag. I know that you think this is extreme, but that's because you are evil. But how about this, I'll compromise a little! • England should also disenfranchise and/or deport any White English who have betrayed their nation via sebbish policies (e.g., immigration for GDP) • Those post-1950s immigrants who have directly defended the survival of the West through a positive track record of combinations such as family-consistent voting patterns (i.e., family is politically benevolent), public service, pro-Western culture, and pro-Western sentiments and actions may retain the franchise. Naturally, given my benevolent compromise, it may well be that that 99.99% may fall a little. If that is the case, the enfranchisement of those of foreign genetics must never exceed 1% of the voting power of England, and the White population must never fall below 95%. This 95% figure might seem extreme even to non-sebs, but consider that this was the case in England as recently as 1985. Were people such as myself "extremists" in 1985? No. This was the society that the Bolsheviks have attempted to steal from the West and its people.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 05:30:33 "The "conservatives" are conserving progressivism's death cult policies, so they are "conservatives" I said no such thing. I said conservatives have always represented the rentier class.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 05:32:23 "So, the acceptable amount of White people in England is 99.99%." Why? What's the issue if 99% is white? "non-English stock" You propose a law. What's English stock, exactly?
jergul large member	Wed Dec 04 05:36:16 Defining white people as English fundamentally changes the number of "white people" in the UK historically. Scots, Welsh, Norther Irish, Irish, Cornishmen, French (from the English holdings in France) etc. And your type were very extremist in 1985. Perhaps more so than today, so yay, you are winning?
jergul large member	Wed Dec 04 05:37:36 English stock is obviously decendents of people who thrived and were impregnated under Danelaw Seb. Get with the programme and try to keep up!
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Dec 04 05:38:29 [CC]: "The "conservatives" are conserving progressivism's death cult policies, so they are "conservatives" [sebfag]: "I said no such thing. I said conservatives have always represented the rentier class." You said that exactly, then. If conservatives are representing "the rentier class" then they are definitionally representing progressivism's locked in gains. [sebfag]: "Why? What's the issue if 99% is white?" For details, please see the hundreds of threads addressed to you which exemplify the results of your policies. [sebfag]: "You propose a law. What's English stock, exactly?" Easy. Proof of ancestry where possible (e.g., direct lineage traceable via x and y records), genetic testing where necessary. Your attempts to be an obtuse retard will not work. People have known how to prove these things systematically since the 19th century and even before that by just looking at whether or not someone was a brown Indian who operates a curry stand.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Dec 04 05:44:45 I don't usually post double-comments since that's sebgulish, but this just occurred to me: Sebfag, when you look at someone such as Rishi Sunak, are you able to tell that he is not English? You think he's English, don't you?
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 06:05:33 Why 1950? Why not 1850? "Voting rights only for White families that have earned the franchise via combinations of difficult service, land ownership, property ownership, aversion to debt, the adoption of Western religions, and other indicator's that display a purpose in the survival of England's ancestral people and its everlasting culture" Ah, repeal all the reform bills. What you are describing sounds pretty fascist to me and what we'd just finished fighting against a few years before 1950. Look, I'm sorry the UK is a real country not your cosplay Disneyland. Just because you yanks have lost touch with your history and created some fantasy of the past doesn't mean we are going to live in. Fucking Tourist.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 06:08:06 CC: "hen they are definitionally representing progressivism's locked in gains" Only in so far as those policies allow or facilitate increased rent extraction. Where they do not (e.g. unions) they oppose them. Definitionally is obviously the wrong word to use.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 06:08:46 CC: "For details, please see the hundreds of threads addressed to you which exemplify the results of your policies" And the happens precisely at 99% population?
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 06:16:17 "Proof of ancestry where possible (e.g., direct lineage traceable via x and y records)" Tracing back to when, exactly? Is someone born in 1940 with one french grandparent of English stock? Are the royal family of English stock, or are they German? ", genetic testing where necessary" Genetic testing for what, exactly? "Your attempts to be an obtuse retard will not work." No, what won't work is your attempt to create an entirely arbitrary and artificial categorisation based on a poorly thought out mental model of what it means to be English or British. It starts from an idea that nations and people's were created sui generis, rather than being an ultimately transitory association of various things that evolve over time. A lot of Yanks don't get this because their country is so young and their history so parochial. They look at a country like England and to them it seems like this static thing. On the other hand, people with an appreciation of English history are perfectly well aware of this endless flux. " People have known how to prove these things systematically since the 19th century and even before that by just looking at whether or not someone was a brown Indian who operates a curry stand." Which is my point really, what you mean is "deport all the brown people". That won't work for the same reason it didn't work for Hitler. And so you'll move to the next logical step.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 06:19:19 Basically, you are proposing the UK cleave to it's traditions by instituting a raced based oligarchy where the state determines your identity and rights based on something akin to a "one drop" blood law. I told you that your political culture was not "of the west", and you would really be more at home in 1930's and you've just come out and said it.
murder Member	Wed Dec 04 07:59:08 "What is the minimum acceptable amount of White people in England?" I'll answer that. Zero. The minimum acceptable amount of white people in England is zero. As an avowed bigot, I am offended by your rank racism.
murder Member	Wed Dec 04 08:02:50 CherubDike is a peculiar sort of conservative. The sort that wants the government regulating, dictating, and managing, everything.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 04 08:02:54 Seb No, you have a shitty comprehension of reality and the problems plaguing your country. That is why, in the context of your abhorrent electoral system, shrugging “we just had an election” reveals what a vacuous cretin you are. The same pattern is repeated in this thread with “conservative”. You have a chronic problem with words and meaning.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 04 08:28:11 England (not the UK) is perhaps the most bastardized of any creation. It acted as Europe's california. Migration waves ended up there with nowhere further to go (Ireland could only support so many cattle rustlers at the time).
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 08:58:39 Nim: No, in context, it was the entirely correct response. There's no basis - as you were then doing - of questioning the legitimacy of the govt to govern. Arrows inequality mathematically proves there's no prefect electoral method for any multi-party system. I don't like fptp, but that's not the same as saying a govt elected under it is illegitimate when that's the constitutionally agreed settlement, having been put to a referendum only a few years before.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Dec 04 09:06:57 [murderfag (left-wing dogma bot)]: "a peculiar sort of conservative. The sort that wants the government regulating, dictating, and managing, everything." Absolutely false. That is antithetical to anything I've ever said. You are a liar. Even in a libertarian society, there must be borders. There must be citizenship. [sebfag (Regime sycophant, likely pederast)]: "Why 1950? Why not 1850?" Asked and answered. Read more closely. [sebfag (Regime sycophant, likely pederast)]: "What you are describing sounds pretty fascist to me" Oof, there it is. All that weakling leftists have is, "[erm, you don't want to be Hitler, right, erm, fascist nazi erm erm erm]". Wow, yeah, totally. I'm super convinced. (lol) I guess we have to let Western society fall and have all White people genocided because we wouldn't want to be called "bad thing", you abysmal retard. Hey, umm, that brown guy wants you to dig a ditch for yourself and let him shoot you in the back of the head. Don't be "fascist". Let him do it! He's from the "Global South". Don't you want "equity"? Again, I'll remind that as recently as 1985 what I'm proposing was just a normal reality of English life. That's how far these "progressive" (regressive and suicidal) sebfags have pushed society to the brink. The very idea of 1985 is "fascist" and some "fantasy", lol. But no. It really is not. We do not need time travel and have "The Power of Love" playing over a skateboard montage to deport a bunch of people. Time moved forward when they were invading, and time can still move forward when they're going back to wherever. People have been deported before and time continued to move forward. This is not some Star Trek time paradox. [sebfag (Regime sycophant, likely pederast)]: "we'd just finished fighting against a few years before 1950." Did you catch your own poisonous logic here? Who won WWII, sebfag? England? These United States? No. International Bolsheviks won. That's why Englishmen are being genocided by traitors such as yourself. And you're totally okay with that logic. You already admitted that you don't care if every Englishman dies and their entire culture gets replaced, and you're now admitting that you 100% bought into the post-WWII boomer delusion of "[well, we couldn't possibly be even a little bit right wing because the opening line of the Wiki page on fascism says, "far right", so I guess I'll just lift my throat for the knife, as is Vogon procedure and thus as is a fine rule of our global democracy]." sebfag, how is it that "fighting against" Germans and "winning" (as is the belief of the boomer delusion) now means that Englishman can be reduced to an absolute minority in their own lands, disenfranchised, genocided, their culture brought to absolute ruin for a "Global South" soup... and this is what you "finished fighting" for? How many victors of battles get to see their people absolutely annihilated in the years *after* the battles? Oh yeah, you don't believe the English are even a people, as is required of your suicidal ideology. [sebfag (Regime sycophant, likely pederast)]: "Look, I'm sorry the UK is a real country not your cosplay Disneyland." Pathetic projection, sebfag. In reality, England is *indeed* a real country, with borders, a history, a people, and an everlasting culture — all of which are specific and conditional to those national interests. It is, in fact, you suicidal progressive weaklings who want to treat the West as a globalist "Disneyland" where endless bomalians can get a piece of paper that says that culture is just a fluid glob of jelly and citizens are replaceable economic widgets for International Bolsheviks who want to use the world as a massive slavery ring while they build their Third Temple out of gold. [sebfag (Regime sycophant, likely pederast)]: "Fucking Tourist." Don't worry, sebfag. If these United States successfully purge the Bolsheviks, we will liberate Europe and you will become a tourist in Madagascar or wherever your favorite client group came from. You can join them. It'll be great. You love diversity! I'd be surprised if you didn't already live in Bangladesh, you love diversity so much! Lots of fake leftists just earn lots of money so they can buy nice high-rise condos and separate themselves from the consequences of their bourgeois policies — but not you! You're a real one! You can hang out with Ash Sarkar and talk about how much you hate the West while pooping in Bengali streets. You love that sort of thing! So authentic! \:D/ [CC]: "If conservatives are representing "the rentier class" then they are definitionally representing progressivism's locked in gains. [sebfag (Regime sycophant, likely pederast)]: "Only in so far as those policies allow or facilitate increased rent extraction. Where they do not (e.g. unions) they oppose them. [/] Definitionally is obviously the wrong word to use." Nope! Your definition of "conservative" is definitionally a representation of progressivism's locked in gains. The idea of renters as a faceless economic block is a result of the post-WWII boomer delusion and its suicidal belief that people are just widgets and that capitalism is just a disembodied good that renders meaningless a people and a tradition. Under your own description, a renter is thus *anyone* who can pay the rent — regardless of whether or not they are English or just "English on paper" and regardless of whether or not they've worked the land for generations or just arrived a few weeks ago on housing assistance paid for by the English taxpayer. Again, there is nothing being conserved here: just GDP, which is a progressive secular humanist suicidal-ideation. Before the boomer delusion took hold, conservatives would actually try to.. umm.. conserve their people and traditions by.. umm.. only renting to Englishmen. But now that's called "fascist". Recall, again, that as recently as 1985 the White population of England was >95%. Who was renting? White people. Have they been conserved? No. [CC]: "For details, please see the hundreds of threads addressed to you which exemplify the results of your policies" [sebfag (Regime sycophant, likely pederast)]: "And the happens precisely at 99% population?" lol. I realize that your Aspy shtick of pretending that numbers are absolute and that math is not just a language leaves you incredibly vulnerable to metaphors, but this is just sad. Think, sebfag. What did you yourself say?: [sebfag]: "we'd just finished fighting against a few years before 1950" What was the population percentage before your post-WWII boomer delusion started the White genocide? 99.99% Now, in a perfect world where everyone is like, super chill and cool with each other, maaaaaan, then maybe we could live in a high-trust society where that percentage could stop at 95% or 90% or 85% and it would all still be cool and everyone in society would still support Western values, its people, and its culture... but sebguls have proven that they cannot be trusted with that slippery slope. At some point between now and 99.99%, genocidal maniacs such as yourself decided that there is no lower limit to White people in England and there is no reason to preserve Western culture. Even now, today, you can routinely find Regime "journalists" licking their lips while hoping that the White percentage dips below 50%, since, at that point, whatever pretense was left that this is not an overt and malicious genocide would leave their rhetoric and they could openly flaunt that their "popular" majority means that they can direct their slave castes to vote against and do whatever they want against White people. You never have to push hard to find out that this is exactly what leftists want: revenge. Revenge against being born and feeling inferior in the presence of those greater than themselves. So no. 99.99%, with the benevolent compromise being 95% so long as no more than 1% of foreign genetics are enfranchised. And I'll tell you what, if you call now, then in 100 years, after the West has thought really deeply about how they can let more foreigners into society without subversives such as yourself infiltrating society and fully opening the Gates of Toledo for annihilators and conquerors.. then maybe we can try again? It's never worked for any society throughout history, but in 100 years, maybe England would be ready. To be seen! ;) [sebfag (Regime sycophant, likely pederast)]: "Tracing back to when, exactly? Is someone born in 1940 with one french grandparent of English stock?" Like I said, sebfag, a combination of markers can be used. Is the Frenchman White? Does he speak English? Does he love England or want to change it because culture is just some fluid jelly ripe for exploitation? And I even benevolently mentioned 1950, so this question has already been specifically answered. [sebfag (Regime sycophant, likely pederast)]: "Genetic testing for what, exactly?" lol You know that genetics are real, right? Have you seen those genetic tests that tell you exactly what percentage of your DNA is from one region versus another? Have you seen how accurate those are getting? [CC]: "Your attempts to be an obtuse retard will not work." [sebfag (Regime sycophant, likely pederast)]: "No, what won't work is your attempt to create an entirely arbitrary and artificial categorisation" Genetics are arbitrary? :D Obvious and demonstrable ancestry as proven by connections to the land are arbitrary? :D No. No they are not. [sebfag (Regime sycophant, likely pederast)]: "a poorly thought out mental model of what it means to be English or British" More poor projection, sebfag. Is a piece of paper given to a Bengali who hates the West a good model of "Englishness" to you? Is that "arbitrary" in your world? Again, when you look at someone such as Rishi Sunak, are you able to tell that he is not English? You think he's English, don't you? I'll give you a hint: a piece of paper saying, "English," is arbitrary. Your genetic code — your body — is the realest thing there is. You lie about this because you use paper to kill the genetics of your enemy, and your enemy is White people. You persist in this deception because you think that paper will save you from a sword, a gun, or a bomb, but the effects of your policies cannot be denied and the people you are killing do indeed have a survival instinct that cannot be suppressed with more paper and more empty concessions from a treasonous Regime that openly wants to kill them. [sebfag (Regime sycophant, likely pederast)]: "On the other hand, people with an appreciation of English history are perfectly well aware of this endless flux." Ah, this lie again. This one is quaint. Tell me, sebfag, throughout how much of England's expansive history have there been 1.8 million Indians, 300,000 Bengalis, and 620,000 Pakistanis within its borders? How many genetic distinctions exist between an Englishman and a Frenchman? How many genetic distinctions exist between an Englishman and a Bengali? How many times have Mongols invaded and replaced the population of England? How many Māori built Stonehenge? You keep trying to do hand-waving to pretend that William the Conqueror bringing White Normans into England with White Anglo-Saxons in 1066 is somehow in the same ballpark as 2 million Indians getting visas in a few decades so they can re-institute their caste system locally and turn London streets into open-air rubbish bins. Meanwhile, here in reality, we can all look at Rishi Sunak and immediately determine that beyond his affected English accent there is something far more natural to a Frenchman sipping espresso at a café on London's Thackeray Street than a Punjabi Indian standing before parliament and welcoming more foreigners. [sebfag (Regime sycophant, likely pederast)]: "That won't work for the same reason it didn't work for Hitler." There it is again. The very Destiny of your own people is reduced in your tiny mind to the WWII archetype. Your very survival violates managerialism's inviolable principle. The rule you follow can only lead to your obliteration. And we all know what a Bolshevik such as yourself means by "that won't work": International Bolsheviks will again collude across borders to provoke their puppets into action against any one nation which independently works against the absolute annihilation of White people. That's how they operate. If England wants its sovereignty back via Brexit, International Bolsheviks sabotage England to get them to re-join the International death cult that is the EU. If some Ukrainians on the border want to rejoin Russia because they feel a genetic kinship? Sorry. International Bolshevism demands that Blackrock puts you on the front lines, kills you in hopeless anti-human drone warfare, and leaves your children and wives to the Global South invaders who already populate the Western lands to which you were sent. Remember always, sebfag's idea of "racism" and "fascism" did not even exist in 1985. White people existing as an overwhelming majority in historically White nations were simply *home*. And what of 1850, as sebfag mentioned? Was it "fascist" to have a White nation 39 years before Hitler and 33 years before Mussolini had even been born? No. It was just *home*. It was a nation. Centuries and millennia passed with this formula, and there was no "fascism" to speak of. But 40 years after the effects of suicidal immigration policies are felt in England, now there is no going back for sebguls! We couldn't possibly deport anyone! That's "bad thing"! The invaders and conquerors who do not care what an Englishman is and do not care what English culture is and actively want to destroy and replace it cannot possibly be deported because Hitler had his war! You absolute fucking idiot.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 04 09:21:48 "White Normans" It is in the name. Normans are 2nd and third generation Norsemen from Norway. So, what you mean by "white" is actually Norwegian, including Sami (the famed shipbuilders and skiers of the Norse era. Arctic fir has amazing qualities due to its slow growth). Why thank you! I am humbled.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 09:22:45 CC: When you are actually describing a set of fascist policies, you don't get to invoke Godwin's law. Mass ethnic cleansing based on obscure race laws Restricting franchise to a self-selecting clique You've even got the whole fetishising agrarianism
jergul large member	Wed Dec 04 09:23:16 I can tell you know that Normans cared nothing at all for what it meant to be English.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 09:24:17 Political repression - outlawing political dissent... Lol.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 09:26:21 "White people existing as an overwhelming majority in historically White nations were simply *home*." And that's still the case. And brown people born in the UK being here are also home. You are the one that has some kind of weird obsession. In fact, you are the *only* person here advocating white British born people be expelled from the UK, their property seized and redistributed; yet it is you that say your opponents advocate replacement.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 04 09:26:50 hehe, the only ones with the more than superhuman genetic ballast in this forum are myself, paramount and William the Bastard. Be careful for what you wish for CC, you might get it :D.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 09:28:46 You can equally say "was it fascist to want to have a Aryan greater Germany and to get rid of all the Slaves and Jews living there?" Yes. Yes it was. That's kinda the thing they are remembered most for.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 04 09:31:37 Seb I dunno. CC is obviously slowly convincing me that there is some virtue to her thoughts. A man can only take so many inferred compliments before becoming swayed.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 04 09:34:23 Though I dont think she will end up thanking me. http://upl..._a_su_hijo_%281819-1823%29.jpg
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 09:44:04 BTW, regarding Britishness in 1850, the 1844 Nationalisation Act allowed for foreigners to acquire British Subject status throughout the empire; and people born in e.g. British India (crown territory) had the same legal status as white British subjects born in London. So in 1850 Britain definitely wasn't a white nation, even if it was run by white people with a strong implicit racial hierarchy (all subjects equal before the crown).
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Dec 04 10:57:57 [jergfag (delusional idiot, lazy cretin)]: "hehe, the only ones with the more than superhuman genetic ballast in this forum are myself, paramount and William the Bastard." Keep deluding yourself. Pond scum multiplying in a summer heat is not an impressive genetic anomaly to me. I have repeatedly explained to your tiny and syphilitic mind that simply being White is not in itself enough because I am not a White supremacist. You are White, but you are a dysgenic freak and a parasite on the West who disgusts me viscerally. [sebfag (Regime sycophant, post-WWII boomer-delusion enjoyer)]: "So in 1850 Britain definitely wasn't a white nation," Now you're just fucking lying. 99.99% sebfag. You can't escape it. 99.99%. It was still >95% by 1985. Stop lying. Paper is not reality. The actual physical body is reality, and you are committing a genocide against that reality. [sebfag (Regime sycophant, post-WWII boomer-delusion enjoyer)]: "When you are actually describing a set of fascist policies, you don't get to invoke Godwin's law." False premise, and therefore Godwin's Law is absolutely in effect. Having a nation is not "fascist", you subversive destroyer. Again, these principles precede Hitler/Mussolini by thousands of years. The post-WWII consensus attempted to buy your delusion that a post-racial society could exist, but people like you weaponized that society to explicitly kill White people while they lowered their guard. White people are the most likely to see things in terms of character, values, principles, and post-racial signifiers; but you subversive destroyers merely saw that as a weakness to exploit, activated all other races against White people, and with millions of White people now dead and unborn you still say that resistance to annihilation is "fascism". [sebfag (Regime sycophant, post-WWII boomer-delusion enjoyer)]: "Mass ethnic cleansing based on obscure race laws [/] Restricting franchise to a self-selecting clique [/] You've even got the whole fetishising agrarianism" I have never endorsed ethnic cleansing and have explicitly *opposed* it. Ethnic cleansing is the business of leftists such as yourself. Just refer to murderfag, who you completely ignored (above comment "Wed Dec 04 07:59:08") despite him explicitly saying that he wants to kill all White people. No issue there for you? None at all? Probably not for you, right? You're not even going to say anything to him. After all, you do agree with him. So you again project your anti-White ideology. Since you are pro-ethnic cleansing and identify that as "fascism", are you saying that you are a fascist? How many millions do you suppose your ideology has killed already, fascist? How many more do you wish to kill, you genocidal maniac? And these are not "obscure race laws". These laws existed in both England and these United States all the way into the 1960s, when the lie of "Civil Rights" granted special protections to everyone *except* White people. The Hart-Celler Act of 1965, which opened the floodgates of immigration into these United States from non-Western nations, is not the Spirit of the West — despite your subversive lies to the contrary. You'd have us believe that the latest progressive causes which *destroy* the West are in fact its embodiment, but if that is true (and it is categorically false) than the conclusion is still the same: the West is suicidal and needs an intervention. [sebfag (Regime sycophant, post-WWII boomer-delusion enjoyer)]: "fetishising agrarianism" Are you literally retarded? It's simple causality, sebfag. Farmers make food. People eat food. Farmers need to have land to make food for people. This is the essence of Cincinnatus' benevolent service. Whereas, your suicidal anti-farmer policies are designed to cause mass-famine and death in the West. (You are evil.) I'm not "fetishizing" farmers simply because I'm aware of the origin of food and food's necessity for the West's survival, I just don't want my people nor myself to die of starvation like the millions of White Christians that your Bolshevik friends murdered in the Holodomor. Meanwhile, Tolkien spoke far more at length about the absolute importance of farmers in Lord of the Rings. What was Hobbiton and why did he believe it to be the core of England's power? Simple folk! Not city folk! What a strange place for power to exist! Would you call that "fetishising agrarianism"? Probably you would at this point! You're about 5 minutes from saying that Tolkien was "fascist" because he loved farmers and wanted to protect England. After all, he didn't support the nun-killers during the Spanish Civil War! I bet you didn't even know that the greedy gold-hungry dwarves who broke oaths and nearly ruined the West to reclaim their "Homeland" at the Lonely Mountain were based on jews. Tolkien explicitly stated this. Oops! "Fascism!" Quite problematic, wouldn't you agree, sebfag? I guess we need a warning at the beginning of any Peter Jackson LOTR viewing that states that having all White people in a society was a "product of its time" and "racist" and "fascist" and that we need to "do better". After all, LOTR came out in the ancient days of 2003, and progressivism could not possibly move in any other direction after that except towards its own demise, since suddenly we're in a "multiracial democracy" where all the brown people are allowed to endlessly multiply and immigrate but White people are free game for genocide and cannot flee, must surrender their civilizations, and cannot found any civilization of their own for their Posterity. So progressive! \:D/ [sebfag (Regime sycophant, post-WWII boomer-delusion enjoyer)]: "And that's still the case. And brown people born in the UK being here are also home." Not by your formula, you liar. By your logic (your implicit endorsement of a slave revolt), White Westerners cannot be at home *anywhere* since law is explicitly designed to endlessly reduce their numbers until the genocide is complete. Brown people, meanwhile, are free to live *anywhere* but are especially *owed* the "equity" of living in Western society, making "homes" of the public dole, and expressing no loyalty to the West, its people, or its culture — since, as you yourself said, England is not its people nor its culture. An Indian in England has a genetic homeland in India and can thus hold the treason of dual loyalty while subverting the West and sending wealth to India or his Indian progeny in England. Whereas, an Englishman in England sees his pockets emptied by this Indian and the Indians ever-expanding family and is not even allowed to pass on his wealth to his own people, since the English government actively tries to tear up the roots of English farmlands to build migrant lodging for the invaders. How much clearer does it need to become for you that your Regime is committing a genocide against White people? How much clearer does it need to be for you to understand that every avenue that exists for the survival of White people is being systematically cut off with thought-terminating clichés such as "fascist" so that White people are forced to accept their annihilation? You have to understand that people will be tried for treason when this is done. And was that your answer to the Sunak question? Get specific. Again, when you look at someone such as Rishi Sunak, are you able to tell that he is not English? You think he's English, don't you? [sebfag (Regime sycophant, post-WWII boomer-delusion enjoyer)]: "In fact, you are the *only* person here advocating white British born people be expelled from the UK, their property seized and redistributed; yet it is you that say your opponents advocate replacement." Now you're doing some retarded straw-man fallacies and inversions. If you are now claiming that deporting traitors and foreign subversives is "replacement", then what would you call it when these foreigners arrived and these traitors undermined the West? Oops. It's replacement. And replacement can only happen in one direction. England is a homeland of White people. Only White people can be replaced in England. Stop inverting, you slavish destroyer. [sebfag (Regime sycophant, post-WWII boomer-delusion enjoyer)]: "You can equally say "was it fascist to want to have a Aryan greater Germany and to get rid of all the Slaves and Jews living there?" " Weak straw man fallacy, false premise, and fallacy of association. Try a different angle: if you were a Purple Person from PurpleLand and foreign infiltrators took positions within every layer of your government and finance sectors while pretending to be "[just as Purple as you]" but then their every policy decision removed wealth from Purple people, imported people who hated PurpleLand, made propaganda that demonized PurpleLand, made prostitutes and trans anomalies out of Purple youth, and then claimed that being Purple was "just an idea" and that PurpleLand didn't really have a "culture" and culture is always changing and not real anyways... is there a single aspect of that which you could recognize as an act of being conquered? If you cannot answer this question then this is futile. If you cannot produce a single response even to the *hypothetical* that a society could be infiltrated, subverted, and annihilated through ethnic replacement, then you are either maliciously complicit in this scheme (which I believe is the case with you) or too stupid to function.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Dec 04 11:04:09 "So in 1850 Britain definitely wasn't a white nation" Things a retard says.
jergul large member	Wed Dec 04 11:35:14 CC So we have established that genetics are unimportant beyond spurious skin tone correlations you might have imagined. How comforting that must be for you. But it has to be asked again. Are you the illformed child born into a komono's mouth by the unfortunate temperament of waylaid thinking parents? How indeed can we know that you are pure enough to listen to?
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 12:59:02 Sam: You are protecting a modern convention onto a global Empire. You want to point out the crown territory corresponding to the UK today and say hey, this is Britain, those other bits were colonies. That wasn't quite how things worked then. There were crown territories all over the world that were "Britain", and the Home isles didn't have a distinct legal identity until a bit later on when you start to get a clear concept of Dominion within empire in the 1870s. A subject born in the north American crown territories (irrespective of skin colour) was a British subject with the same rights.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 12:59:35 You know we had a few Indian MPs back in the 19th c.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 13:02:10 It wasn't until the 20th c you started to see a real legal distinction between people born in the UK as British vs people born in colonies treated as aliens. And you still see the Irish (considered akin to 'black' in the early 19th) still have privileges in the UK.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 13:08:48 And like I said, this is because you are trying to project a simplified modern concepts of a people as some sui generis concept where well defined people's are plonked onto some virgin earth like a game of civ; rather than the far more messy emergent association of language, mutual recognition, loyalty to particular institutions, geographical boundaries etc. etc. This inevitably leads to the slightly bonkers idea that the state needs to regulate the average skin colour of the population because a brown person cannot be part of a nation because nationality is about tracing blood line to the pure original "prime" English that was the first settler unit you started the game with on turn 1. There is no such pure prime population, and what it means to be English was never about tracing your lineage back to pure stock. Quite the opposite.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 13:10:16 You little white supremacist Yankees are quite a sad lot really, and that's compared to the plastic paddies.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Dec 04 13:31:41 Seb so desperate for those percieved diversity points hes gotta pretend that the uk wasnt white. Amazing. "You know we had a few Indian MPs back in the 19th c." Lmfao.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Dec 04 13:48:18 Did everyone see that?Seb, in the most perfect autist bureaucrat manner, just used a mathematical theorem as a thought terminating cliche. This is the type of person they have writting policy documents to manage the decline into the shitter. Literally uncritically riffing off Veritasium videos.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 13:49:13 Oh no, Sam doesn't understand the difference between the UK in 2024 and Britain in 1850. "You want to point out the crown territory corresponding to the UK today and say hey, this is Britain, those other bits were colonies. That wasn't quite how things worked then." Imagine going back to 1850 and talking to a white guy born in North America and telling him he wasn't British.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 13:49:14 Oh no, Sam doesn't understand the difference between the UK in 2024 and Britain in 1850. "You want to point out the crown territory corresponding to the UK today and say hey, this is Britain, those other bits were colonies. That wasn't quite how things worked then." Imagine going back to 1850 and talking to a white guy born in North America and telling him he wasn't British.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 13:51:21 If you'd been wondering around British India loudly saying "No, these people are not British, and this land is not Britain" you would probably come under scrutiny from the British state as some kind of deviant subversive rebel.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 14:04:25 Nim: And of course there you are once again happily lining up with you would be deporters. The Nims and his parents that came to the UK from Iran, as many did, seeking to get out from the Islamists as your family did, CC is here advocating their property be confiscated and deported back to Iran to hit some arbitrary statistic. And your problem isn't with that, your problem is that I point out how absurd that is with a "thought terminating cliche". Only it wasn't, CC actually confirmed she absolutely does mean a program of ruthless ethnic cleansing and property theft by the state, based on skin colour. I thought the question was actually "a thought terminating cliche" with a bunch of hidden assumptions and a bullshit ask for a precise number to obfuscate those absurdities by an argument on the "right" number rather than the principle and insane monomania behind it. But no, I was wrong. CC did in fact confirm she does have a figure in mind that falling below constitute an unacceptable situation for the state that overrides all our traditions of property rights and freedom.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 14:07:47 I leave it to the reader to decide who is the autist. Me for using the expression "n" to bypass a conversation on the precise threshold and challenge the premise and cut to the issue; or Nim, faced with a bold argument that people exactly like him and his kids should be robbed of their property and deported to the Islamic Republic and the tender mercy of their religious police whose main concern is that I didn't answer the question exactly as posed.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Dec 04 14:56:53 "The confederacy wasnt white" -seb
Sam Adams Member	Wed Dec 04 15:03:54 These slaves arent white, therefore the confederacy isn't white. Lol sebmind
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 17:19:03 Sam: Correct me if I'm wrong, but slaves in the confederacy weren't considered equal in law. I believe that's rather definitional.
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 17:21:28 Slavery being abolished in the British empire in the 1830s
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 17:27:39 Sam's brain not being able to quite compute the idea that British Subject was the same legal status of everyone. That's partly why the empire was successful compared to other European empires - being able to convince enough people to be loyal to the idea of being a common polity even if it was actually being run for the primary benefit of an elite (that elite being socio-economic rather than ethic: working class white people being little better than a black person in their eyes).
Seb Member	Wed Dec 04 17:31:31 Comparing the British empire to the clowncar crash of a piss poor cosplay British landed gentry is a bit of a joke.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Dec 04 21:34:32 That you improved the lives of indians, didnt treat them quite as poorly as outright slaves hardly makes equality, nor does it make the core of your empire non-white. Stop pretending. Its pathetic.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 05 00:20:49 Aaaand full melt down.
murder Member	Thu Dec 05 01:59:21 [cherubdike (clearly a vampire)]: "Absolutely false. That is antithetical to anything I've ever said. You are a liar." You want the government to bar medical care "for anyone not of English stock". You want government to control who can "hold land". You want government to control who can own property. You want government to control who banks can employ. You want government to control who can work in finance. You want government to control who lives and dies ... and not just those who aren't "English stock". You want government to police language. You want government to control political speech. You want government to dictate how people live their lives. You want government to tax citizens for not having children. You want government to create a welfare class of citizens who do have children. You want the government to police who citizens marry. You want government to police what religion citizens practice. You want government to police the personal finances of its citizens. And that is all from one of your posts on this thread. I'm not a liar. You want the government regulating, dictating, and managing, everything. You're a fascist.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 05 02:50:00 Sam: Define this "core". Again you are viewing the empire in a very ahistorical modern perspective of the UK over here and the colonies over there, a separate thing. That's absolutely not how the political establishment saw it. All the crown territories are British, there are no "British citizenship" just subjects equal under the crown, and an aristocracy which if you somehow make it, you can buy your way into but grudgingly with it's own set of implicit rules and hierarchy. You are correct that the idea of equality before the law was subverted in practice. Equating Hindu Indians to slaves isn't correct they could and were able to get courts to uphold rights against whites for example, even if tilted against them. But at the same time arguing Britain was "white" isn't correct. The definition of Britain as being the home isles is ahistorical, the basic premise of skin colour being the defining feature over class is incorrect, and the idea that people of colour being able to move around and he treated (in law at least) as having the same rights as white people of equivalent class is incorrect. The abolitionist movement wasn't as accident. If race and skin colour was as foundational as you and CC suggest, Britain wouldn't have been the driving force behind global abolition of slavery. You also have projected a very modern attitude that the ruling clases saw white working class people as equal in law. That too was a legal fiction subverted in practice. Another typical fudge: just as the grudging formal recognition of Indian folks as being equal subjects was necessary to maintain the empire, so the same for working class whites to avoid a revolution like the French. Enough equality to maintain the pyramid with the aristocracy on top. And you can see this dynamic in modern America. So if CC wants to use 1850 as a model for how she thinks British society should be, she's a talking about a state that encompasses many many people of different races, all of them broadly inferior to a ruling class that would feel they have more in common with an Indian Prince who'd be accepted as a peer, than a white working class person such as yourself or CC. Instead what's she's trying to do is impose a very different model, a one where peoples worth is based on their skin colour, not their class. The past is a different country, they do things differently there.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 05 02:56:46 "Wider and still wider shall *her* bounds be set" The bounds, border, is the edge of the empire, not between the home islands and overseas crown territories. That's a thing that appeared in the later 19th c and early 20th c and it doesn't work in the sense that one you put borders in your empire it fragments it. Hence you get the formal creation of Dominions that start to develop their own national identities; and the fiction that "we are all British" breaks down and you get nationalist independence movements in the colonies. You can't run a global empire with a segregationist model.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 05 03:05:06 Anyway, back to the main point: In 1850, not only in law were coloured people prima face equal to white people in law; albeit huge socially imposed discrimination and unequal access to the law (again, strong parallels to modern America, which isn't so modern, more still speedrunning English social development and in its late 19th c phase), they could also travel and naturalise into the specifically the British Isles more easily from a legal perspective than they could now. The barrier was the cost of transport c. 1850 not some idea of race based hierarchy. That's the actual reality of globalism c. 1850, before the de-globalism of the early 20th C. That's when you start to see much more attention to border controls, passports etc. But again, that's not primarily about the concerns you have "dirty brown invaders", it's about the threat of dirty white invaders and spys from imperial rivals.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 03:06:14 Nimi This is not a melt-down. This is seb engaged by something he had not fully considered earlier. So he is notepadding here. A sign of intellectual curiousity mostly.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 05 03:08:14 They policies CC outlines are basically 100% opposed to our traditions, to achieve an outcome that people in power and money gave a shit about back then. White people working in unsafe factories or brown people? They are all lower class. Sure we shouldn't enslave them, but ruthless exploitation? That's fine.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 05 03:10:43 Jergul: Considered before, this is all pretty basic stuff. But I find it genuinely interesting how poorly white supremacists in the US misunderstand what they claim as heritage. It's pure romanticism of an imagined past. A bit like 19th century ideas of knightly chivalry.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 03:17:58 The UK rentier system is tempered somewhat by noblesse oblige principles. Lots of culture is open to the public free of charge. The great flaw is perhaps public poverty. Governments are chronically underfunded. The rentier would do better to embrace enlightened self-interest and accept a higher tax burden to perpetuate the system that so greatly benefits them. Rent-taking is certainly a US thing, but cloaked by the delusion that everyone (except felons) are billionaires in waiting. So you get oddities like homeless people thinking they are middle class. The opoid crisis has ironically done a lot to reality orientate people. Particularly in smaller towns. And the goal there is not so much to starve government, but to transfer debt financed public wealth to private hands as quickly and effectively as possible.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 05 03:19:45 Jergul: The misunderstanding of the British Empire being a thing the UK "had" by virtue of its strength Vs a thing that existed and was therefore strong is something I've been ruminating on for a while. That's at the core of the Boris type Brexit delusion. It's not that they think "Britain is still an empire" or whatever. It's the confusion between the idea of Britain *being an empire* until the 1950s (and all that entails) and now being the UK which geographically and economically is very much smaller; Vs the ahistorical is that the Empire was a sort of ornament that came along with being powerful rather than the source of the strength. Being an empire is also a far more complex thing than saying "we the people of the Metropole have won, and now you all work for us", you have to have a degree of equality (and it absolutely can't be a legally enshrined ethnic based hierarchy in industrial times) or you get too much opposition and the economics don't work.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 03:20:49 Seb I liked your description of bumbkin and titleless landed gentry larping how they thought British nobility lived. The pre-civil war South in a nutshell.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 05 03:31:21 Jergul: When you say the rentier class should bend more... yes, but also none of this stuff is really individual calculation / decisions. The relative success of the UK avoiding revolutions and upheaval isn't because of wise vested interests but an evolved constitution and institutions and culture where that bending happens as an emergent phenomenon where micro interests align people to that path rather than taking a view like "I better not lobby to pay less tax or maybe in 10 years I wind up on a guillotine" (I know that's even more simplistic but you know what I mean). The problem in the UK, I increasingly think, is that the institutions bought too hard into neoliberal economics - "Treasury Brain" - to the point successive govts don't seem to be able to drive decisions or take corrective actions. An institutional version of learned incapacity. The Cummings strain of Brexit delusion was to believe the cause of this was being in the EU; when in fact it's far more to do with internalising Thatcherist policies as an orthodoxy but not really understanding the principles enough to apply it in changing contexts or meld it with other policy frameworks where required dependencies for Thatcherism no longer held. With weak, low calibre leaders who don't even understand the orthodoxy coherently (e.g. Truss) that's a recipe for disaster.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 03:46:24 Yes. Individualising is just shorthand for structural and policy stuff.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 05 04:05:31 Jergtard There has been a lot of sebgul meltdown recently, and for very obvious reasons. There have been many setbacks: Trump crushed your candidate, and Netanyahu crushed your terrorist militias. Those of us who are against terrorist cultists and their woke, cancerous Western allies are having a great time right now. How long will it last, you ask? I have no idea, but I intend to enjoy it as much as I can while remaining fully hedged and secure. Is it perfect? Do I agree with everything CC says? Clearly, I do not. I have admonished her several times over the Jewish issues, and I am on record as fully supporting a great replacement—a permanent exchange program. We send a jergul to Iran and bring a Nima to Norway. There are clearly a lot of defective gene bags in the West with blonde hair and blue eyes; this is undeniable—especially among those with blonde hair and blue eyes. If you examine lactose tolerance in Europe, you'll find that Northern Europeans, the most woke and extreme of the woke extremists, have the highest frequency of lactose tolerance! I say that as someone who happens to be among the 15% of Iranians who can tolerate lactose. However, I don’t have blonde hair and blue eyes. I think it’s this convergence that makes them go crazy, inviting invaders and destroyers to come and invade their women’s vaginas and destroy their homes. :)
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 04:25:43 I fear we will have to agree to disagree on those points dear chum <3.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 05 06:37:25 Nim: The thing where you can't even characterise your opponents position correctly anymore, that's a meltdown. You though, even worse. Can't characterise your allies position. CC posts a list of policies for Britain but that she would recognise as universal for white counties that if applied in your country would mean you and your kids being bundled into a plane to Iran; and your concern is "wheee, the leopards eating faces party is ascendant! I am happy! They don't mean my face." Even though they explicitly said they do.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 05 09:25:50 "Again you are viewing the empire in a very ahistorical modern perspective" Lol. You are saying brits who were born in britain to british families felt that india was an equal to their own home town? Please. No groups of humans ever acted like this. You massed your fleet in britain and called it the home fleet. Everything you say is wrong. Even your own history is distorted in grotesque and blatantly wrong ways, all in the name of satisfying your woke gods.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 09:40:57 That is absolutely not what Seb said.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 05 09:42:09 Jergul flocking to support another losing cause. Classic.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 09:53:35 Sammy, its probably just the adhd acting up. This forum is not your job after all. But you did not understand what Seb wrote. England was always the heart of Empire and local patriotism always existed. His point was that the exploitive nature of the British system was colourblind. Skin tone was irrelevant in the hiring of child labour to work in the textile industries.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 05 09:59:56 “Jergul flocking to support another losing cause. Classic.“ God dam I almost choked to death laughing.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 10:06:56 Good to see you enjoying yourself nimi. Laughter is the best medicine <3.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 05 10:39:53 "England was always the heart of Empire and local patriotism always existed." Ya seb clearly just said the exact opposite of that.
Rugian Member	Thu Dec 05 10:56:52 I'm reading through this thread and yeah I'm struggling with Seb's conception of the Victorian-era UK. Something tells me that if you went back to 1858 and polled a bunch of English locals, zero of them would tell you that the UK was a non-white country.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 11:51:49 Ruggy Maybe if you took your strawman and used it as a handpuppet to ask them? Race was a mostly irrelevant classification around 1850 in the UK is his point.
Rugian Member	Thu Dec 05 12:01:29 Jergul Use whatever semantics you want. White, British, English, whatever. The point is, did a person in London consider himself to be the subject of a fully integrated empire in which he was entirely on an equal basis under the law a
Rugian Member	Thu Dec 05 12:03:40 Fucking spastic thumb. Did a person in London consider himself to be the subject of a fully integrated empire in which he was entirely on an equal and indistinguishable basis under the law and in practic as a colonial. More specifically, an native Indian in, say, Delhi. The answer is a definite no. Colonial subjects were treated differently both in law and in practice from their UK brethren.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 05 12:24:29 "zero of them would tell you that the UK was a non-white country." I bet if a million Africans and hijabis showed up over the course of just a few years, the number would be much higher than zero.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 05 12:28:32 Ruggy That is still not what Seb said. Would a colonial from upper canada have an advantage over a colonial from what would soon be colonial India? And what factor(s) would determine their status once established in England. The answers: Nope and Wealth.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 05 12:38:35 Sam: "You are saying brits who were born in britain to british families felt that india was an equal to their own home town?" I'm saying in 1850 the state didn't give a shit what a bunch of peasant miners or factory workers thought; they were British subjects and should do their fucking jobs for their betters, know their place in working for Queen and country and be fucking thankful they get to be British, and if they got uppity about it they'd get the riot act like at Peterloo. And they felt exactly the same about "the wogs". And that's what they thought I'
Seb Member	Thu Dec 05 12:39:16 The idea that the state was all "yes, you are valid special person because your skin is white and we will give you special rights" is just not how it worked.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 05 12:42:26 You are working back and projecting an idea of *citizenship* to a globe spanning transnational polity run for the benefit of capital holders, and imagining that these guys discriminated between citizens and subjects. Nah. All subjects. With some legal protection and a lot of varying social stigma. But the fundamental point is they didn't think poor white people had more legal weight or status than brown people. They held them all in low esteem.
	show deleted posts