All are perfectly reasonable except for the disappointingly limp-wristed reference to voluntary repatriations. Boot out all the tiresome preachers and the ten-percent of the U.K. prison population who claim to be Muslims; Libya or Chad would be delighted to welcome them all, I’m sure.

Look, Sufis and Ismailis and Ahmedis are NO problem and nor are many of the others. Simply a brisk programme of expulsion, that’s all!

“jewish-christian” culture – yeah same thing that underpins Islamic culture..so fat lot of difference.

Rubbish. The essential underpinning of Islamic culture is Bedouin banditry. An enterprising warlord borrowed some notions from the neighboring “jewish-christian” milieu to inspire his followers with delusions of divine destiny, that’s all.

It’s only a small place and because of its location, sufferd badly during the war.
According to this wikipedia entry, they delt with the drugs tourist problem (as most of the buyers were Germans), by putting the coffee shops out on the edge of the city closer to the German border. A very Dutch solution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venlo

they ought to try and become more cosmopolitan.

“jewish-christian” culture – yeah same thing that underpins Islamic culture..so fat lot of difference.

yes this man makes the BNP look cosmpolitan.

he clearly needs to partake of some lovely green stuff at a cafe..where is the love?!

The Netherlands was once the most tolerant place on earth. But mass immigration has really f*cked-up Dutch society.

I agree, to some extent, with everything on his 10-point-plan except for “the right to religious freedom should not apply to Islam.”

Freedom of thought should apply to everything. But Islam should not be appeased or treated with ‘respect’ just because it is a ‘religion’.

“Bizarre – Wilders represents the absolute worst aspects of western culture.”

escuse me Munir, but aren’t you tired, speaking for europeans? get some rest, darling!)))

wilders represenst the lost ascept of european culture – self-respect!

some allusions to Hollocaust are ridiculous, guys!

german nazi really sent people to gaz cameras. but Wilders is only about to send you to your Motherlands!

oh, Motherland, what could be better?)))

you don’t really see the reason to deport Abu Qatada who called for killing non-muslims – at least – but you are so scared of Wilders who never did this, who just telling the true about Islam

stop hiding behind this stupid phrase “he sees no difference between Islam and Islamism” – it is ridiculous!

your opinions here – I mean the muslim’s opinion – clear show that there is no distinction for you

WHEN ISLAMIST IS ARRESTED AND TRIED YOU START SCREAMING “OH HE IS TRIED FOR BEING MUSLIM!”

IT MEANS THAT ISLAM AND ISLAMISM IS THE SAME FOR YOU, YOU DON’T WANT TO STAY AWAY FROM ISLAMISTS. AND PRETENDING TO PROTECT MUSLIMS RIGHTS, YOU ACTUALLY PROTECT ISLAMISTS LIKE ABU QATADA AND OTHERS TO ESPRESS THEIR HATRED

there is no hate in Wilders Speech or movie – he just shows YOUR hate

Many of the things the British and other nations did in the past were shameful, some of the things they do now continue to be shameful but that’s isn’t what we’re talking about here is it. It’s such a childlike argument to say “well you did something bad so now I’m going to do something bad.” Try refuting my actual point please.

The point I was making, which was and is very clear to anyone who reads my post, is that I cannot find one country to which Martins criteria could be applied.

1. Let’s hear of one state with a muslim majority that lives in peace with its own non muslim citizens & does not discriminate against them.
Let’s hear of one muslim state that lives at peace with its neighbours.
Let’s hear of one muslim state where women have identical rights to men

I might be wrong and that beacon of Muslim tolerance, sexual equality and freedom might be out there but I’m still looking.

As for blah on 8th May, 2009 at 5:20 pm who said that the figure of 57% of people in Jordan who support suicide bombings and other violent actions are justifiable in defence of Islam was “dwarfed” by the figure of 24% of Americans who think the same, hmm someone needs some serious maths lessons!

Even if you were to use the figure of “46 percent of Americans think that “bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are “never justified,” you will still find that only 53% would support such attacks, last time I checked 53% was still less than 57%! Don’t let basic truths, logic or arithmetic get in the way of your arguments though boys.

try again please!

My point is, I abhor the BNP and their like as much as anyone else on here. But there will always be people who don’t like the transformations that are naturally taking place across the world. Nostalgists.
Hating them is understandable – and for the activist bigots in organised fascist parties, it’s right and propper too.
But just your moaning every day run of the mill racists, I almost think pity (for them) is a better response.

Or is it a tail between the legs and running away syndrome affected you to come back with a half decent retort– I know thats too much to ask from ignorant fools who think colour of your skin matters.

For a second please do not think Jai’s comments mean that we are not up for a debate — we are. But as he says so far its been far too easy to kill your arguments — so bring on some of your bigger guns if you would please.

And, I bet Sunny would not mind publishing that debate and I am sure a lot of other blogs and other publications (including mine) would love to highlight how some apparent racial foreigners show BNP up for exatly what it is a bunch of ignorant fools who are nothing but a meance to society and who should be locked up in mental institutions.

But you lot are chicken shit aren’t you?

Where exactly? Please provide the precise links.

Every single incident in relation to the aforementioned examples has been responded to by myself and/or other commenters on multiple threads on Pickled Politics. It speaks volumes about your reading skills — or possibly just your level of honesty — that you claim to be unaware of this. I suggest you browse through PP’s archives where you’ve stated your opinions on racial matters and look at the evidence yourself.

If, subsequently, you’re still unable to psychologically register the information & responses there (along with their ramifications) or indeed understand exactly why your support of the BNP automatically renders you an invalid advocate of any “scientific” findings regarding race, then I suggest you speak to your GP and request a referral to an appropriate psychiatrist for a formal assessment. Alternatively, I would be happy to pull some strings and discreetly make the necessary arrangements on your behalf; let me know if you’d like me to do this.

I have endeavoured and no doubt failed on occasion to argue

Well, I’m glad you’ve finally come to terms with your disability, Bert.

Moving swiftly on…..

What it comes down to, Mr George Fitzhugh, is that you’ve been correctly identified as having very nasty reasons indeed for persistently attempting to promote insidious racist propaganda regarding so-called “racial foreigners”, the alleged “intellectual inferiority” of South Asians and people of black/African origin/descent in comparison with white people, and anything else related to race which you have presumed to pontificate about.

The fact that, despite your ongoing attempts at obfuscation and the formulation of irrelevant non sequitur arguments, a random selection of South Asian commenters on this blog has easily been able to intellectually run rings around you without so much as breaking into a sweat should tell you something about your so-called “superiority”. It’s been like shooting fish in a barrel — and the fish are very small, the barrel is absolutely tiny, and the gun is a very large assault rifle.

The only constructive way forward is for you to either renounce the BNP and everything they stand for, or engage in a graceful exit from your current trajectory on this website. It’s up to you.

In the meantime, take this message back to your friend Nick Griffin: Tell that cross-burning little motherfucker that the next time he decides to send one of his Neo-Nazi minions here to do his dirty work, he should select a suitable footsoldier who’s actually competent to do the job properly and isn’t a liability to his deranged cult, rather than a pretentious little redneck who can barely string a coherent argument together and doesn’t even have the scientific aptitude of the average ten-year-old child.

Now run along, before I say something unkind.

Where exactly? Please provide the precise links. If you do not provide them then I will conclude that they do not exist. If you do provide them and they are as you say they are, then I will do my best to correct them.

Even if you were making these unsubstantiated assertions about a third party, as you are anonymous I could place no reliance at all on such assertions, rather I could only rely on the actual statements by said third party. Indeed the only worth of unsubstatntiated assertions is to alert one to a topic of potential interest.

Indeed. If you write that Brown said X on Newsnight, I would have no reason to doubt that Brown did indeed say X on Newsnight. If I wished to investigate further, I would click on the link your provided and see for myself.

If you write that Brown said X on Newsnight which means that he believes Z because he is a complete nutter, I pass immediately to the next comment.

Douglas clark 141 wrote … There are thusly, unreliable authorial voices …

Indeed, which one judges by the quality of their argument, the whole argument and nothing but the argument.

Douglas clark 141 wrote … I am familiar with the way that science works. … ‘peer review’. So, only ideas that have survived that process … get to be considered mainstream. …

Therefore you are aware that authors declare their academic affiliations, not political, sexual, culinary or religious affiliations.

Douglas clark 141 wrote … So, it seems to me that a political argument ought to obey the same rules of clarity. …

I do not debate whether X% or 2X% of GDP should be spent on promoting equality of females in the interests of equality, reparations or retribution against males. This is a matter of personal opinion, akin to whether colour X or colour Y goes best with colour Z. Other examples are my god is better than your god, or how many angels can dance on a head of a pin.

I have endeavoured and no doubt failed on occasion to argue as follows.

Compare reports of the lack of women in top jobs being due to sexism without mention of the fact males have a much wider range of IQ than females and that the bulk of really clever people are male. However alluding to the fact that the bulk of really stupid people are male is OK. Or compare reports of the lack of women in top jobs being due to sexism with the absence of a similar argument that the male/female incarceration rate is due to sexism.

As you are familiar with the way that science works, the difference is presumably immediately apparent to you.

Douglas clark 141 wrote … If you have been reading this site for a while, you’ll know that I am a member of the SNP, you’ll also know that Rumbold is a UK Libertarian. …

I have been reading this site for a while but I knew neither of your professed political affiliations. Furthermore, I do not know whether Rumbold and douglas clark are one and the same individual, collectives, lovers or incarcerated in Parkhurst for mass murder. All are equally relevant.

douglas clark 141 wrote … You, on the other hand are not willing to admit or deny your political affiliations. Quite why that would be, unless the revelation of them was likely to expose your arguements as biased, is beyond me…

See my arguments above.

In addition, whatever personal information I disclose to you is unverifiable. However, I am willing to reveal that I am Spartacus and I have possessed the leader of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, he just doesn’t know it yet, unlike his wife, who is actually Lord Lucan.

I thank you for your civility. Unfortunately I have not had time to participate in the subject of this thread after my original comment. However, as Auster has been mentioned quite a few times since, presumably some feel that Auster made a worthwhile addition to this thread.

If the editor of pickledpolitics informs me that it is not possible to comment anonymously, then I will comment here after that.

Moreover, I will not return as Dogless Bark, Red Rumbold or Sunny Jim!

I was only trying, badly as usual, to lighten up the discussion. Frankly these arguements about who invented what don’t really do it for me. I am Scottish, and if you like, I can list Scots who invented everything that ever mattered. It is, of course, a very debateable collection of factoids.

We claim, for instance, to have invented television, through a guy called John Logie Baird, except that his version of TV bears no relationship to how your TV actually works.

Most Muslims I have met in real life have been decent enough people, but you could equally apply that to most people I have met. I suppose you could take my philosophy as coming from one single line from one of our poets. He said:

“We’re all Jock Tamsons bairns”

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Tamson

The link to Burns doesn’t work, but this one does:

http://www.robertburns.org/works/496.shtml

That is, more or less, what I think.

Jai 116 wrote … Bert Rustle repeatedly and consistently omits critical information when selectively quoting from sources ….

Please provide explicit examples of this. Please be precise.

Already provided on previous occasions.

Jai 116 wrote … skewed interpretation and exploitation of various scientific theories & findings …

Please provide explicit examples of this. Please be precise.

Already provided on previous occasions.

Jai 116 wrote … the conclusions he attempts to draw from them …

Please provide explicit examples of this. Please be precise.

Already provided on previous occasions.

Do you demand to know the race of your protagonists, or only their political affiliation?

Depends on the specific discussion.

How is one relevant in such discussions but not the other?

Both are relevant when the protagonist is a member of a political organisation with an explicitly racist agenda and is engaged in a discussion about racial matters.

Yet again, not rocket science. Either you’re feigning innocence or you’re actually not very bright. (Incidentally, the same applies to your post #136 in response to Qidniz’s remark in #111).

In my opinion, as long as one deals in facts and not “facts” the difficulties you mention cannot arise. Moreover, in all of the academic papers I have quoted here or elsewhere, none of the authors declare their political, racial or sexual preferences.

In your opinion, do academic papers have to have the political affiliations of the authors listed, as well as their academic ones? Does each such piece of research have to have a Diverse authorship? Do you want Identity Science?

More generally, what other political affiliations do you wish to know? The National Front Perhaps? Are there any affiliations to political parties outside the British Isles which you wish to know of?

The bottom line, Einstein, is that you’ve been busted as a member of the BNP, which therefore discredits you as a participant in any discussions on this website involving race as it exposes your thinking & motivations to be biased and driven by a racist agenda. It doesn’t exactly reflect very well on your character either.

Facts, not “facts”.

Indeed. I wonder if you have the intelligence and self-awareness to grasp the irony of making this statement. I doubt it.