Tommy Robinson wants to bring more indians in to UK.
(twitter.com)
Comments (43)
sorted by:
Check who funds Tommy Robinson. Take a guess before you check. You guessed right.
His real name is "Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon"
never trust anyone who changes their name
I honestly would have a hard time trusting anyone with a hyphenated last name either. Means his genetics come from a line of a feminist and weak-man.
Changing names is a very common tactic certain groups of people do when they try to market a popular figurehead to the masses.
Guys be sittin out there named Angus McSpittle, and jewdar activates.
*thinks about when women get married*
Checks out.
ger111?
Sophie, Ger's been here for some time.
Not sure if it was noticed, but ger did seem to be hibernating for about a month before Telia was banned and went full-throttle with posting (unless ger had purged everything from the past month when it happened, not sure, but possible).
It's kind of sus, but ger definitely has been around prior to that. Someone has to take up the jewposting mantle on every free speech forum.
Jesus, you Leftists really don't even have different arguments.
Do you write for the BBC when you're not here?
It's sad people are just now figuring out he's been controlled opposition this entire time.
We tried that with bringing in predator animals to kill invasive species in different countries.
It majority of the time didn't work and created more problems.
Why would we do it with something that can open doors and use the same weapons as us?
Yeah. While it's true that black gangs have been purged from wide swathes of the American southwest, the cartels replacing them aren't an improvement.
They are, actually. But not the kind of improvement I want.
If you compare what black gangs to do outsiders to what cartels do to outsiders, it's worse. Cartels impose a kind of order that fractious blacks can't. Of course, they are cruel to each other. That's a given with the gangs. I think blacks kill more.
Consider even if a cartel kills a mayor. That's one person of influence. That's effective bang for your kill buck. Blacks would rape and kill random weak people.
They're more predictable. More disciplined. Less prone to random chimp outs. But also more dangerous.
When the local whites/Asians decide enough is enough and develop the political and cultural will to clean up the streets, they would much rather be facing fractured low IQ black gangs than highly disciplined and organized hispanic cartels.
Definitely. But getting rid of cartels is easier than you'd think. As long as the cartels aren't supported by the population. Bukele has proven that.
It's hard if they've captured the political system. I guess you can look at that as popular support. But it's not any more than Wal**Mart has public support. The growth of a big business around people can happen despite them. Sometimes people even tried to keep Wal*Mart out.
I mean, to be fair, sikhs know how to deal with jihadis, lol
As is normal with the Stormfags who think he's a race traitor...
He is not saying literally bring everyone in, he's saying those are the type of people that are okay to bring in if you are trying to save the Pension Ponzi scheme, and not muslim terrorists whom you faggots are actively defending.
Sure, be he isn't a race traitor because he's a Jew and as we've established at length, Whites who are racially conscious don't consider Jews to be White, ergo why would we consider him a race traitor?
On the whole I'd say he's a net positive for Britain in that he at least does something to normalize the notion that it's ok for the British people to push back against an unending influx of people who want to kill them. Sad that such a thing needs to be normalized, but such is the hellscape that exists today.
i take it you haven't heard of the term "controlled opposition" before? there are way better people than Tommy Robinson but they are either in jail or are not given any media attention. Tommy Robinson is similar to Ben Shapiro in that he's propped up by the media to be the "voice" of the opposition instead of having actual legitimate nationalists be the voice of the opposition.
I'm well aware. However I think it's a tightrope for them to walk because once that seed of an idea is planted, it comes with the risk of the masses taking it for themselves and running with it and breaking free of their pied piper.
Because you know you are wrong, which is why you're constantly trying to look out for "jewish subversion", and why you accuse everyone you don't like of being a jew, like Tommy.
Look, I know it’s probably not worth trying to engage with you in good faith on this at all, but setting aside any question of whether Jews are particularly good or bad or anything for a society, they do see themselves as a separate ethnic group. Israel is predicated on this. Famous Jewish neighborhoods and enclaves like in Brooklyn are predicated on this. Be it Jews themselves, people who dislike Jews, or people who don’t really care but at least acknowledge obvious reality, the idea that an ethnic identity that is “a Jew” exists has never really been in dispute (except among those who are deliberately prevaricating). And without necessarily saying “whites shouldn’t get along with Jews,” I see absolutely no issue with saying “whites should be aware that ‘Jew’ is a distinct ethnic identity that has members that see themselves as distinct from the identity of ‘white’ and, in questions of group interests and group identity, whites should take that into account.” Because that’s simply true.
If you engage with me in good faith, you'll find my responses much different than, "shut up stormfag". That's my response because no National Socialist has ever yet interacted with me in good faith. Even the smart ones like Arch. It's actually infuriating.
So, here's my good faith response. Neither white nor jew is an ethnic identity. This is the problem of intentionally stuffing them into the wrong category.
Race is not an ethnicity, nor a religion. A race contains multiple ethnicities, and it may contain at least one religion. A religion is neither a race nor an ethnicity. A religion may contain one race, or it may contain multiple races given it's size. However, a religious sect typically only contains one race. Any religion of significance is typically multi-ethnic. An ethnicity may contain typically contains only religion. Races contain ethnicities, and not the other way around.
The hierarchy of familial categories that make nations from narrowest to broadest go as follows:
As such, jew is not an ethnos. It is a religious sect. Ashkenazi Jew is an ethnic group. Judaism is a multi-ethnic religion. White is race. It is a multi-ethnic race. White is sufficiently broad that it actually contains multiple religions, one of which is Judaism. This is why it "white jews" are not contradictory terms, it's race, then religion, with no ethnic group specified.
They sometimes see themselves as separate. Many jews integrated into the US to such a degree that it is used against them in Israel for being secular. German jews identified themselves as "Germans of a mosaic faith". If you are operating in bad faith, you assert an unfalsifiable position that every jew that integrates is a subversive, and every jew that doesn't is a separatist.
In many cases, particularly among Americans, they are simply wrong and are trying to avoid the category of being "white", while trying to benefit from being "jew", while pretending they are not white, and pretending they are jew, while not practicing Judaism.
At that point, they can be safely dismissed as a Rachel Dolezal level Leftist.
But you can make this same argument for a lot of groups. Not along exactly the same lines, sure, but it's totally reasonable to say that, for example, a person that is born and raised in the US but ethnically Japanese, or Indian, or Afghanistan may not fit well into the nation of their ethnic ancestors... but it also doesn't stop me from noticing that they do have this part of their identity that is different from mine. It doesn't mean they have to be my enemy or my ally, but it is healthy and appropriate to acknowledge it, especially if I am explicitly considering how different identity groups interact and what their incentives might be.
I also reject the idea that "white" should contain "Jewish." "White" is loosely "European," or at the very least it is in most of the contexts in which you will see it on this board, something you should very well be aware of. As such, it would not contain a Middle Eastern group like the Jews. If you argue "actually, 'white' is X category for Y reasons and therefore I can fit Jews into it," sure maybe you can make a coherent category that does that, but you're still not addressing the actual point being made when most of the posters here use "white."
That depends. They may be ethnically American. American is both a Nation, by virtue of civic assimilation, but may also be (or becoming) an ethnos. If they are ethnically Japanese, they will have to join America civic-ly, and integrate into the US. Over a few generations, their decedents may become ethnically American.
I'm not saying White contains Jewish by definition. That's the point of European Jews. They are White Jews. There are also White Muslims. Judaism is a religion that contains multiple ethnic groups. Some Jews are European, but some are also Middle-Eastern and African. It's not that White is a full container for all Jews. It's that there are Jews that are White.
Unfortunately, many of the idiot users here are asserting a "White" that simply doesn't exist at all. A biologically homogenous European racial solidarity movement. There is no such thing as that. There is no racial solidarity between Albanians, Portuguese, Celts, Swiss, Boer, and Finns. The American definition of White is simply a container of "European", where as the British concept of "White" is basically just British, or Anglo-Saxon. What stupid people here like to do is desperately smash them all together where all "Europeanoids" are just culturally Saxon-Anglos that can only be saved by Socialism, if it just wasn't for those pesky jews.
My issue is that the Socialists here don't have points at all, and aren't engaging in an honest discussion about ethnicity in the first place when they aren't willing to accept distinctions between race, religion, ethnos, culture, and genetics. It's a completely upside-down idea that it starts with genetics, and then genetics informs race, and then race informs culture, religion, ethos, kin, clan, tribe, individual people, and nations equally, at the same time, to the same degree.
It is an intentional reduction of nuance to fit it into a historical dialectic. I can't accept the point, because the point is based on a false premise.
This argument is why I unironically prefer Aryan, it’s where we descended from and also doesn’t include yids.
That's stupid. The Aryans literally don't exist anymore. You are, at best, a partial descendent of an Aryan, but so are the Indians and Persians.
You're doing that lying thing again. It makes you a bad person.
"racial consciousness" is not the sole possession of the National Socialists.
Sorry, Jews are a religion, and Whites are a race. White Jews, Black Muslims, same difference.
Jews are not solely a religion. You are being dishonest and therefore a bad person.
I don't understand why you struggle with this so much.
I'm not being dishonest at all. Jews are a religious group that contains multi-ethnic components.
Put it like this, what would happen if there was no Judaism. Would the jews remain an "ethnic group"?
Well, considering their culture, language, economic ties, traditions, values, and even breeding/marriage rites are determined solely by their religion, they couldn't continue to have any ethnos. The Persians have ethnos exist regardless of whether or not they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or Zoroastrian. This can not be the case with Jews. Without Judaism, they are simply not Jews and there would be nothing to bind them. Jews in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, Africa, and the Middle East would simply meld into the rest of the populations in those areas, and be at best fully segregated ethnic groups unrelated to other formerly "jewish" ethnos.
So, no. Jews can't remain an "ethnic group" without Judaism, because they aren't an ethnic group to begin with. They are tied by religion.
I’m not defending mudslimes at all, the ones in Palestine aren’t causing me issues and are fighting my enemy, so ofc I’m good with ‘em, the ones in my lands, fuck ‘em they don’t belong
No, you're good with them when they come over here and rape your sister. It's why you repeat whatever propaganda you get spoon fed to you by Qatar, and make their arguments more sympathetic.
Additionally, your efforts help to defeat populist sentiment, that way you're doubly effective at supporting both jihadis and the establishment.
You got me, hail Joe Biden and Allah Akbar!
I know.
As a Canadian who heard about the street shitters ruining our beaches, I can now say that third worlders in general are bad.
I find Britain done at this point. Why not? let the country fester and any sane people should just think about getting out and maybe think about next time not to vote for shit politicians.
He looks like a real handsome White guy, but he’s actually a shapeshifting kike
Go figure