The British National Party

[Whaleboy]

Starchild - If we can do something now that will prevent whites from becoming the minority in 200, 500 or even 1000 years then we should do. This is a long term problem that with determinaton and courage a leader could put an end to now.

Going off at a tangeant, but how, exactly, is that a problem? What does it really matter that white people may die out? You imply us to be a different species or a higher level of consciousness .

I have been to cornwall and saw no important differences between there and Newcastle.

Like I said earlier, there are more cultural differences between me and a countryside dweller than me and an second generation Pakistani immigrant.

Well it turned out true in the end didn't it? I voted Labour in '97 and there are a hell of a lot more black people around.

Byebye credibility

Whaleboy, I dont think I painted all liberals as PC, I said the "PC lobby" not the liberal PC lobby.
You may think an increasingly liberal society is best for Britain but in my opinion it will simply make us weaker. My ideal view of Britain is a nationalist nation where people put the countries needs above their own selfish desires for more money, more money and more money. I do not believe that we should barricade ourselves inside and island of nostalgia anymore than you do, yes we should be proud of our history but I do not want Britain to live a hundred years in the past, we should look forward to the bright future that Britain could have.

It is my view that the best future for Britain lies in greater integration with the rest of the world, resulting in a European federal state, but be that as it may, the best solution for any nation ironically lies in that nation being un-nationalistic.

Please elaborate on what you mean by "weak"?

Cornwall (a British state that was never conquered by Rome, had its own language for 1000 years and was only loosely attached to England until 1700).

Let's not forget the Cornish separatist movement.

The Vikings never really settled in the Danelaw apart from a few town, they were simply the ruling class. Ireland is not a part of Britain, also I should have said England instead of Britain as Britain as state didn't exist until a few centuries ago .

You kidding? They settled in one of the biggest post-Roman migrations! . The Vikings settled to a far greater degree than the Normans, their genetic legacy is clear evidence of that.

The BNP and the like seem to take English national identity as representative of Britain (a common problem in British sociology). Again we see the flaws in the little englander mentality.

I am not arguing the fact that Britain was a Multi-ethnic land in the past but imo in the last 3 centuries a common British culture had emerged, not Welsh, English or Scottish.

I'm sorry but that is a woeful error. This island has some of the greatest cultural diversity for its landmass in the world, and that diversity (the tolerance and individuality it implies) is perhaps the only thing we can define as a "British" trait. There is certainly no homogenous or hegemonic British culture, and 300 years is insufficient time in my opinion for one to develop in any case. Indeed, it was only due to the communications revolution in the mid-19th century (trains and telegraph initially) that regions of Britain had a route to becoming closer than, say, Britain and France.

This was hundreds of years in the past and we are not talking about 2 different ethnic groups uniting into a single kingdom. We are already a single country and all this immigration is bringing us is social divisions.

You've just contradicted yourself. Earlier attributing that division to multiculturalism and saying that you dont oppose small-scale immigration. Now you attribute division and conflict to immigration full stop. Make your mind up. Needless to say, I do not believe the problem to lie in immigration, rather the manner in which it is handled, including the policy of multiculturalism, not the concept in its own right.

This is what really bugs me about your Nationalists and your Golden Age Nostalgic Protectionists. The people constantly trying to appeal to some historic ideal of nationalistic milky tea Englishness tend to turn out to be the people with the scantest idea of what our history actually was.

Milgram would call it a limited span of sympathy. Its far easier for people to barricade themselves behind some fallacious artificial distinction (same skin colour, same geographical location), attribute that distinction some demi-holy status and associate their own identity with it unless they have the intellectual capacity to see beyond their own roadblocks.

[Derekrage]

You're wrong on nearly every count there. I think you need to start examining how much of your knowledge of this country's history is based on assumptions unsupported by fact.

I do not claim to have an extensive knowledge of history, however I think everything that I posted in that post is correct.

Meanwhile you can explain why you think human nature has changed so profoundly in 200 years that the past cannot be used as an example for the present.

Well how can it be? That happened hundreds of years ago and nearly always when an invading power decided to set up shop.

Going off at a tangeant, but how, exactly, is that a problem? What does it really matter that white people may die out? You imply us to be a different species or a higher level of consciousness .

I am white so why would I want white people to die out? I have not in any way implied us to be a different species or a higher level of conciousness.

Like I said earlier, there are more cultural differences between me and a countryside dweller than me and an second generation Pakistani immigrant.

Some second generation Pakistani immigrants, not all. A lot still cling to their backward culture.

Please elaborate on what you mean by "weak"?

I mean weak willed, unable to fight a war without us feeling too much sympathy for the enemy. Unable to do what is best for Britain because it might have an adverse effect on people half way across the world. Take the Falklands war for an example. British territory was invaded and British citizens captured. Yet when we sink an Argentinian warship it is considered a controversial act. What would have happened if Thatcher had of been punished for that action, and then 10 years down the line another PM is in a similar situation, he might let the ship go rather than take the bastard out.
This is an example of the kind of things that would probably happen with a more liberal country.

You've just contradicted yourself. Earlier attributing that division to multiculturalism and saying that you dont oppose small-scale immigration. Now you attribute division and conflict to immigration full stop.

I said this immigration not immigration altogether.


All this talk of history and ethnicity as made me get off my main point, which is that their cultures are inferior to ours (imo) and letting them into our country and actually encouraging them to keep their own beliefs (like the muslim worlds attitude towards women and religious fanaticism) harms not enhances our society.

[Whaleboy]

I do not claim to have an extensive knowledge of history, however I think everything that I posted in that post is correct.

Some of us have studied such aspects of British history and can say you are incorrect.

I am white so why would I want white people to die out? I have not in any way implied us to be a different species or a higher level of conciousness.

It's not a question of wanting people to die out. It's a question of your distinction mattering in this regard. I take it you would rather black people die out than white people, when faced with the choice? To me, its like a toss of the coin, I weight neither side.

Some second generation Pakistani immigrants, not all. A lot still cling to their backward culture.

How is it backward?

What I am trying to say is that there is comparable differences between myself and someone of another British culture, and myself and someone from another nation.

I mean weak willed, unable to fight a war without us feeling too much sympathy for the enemy. Unable to do what is best for Britain because it might have an adverse effect on people half way across the world.

Modus tollens. Attempting to apply a conclusion based upon nationalistic premises to an argument based upon liberal premises does not show a flaw in the liberal argument, particularly when that argument is attacking the one used to critique a supposed flaw as a defense!!

My argument accounts for those people halfway around the world as equal to people closer to home, so thus I do not place the latter into a position of higher conceptual importance as you do. I do not wish to fight a war, and part of my argument involves feeling sympathy for the enemy. Claiming that my argument prevents me from feeling sympathy for the enemy washes like water off a ducks back, it falsely assumes that a premise for my argument is that we should retain the ability to fight an offensive campaign.

Yet when we sink an Argentinian warship it is considered a controversial act. What would have happened if Thatcher had of been punished for that action, and then 10 years down the line another PM is in a similar situation, he might let the ship go rather than take the bastard out.

You do understand the circumstances of the sinking of the Belgrano? Outside of Britains self-imposed exclusion zone, and heading away from the arena of battle! On the other hand, it was a ship of one side of a conflict sunk by another. No wonder it's so contraversial. No dice. The case of the Falklands is a rare example of a justified war of defense, which is a completely different animal to a war of offense, like Suez for example. If you think that governments that are reluctant to declare war and instead seek peace is something that I do not desire, then you are sorely mistaken. Is your idea of someone being a "bastard" (the merits and demerits of that situation are irrelevant) worth peoples lives for the impression of strength? I contend that it is not.

Weakness in terms of military strength is a damn appalling basis for a political ideology, since it contradicts the notion of economic prudence. See my original post for a fuller explanation.

This is an example of the kind of things that would probably happen with a more liberal country.

People living at peace with each other? I can live with that.

I said this immigration not immigration altogether.

You oppose it as long as their culture is inferior?

All this talk of history and ethnicity as made me get off my main point,

Au contrare, if we are talking about immigration, then there is little better to discuss than history and ethnicity. If you're conceding on those grounds however, I note accordingly.

their cultures are inferior to ours (imo)

Do elaborate Upon what grounds are you judging that? The assumptions of our culture to make such an objective statement? . Such subjectivism is a poor basis for a policy concerning the lives of millions.

(like the muslim worlds attitude towards women and religious fanaticism) harms not enhances our society.

The historical flaws in that (it is not an Islamic trait, just as banking is not a Jewish trait) notwithstanding, it is not grounds to block people because of a custom, providing it does not break the law. If it does break the law, well obviously that is unacceptable in which case education or a "be prepared to stop it, or we won't let you in" is called for.

The idea of enhancing a society is basically BS, since there is only change with new problems, it is entirely contextual. The only real progress is scientific and technological, the rest are only philosophical, sociological or contemporary political interpretations of a given set of phenomena. I can think of no better example of relativism attacking the tautology of "enhancing a society".

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Derekrage

I do not claim to have an extensive knowledge of history, however I think everything that I posted in that post is correct.

It isn't. I can recommend many sources (having been studying pre-medieval British history for the past 10 years), but the most accessible is "Blood of the Vikings" which was televised.

Well how can it be? That happened hundreds of years ago and nearly always when an invading power decided to set up shop.

Wrong. The overwhelming majority of Danish and Norse settlers came here with nothing more offensive than a plough. They were farmers, not warriors. Britain could support them easily, just as it can today.

Left to their own devices, without rulers getting uppity, the people just got on with their lives and integration happened organically. Just like it usually does. Don't expect overnight results, but give it a couple of generations and watch the problems recede.

All this talk of history and ethnicity as made me get off my main point, which is that their cultures are inferior to ours (imo) and letting them into our country and actually encouraging them to keep their own beliefs (like the muslim worlds attitude towards women and religious fanaticism) harms not enhances our society.

Derekrage's ancestor, circa 850AD.

"All these Vikings come over here with their higher standards of hygiene, poetic culture and limp-wristed notions of open proto-democratic governance. Bunch of savages! The country's going to the dogs!"

That's another one you can chalk up to the migrants, sunbeam. The world's oldest Parliament- it's in the Isle of Man and it's Viking. Give it time, and the good bits will remain, while the dross gets abandoned. That's how it works.

[Derekrage]

My argument accounts for those people halfway around the world as equal to people closer to home, so thus I do not place the latter into a position of higher conceptual importance as you do. I do not wish to fight a war, and part of my argument involves feeling sympathy for the enemy. Claiming that my argument prevents me from feeling sympathy for the enemy washes like water off a ducks back, it falsely assumes that a premise for my argument is that we should retain the ability to fight an offensive campaign.

But why do you care what happens to people half-way around the world (when they are not allies of Britain)?
They are not British, we have no obligation to them at all. Why care if our policies screw them over and help us?

You do understand the circumstances of the sinking of the Belgrano? Outside of Britains self-imposed exclusion zone, and heading away from the arena of battle! On the other hand, it was a ship of one side of a conflict sunk by another. No wonder it's so contraversial. No dice. The case of the Falklands is a rare example of a justified war of defense, which is a completely different animal to a war of offense, like Suez for example. If you think that governments that are reluctant to declare war and instead seek peace is something that I do not desire, then you are sorely mistaken. Is your idea of someone being a "bastard" (the merits and demerits of that situation are irrelevant) worth peoples lives for the impression of strength? I contend that it is not.

Of course I understand it, my overall knowledge of history might not be brilliant but my knowledge of British military engagements in the latter 20th century is indepth. It doesn't matter whether the Belgrano was travelling away from the exclusion zone or not, it was an enemy ship that might be a threat later on in the war to British troops/ships and to the successful completion of the operation.
And as for Suez, the idea/goal was a good one but the planning of it was a complete shambles.

Lazarus- What good things are there that the muslims are bringing with them?(Except food of course )

Left to their own devices, without rulers getting uppity, the people just got on with their lives and integration happened organically. Just like it usually does. Don't expect overnight results, but give it a couple of generations and watch the problems recede.

But we are not leaving them to their own devices! We are promoting a multi-cultural society, which is encouraging recent arrivals to stay within their own 'group'.

[Whaleboy]

But why do you care what happens to people half-way around the world (when they are not allies of Britain)?
They are not British, we have no obligation to them at all. Why care if our policies screw them over and help us?

Because they are human and I care for the welfare of conscious individuals. Why should I care any more for someone in the next street that I do not know personally more than a person who lives half a world away? Like I said earlier, I don't built a political theory around my personal relationships and outside of that, artificial distinctions are fallacious and imo, not a sound basis for an ethical, foreign, immigration or economic policy.

Of course I understand it, my overall knowledge of history might not be brilliant but my knowledge of British military engagements in the latter 20th century is indepth. It doesn't matter whether the Belgrano was travelling away from the exclusion zone or not, it was an enemy ship that might be a threat later on in the war to British troops/ships and to the successful completion of the operation.

We're not here to debate the merits or demerits of the sinking, it so happens that in the context of the war, and only in that context, that I'd agree with you. If I were the commander of the HMS Conquerer I would have ordered the sinking. Fortunately I have the mindset not to join the military (I'm not quite that gay). I am merely pointing out that there are valid arguments for both sides and the contraversy is not a sign of some apocalyptic liberalisation, unless of course you believe we should accept the excesses and horrors of war because they were committed in the name of this nation, we should thus support them?

And as for Suez, the idea/goal was a good one but the planning of it was a complete shambles.

The goal was wholly unethical. Colonial thinking .

Lazarus- What good things are there that the muslims are bringing with them?(Except food of course )

If I may answer too? The only semitic religion that I know of with praise of intelligence in its holy texts? Strong traditional family values which you would surely support? Many strong bodies, many of whom are educated. A language second only to Hebrew and Sanskrit in terms of its ability to merge the logical, mathematical and the adjective, yet maintain a beautiful form? The list goes on.

But we are not leaving them to their own devices! We are promoting a multi-cultural society, which is encouraging recent arrivals to stay within their own 'group'.

That's exactly the same, unless you just randomly dump them somewhere and say nothing, and therein lies the problem. One must encourage them to integrate, stop them from feeling intimidated (and thus intimidating in return) by the locals. Move into predominately white localities, go to the same schools and educate the locals about the culture, so one does not fear (and thus attack) the unknown.

[Derekrage]

Because they are human and I care for the welfare of conscious individuals. Why should I care any more for someone in the next street that I do not know personally more than a person who lives half a world away?

Because they are British? You would care more about members of your family than a stranger, a nation is simply an extension of family.

Fortunately I have the mindset not to join the military (I'm not quite that gay).

A few years in the military would do you good, give it a few months and they'd knock that pacifist ideology right out of you

The goal was wholly unethical. Colonial thinking .

Ethics shouldn't have much to do with foreign policy, if the Suez canal had of been taken Britains influence in the world would have gone up ten fold and perhaps today we wouldn't depend so much on the US.

If I may answer too? The only semitic religion that I know of with praise of intelligence in its holy texts? Strong traditional family values which you would surely support? Many strong bodies, many of whom are educated. A language second only to Hebrew and Sanskrit in terms of its ability to merge the logical, mathematical and the adjective, yet maintain a beautiful form? The list goes on.

We do not need anymore religious fanatics in Britain, I thought we got rid of them a long time ago. These are hardly magnificent benifits to us are they?

That's exactly the same, unless you just randomly dump them somewhere and say nothing, and therein lies the problem. One must encourage them to integrate, stop them from feeling intimidated (and thus intimidating in return) by the locals. Move into predominately white localities, go to the same schools and educate the locals about the culture, so one does not fear (and thus attack) the unknown.

Well then why can't we just not let them in and avoid all these problems?

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Derekrage
Starchild - If we can do something now that will prevent whites from becoming the minority in 200, 500 or even 1000 years then we should do. This is a long term problem that with determinaton and courage a leader could put an end to now.

Why the emphisis on whites though? Surely if you want our "culture" to survive, it doesn't matter if the people in that culture are white, black, or anything else. Now, if you want white people themselves to survive, come what may, that's an entirely different argument than the one you're using about keeping British culture intact. You're talking about keeping Britain white irregardless of what culture those whites practice.

I mean, you gotta remember that 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, white Britain was the backward culture. We had all these barbaric ideas and primitive concepts floating about while the Muslim culture was smacking the pants off of everyone but China in terms of art, poetry, science, and moral advancement. It was, after all, the Muslims that kept the teachings of the ancient Greeks going while the Western world was getting all Dark Agey. In another thousand years, it may be the exact same situation. We may be the "backwards" culture again and Islamic or Chinese or African societies would be leagues ahead of us. Would you still be so insistint on keeping Britain white if that was the case?

Because they are British? You would care more about members of your family than a stranger, a nation is simply an extension of family.

I've got strong genetic reasons to value members of my family. But beyond that, a nation is nothing more than a temporary arrangement of political and economic power. Britain wasn't a nation until a few hundred years ago when England and Scotland got hitched. England wasn't a nation until the Heptocracy sorted itself out. Nations come and go, people remain. Between you, me and the dark cold oblivion that awaits us all; I dont' care if the person is British or not - I'll care about them. Simply because if we don't take the time to worry about each other, no damn thing in this universe will.

[Whaleboy]

Because they are British? You would care more about members of your family than a stranger, a nation is simply an extension of family.

How exactly do you work that one out?

A few years in the military would do you good, give it a few months and they'd knock that pacifist ideology right out of you

I don't doubt it. Fortunately, I have more important things to do with my life than be trained to kill...

Ethics shouldn't have much to do with foreign policy, if the Suez canal had of been taken Britains influence in the world would have gone up ten fold and perhaps today we wouldn't depend so much on the US.

It's at this point I have to point out the ridiculous nature of that point. Even with the colonial policies in the 19th century, foreign policy was economics tempered with ethics. Unfortunately utilitarianism wasn't too big with the conservatives back then . There is an argument that had the British pressed Suez, World War III could have erupted, which isn't too great for Britains influence abroad now is it?

We do not need anymore religious fanatics in Britain, I thought we got rid of them a long time ago. These are hardly magnificent benifits to us are they?

Muslims are not by default fanatics. The reasons for fundamentalism in any religion is not religious, otherwise all Muslims would be taking up arms against the West. The reasons are sociological. Namely, people that do not welcome them. I suppose you could call it a very human reaction in that sense.

Regarding the benefits, I contend that they most certainly are significant, potent and useable from a sociological and intellectual standpoint. An excellent way to enrich and add to the proverbial pot.

Well then why can't we just not let them in and avoid all these problems?

Because it's easier to tweak the multicultural policy so as not to create ghettos, and furthermore, far more economically beneficial. It is also a question of proportional, logical response, and that is most certainly not it.

I really am interested in hearing your reasons for why Muslims have an inferior culture to you and me? Write it as though you are trying to convince me.

Starchild: Bang on . Sorry about msn, I'm going to bed in a minute.

[Derekrage]

I mean, you gotta remember that 500 years ago, 1000 years ago, white Britain was the backward culture. We had all these barbaric ideas and primitive concepts floating about while the Muslim culture was smacking the pants off of everyone but China in terms of art, poetry, science, and moral advancement. It was, after all, the Muslims that kept the teachings of the ancient Greeks going while the Western world was getting all Dark Agey. In another thousand years, it may be the exact same situation. We may be the "backwards" culture again and Islamic or Chinese or African societies would be leagues ahead of us. Would you still be so insistint on keeping Britain white if that was the case?

The muslims might have been an enlightened civilization in the past but they are no longer, (with a helping hand from us) they now have a culture that is based around religious fanatisism.
In a thousand years if the Islamic world is more advanced than us then of course I wouldn't mind British people picking up some of their beliefs.

How exactly do you work that one out?

Because it is! A nation is simply something that works together because they are better off together. As a nation we can defend our justice system, our parlimentary democracy etc. from We all vote in the same elections, we all pay taxes to the same government and we are all taught in the same education system so we have largely the same ideals and values as the people around us.
Take football as a perfect example, have you seen how differently it is played throughout the world. In England and Scotland it is a physical game but in Spain or Portugal it is virtually a no contact sport, with players going down at the slightest touch because they were taught that is how you play the game.

It's at this point I have to point out the ridiculous nature of that point. Even with the colonial policies in the 19th century, foreign policy was economics tempered with ethics. Unfortunately utilitarianism wasn't too big with the conservatives back then . ?

I'm not saying we should ignore ethics altogether and go around wiping nations off the map, but British interests should come first.

There is an argument that had the British pressed Suez, World War III could have erupted, which isn't too great for Britains influence abroad now is it?

I do not agree with that argument, yes the Soviets would have made a big fuss over (and did, they threatened to nuke us and the French) but they would not risk a war for the Suez canal.

I really am interested in hearing your reasons for why Muslims have an inferior culture to you and me?

Three simple reasons:

1. Democracy

2. Social attitudes (womens rights, gay rights etc.)

3. A fair justice system, unlike the muslims sharia(sp?) law which Im sure some muslim clerics in Britain will support.

[Solly]

Because they are British? You would care more about members of your family than a stranger, a nation is simply an extension of family.

Best comment in this thread so far.

[Whaleboy]

The muslims might have been an enlightened civilization in the past but they are no longer, (with a helping hand from us) they now have a culture that is based around religious fanatisism.

That demonstrates very poor understanding of the Muslim world. Go to Pakistan, go to Saudi, they don't base their societies upon some hatred of the West. They base it on Islam. You go out there, you look at the people on the street, you look at the foundation of their society and you'll see we're really not that different.

In a thousand years if the Islamic world is more advanced than us then of course I wouldn't mind British people picking up some of their beliefs.

Your problem here is subjectivity that even some among us are able to account for, you seemingly cannot and take your own views of other cultures, and your ascribed notions of worth, as objective and seemingly willing to use them to make decisions affecting both. That is a sign of hegemony, a belief in the dominance of ones own culture, and when faced with the issue of equal validity, your argument seems to crumble. What you concluse is based upon your own premises, so whereas you would disagree with a conclusion that is based upon other premises, you cannot attack the validity of that conclusion for those given assumptions, and then call one culture superior and one inferior. Read Alice in Wonderland, you'll understand.

Because it is!

Not good enough.

A nation is simply something that works together because they are better off together. As a nation we can defend our justice system, our parlimentary democracy etc. from We all vote in the same elections, we all pay taxes to the same government and we are all taught in the same education system so we have largely the same ideals and values as the people around us.

You're kidding aren't you? Necessary and sufficient conditions, are we necessarily better of together, or merely sufficently so?

Nonetheless, political, economic and statute devices are insufficient in my opinion to justify anything like a family, and certainly not wish to defend any artificial distinction that would seperate me from other people.

Take football as a perfect example, have you seen how differently it is played throughout the world. In England and Scotland it is a physical game but in Spain or Portugal it is virtually a no contact sport, with players going down at the slightest touch because they were taught that is how you play the game.

Ergo they are a family? Therefore Scottish people cannot learn to play Spanish football?

I'm not saying we should ignore ethics altogether and go around wiping nations off the map, but British interests should come first.

Above other nations instead of equal consideration in a utilitarian sense? Beneficial to Britain at the expense of others? I don't buy that. Beneficial to Britain at no expense, or mutual benefit, is a good foreign policy. Think of all the problems in the world caused by your argument there.

Three simple reasons:

1. Democracy

2. Social attitudes (womens rights, gay rights etc.)

3. A fair justice system, unlike the muslims sharia(sp?) law which Im sure some muslim clerics in Britain will support

Sharia has elements of fairness about it, and it is consistent, it just so happens that in my opinion the principles of that consistency sucks. Nonetheless, to each his own. You have provided no reason for superiority, does democracy or certain social attitudes make a culture superior? How so? All you have done is illustrated differences, and stated that you prefer things this way. That is grossly insufficient to make a claim of superiority. The Hume gap would seem to be applicable here.

Best comment in this thread so far.

Oh you do make me laugh PA

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Derekrage
Because it is! A nation is simply something that works together because they are better off together. As a nation we can defend our justice system, our parlimentary democracy etc. from We all vote in the same elections, we all pay taxes to the same government and we are all taught in the same education system so we have largely the same ideals and values as the people around us.
Take football as a perfect example, have you seen how differently it is played throughout the world. In England and Scotland it is a physical game but in Spain or Portugal it is virtually a no contact sport, with players going down at the slightest touch because they were taught that is how you play the game.

And in a hundred years if we're all a big happy European family, with our justice system, our European Parliamentary Democracy, paying our mutual taxes and voting in our common elections we'll look back and think how silly it was to harp on about UK interests just like we currently look back and can't really see what all the fuss between Mercia and the Kingdom of the East Angles was about.

You still haven't explained why a nation is anything more than a temporary arrangement of social/economic power and why it deserves exceptional amounts of loyalty that other temporary social/economic arrangements (companies, organisations, the EU, UN, blah blah blah) don't.

[Derekrage]

That demonstrates very poor understanding of the Muslim world. Go to Pakistan, go to Saudi, they don't base their societies upon some hatred of the West. They base it on Islam. You go out there, you look at the people on the street, you look at the foundation of their society and you'll see we're really not that different.

I said based on religious fanatisism which equals based in Islam.

Nonetheless, political, economic and statute devices are insufficient in my opinion to justify anything like a family, and certainly not wish to defend any artificial distinction that would seperate me from other people.

In my opinion it is.

Above other nations instead of equal consideration in a utilitarian sense? Beneficial to Britain at the expense of others? I don't buy that. Beneficial to Britain at no expense, or mutual benefit, is a good foreign policy. Think of all the problems in the world caused by your argument there.

I don't understand you're point of view on this issue, if it is benificial to Britain but harms another country then so what? The British government is elected to serve the British people not the world.

Sharia has elements of fairness about it, and it is consistent, it just so happens that in my opinion the principles of that consistency sucks. Nonetheless, to each his own. You have provided no reason for superiority, does democracy or certain social attitudes make a culture superior? .

Sharia has an element of fairness to it? It is insane. Democracy and certain social attitudes and scientific progress do make a culture superior, that is how it has always been, the Athenians were superior to the Persians, the Romans to the Goths and the American settlers to the native Americans.

All you have done is illustrated differences, and stated that you prefer things this way.

Which will then obviously lead me to the conclusion that our culture is superior because of those differences.

[Derekrage]

And in a hundred years if we're all a big happy European family, with our justice system, our European Parliamentary Democracy, paying our mutual taxes and voting in our common elections we'll look back and think how silly it was to harp on about UK interests just like we currently look back and can't really see what all the fuss between Mercia and the Kingdom of the East Angles was about.

We might be, but with any luck we'll be looking back and thanking god that the European nations realised that a political union was a stupid idea and an economic block was a better way forward for the peoples of Europe.

You still haven't explained why a nation is anything more than a temporary arrangement of social/economic power and why it deserves exceptional amounts of loyalty that other temporary social/economic arrangements (companies, organisations, the EU, UN, blah blah blah) don't.

The UN and EU are simply treaties between nations, Britain is our country so it deserves our loyalty, and in the end what is good for the country as a whole will benifit the individual. Therefore it is in our individual interests to support our country.