ForumGarden

I read through this and was agreeing most of the way, then it turned into a bit of a loony rant.

I can follow the logic and agree with much of it, and suddenly all the authors logic goes out the window.

Not for those with a short attention span.....ie myself.

We are not lone individuals engaged in a struggle against nature, but social animals, who have our individual rights to liberty in a free country, but who are nevertheless part of a wider society, culture and economy. We have the right to expect the support of the society around us, which is why we also have the duty to uphold it to the extent that it protects us from the depredations of nature and wild animals and the bad behaviour of other human beings. Society is not meant to be a war of all against all, but a coming together of human beings in a way that promotes the good of each of them.

Bruv;1474604 wrote: I read through this and was agreeing most of the way, then it turned into a bit of a loony rant.

I can follow the logic and agree with much of it, and suddenly all the authors logic goes out the window.

Not for those with a short attention span.....ie myself.


Here is the link.

Whose nation is it really?



You know better to not link.

:sneaky:

This is interesting to me.

tude dog;1474620 wrote: Here is the link.

Whose nation is it really?



You know better to not link.

:sneaky:

This is interesting to me.


Sorry my bad, genuine oversight, no point posting without the link.

The bit you quoted doesn't appear to be where the author ended up, the way I read it.

What immigration has come to in the US seems to me to be a strategy for building a voter base. We have nations out there that could really benefit from a release valve on their population, yet we are only interested in select groups.

Rantings of a racist.

The Libertarian Alliance Blog

flopstock;1474640 wrote: The bit you quoted doesn't appear to be where the author ended up, the way I read it.

What immigration has come to in the US seems to me to be a strategy for building a voter base. We have nations out there that could really benefit from a release valve on their population, yet we are only interested in select groups.


For all practical proposes we have no Southern Border thanks to Barry's 'Pen and Phone'.

tude dog;1474643 wrote: For all practical proposes we have no Southern Border thanks to Barry's 'Pen and Phone'.


That's absolutely wrong. Obama has deported more "illegals" than any other president. Get your facts straight. Remember, also, the two Bush boys, GW & Jeb & Reagan, who first allowed for amnesty. The 2 Bush govs were highly sloppy when it came to borders.

"Barry" -- how very immature, 6th grade stuff, IMO.

Didn't want you to think I'm getting soft on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He started losing me somewhere around the 4th of 5th paragraph.

Besides, the time to decide what it means to be "English" or "British" passed a long while back.

Most of us are all mongrels.

AnneBoleyn;1474654 wrote: That's absolutely wrong. Obama has deported more "illegals" than any other president. Get your facts straight. Remember, also, the two Bush boys, GW & Jeb & Reagan, who first allowed for amnesty. The 2 Bush govs were highly sloppy when it came to borders.

"Barry" -- how very immature, 6th grade stuff, IMO.

Didn't want you to think I'm getting soft on you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Some people only see what they want to see.........Tude has admitted that.

I know next to nothing about my history, but I do know that all the mixtures down the ages were not welcomed with open arms.

The Romans 'invaded' the Vikings 'invaded' the various tribes and factions fought up and down the country through generations and generations spilling blood on this green and pleasant land...........and that's not mentioning the religious strife.

The way that blog reads we all got along fine from day one, because we had so much in common, we didn't, and we are still at it today.

I too have a short attention span so I am confining myself to the first 3 paragraphs of the “Nations vs. nationalities” segment - partly because I like simplicity and partly because I haven't read anything beyond it. The author's main conviction here is “Nations are not artificially created”, yes? So he says:



D J Webb wrote: “Nations are not artificially created: a European directive announcing that all Europeans were henceforth to be considered a single nation would not make it so. The roots of real nations are not in legislation or bureaucratic regulations, but are lost in the mists of time. …...... We have a common history, common ancestry, a common language, a common culture, common religious roots, as well as understood mores and social expectations. None of this can be created by bureaucratic will.”



“The monarchy traces its roots back to the Saxon chieftains of the sixth century. This is not a nation created by Parliament.”



“To be part of the English nation is a very great thing to the English, and arguably something that attracts widespread respect throughout the world. We have given the world our language; we were the first industrial country, with a disproportionate number of key inventions to our name; our political set-up has been propagated throughout the world; and England is the “mother country” of countless states beyond the seas. In 1900, or indeed at any time before the late 1960s, it would have been no exaggeration—just the truth—to say that England was the greatest nation in the world.”


And what does he mean by “mother country”? He sews it all up in his declaration, “ … a very great thing … “ and “... widespread respect throughout the world ...”. But didn't this “very great thing … the MOTHER COUNTRY …. that enjoys widespread respect through the world ... create the “countless states beyond the seas” ARTIFICIALLY - Legislatively and bureaucratically? And anyway – isn't the notion of a “Nation” an artificially created concept in the first place?

:-3:yh_hypno:yh_silly:yh_wait:yh_cow

normally I would have topped reading at this point

In the case of the English, we know that the Angles, Saxons and Jutes arrived in England in the fifth century, speaking closely related dialects of Old English, and that from the middle of the seventh century the Church of England united them. It is not necessary to be a believer in religion today for this to have significance: many cultural assumptions derive from our religious roots. The “law of the land”—English Common Law—was not promulgated by some emperor or potentate, but derived from the customs of the English people before the Norman Conquest in 1066. The monarchy traces its roots back to the Saxon chieftains of the sixth century. This is not a nation created by Parliament.




7th century church of England? the irish saints would be birling in their graves.

A great nation was created in 1707, fusing, but not destroying, the compatible component nations of England and Scotland, nations whose populations ultimately had similar origins. The Union was nonetheless clearly rooted in the constitution and political values of England. Freedom is particularly associated with England, rather than Scotland, and the grounding of the British nation in an English concept of liberty is clear from the words of the patriotic song Rule, Britannia!:


Ignorant pillock - to use an anglo saxon word to describe an idiot.

It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.


From the declaration of arbroath 1320.

gmc;1474687 wrote: normally I would have topped reading at this point



7th century church of England? the irish saints would be birling in their graves.

Ignorant pillock - to use an anglo saxon word to describe an idiot.

From the declaration of arbroath 1320.


Spoken like a true Gaelic firebrand!

I would say that all nations that have their roots in colonisation have been created in one way or another.

By the way - Parliament does create nations. It is Parliament that rules to colonise countries & to establish nations. Furthermore, Parliament was created by a nation which had, in turn, been colonised by other nations.

From the beginning of time, when territorial disputes began, clans divided & went on their way to create their own nations. That is the nature of a nation.