Why are the UKIP considered racist?

greendom

SeanW wrote: »

So you think Western countries should have total open-door immigration policies? No controls whatsoever?

Racism, means that you have prejudice or hatred based on RACE i.e. physical ethnicity.

Do you have the slightest evidence that UKIP hates coloured people?

If people can bring value to a country i don't think they should be considered illegal and of less worth than an indigenous layabout or thief for example.

It makes me laugh that people on the right believe in free markets and the power of the invisible hand yet believe there should be controls on the movement of people

SeanW

mollymosfet wrote: »

False dichotomy.

Not good enough. The poster I was responding to clearly indicated that he/she did not recognise the concept of "illegal" immigration and intimated he/she wanted an open-door policy instead.

I was asking for an explanation, starting preferably with a simple Yes/No answer.

Racism is an institutionalised thing.

Yes. The Jim Crow laws were racist. "Blacks to the back of the bus" is racist. Any form of discrimination against someone based on the colour of their skin, is racist.

And it's indefensible.

People on this thread have thrown the word RACIST around like monkeys throwing their own faeces. Doesn't make it true. Though (since Godwins Law has already been broken by references to UKIP and Nazis) Joeseph Goebells once said that:

Joeseph Goebells wrote:

If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

He would have been proud to see his advice being taken so liberally by the left on this thread.

mollymosfet

SeanW wrote: »

Not good enough. The poster I was responding to clearly indicated that he/she did not recognise the concept of "illegal" immigration and intimated he/she wanted an open-door policy instead.

Excuse me? Your reasoning was fallacious. It's irrelevant whether my reply was good enough for you, because you were wrong. You cannot simply present 2 options between strict immigration control and none, with nothing in between.

Your reasoning was incorrect. Accept it, and reassess your argument.

I was asking for an explanation, starting preferably with a simple Yes/No answer.

Answers are rarely simple Yes/No situations which is again, one of the problems I have with right wing ideologies.

Yes. The Jim Crow laws were racist. "Blacks to the back of the bus" is racist. Any form of discrimination against someone based on the colour of their skin, is racist.

And it's indefensible.

That is only very obvious racism, it's clear from not mentioning any form of more subtle(but still very powerful) racism that you just don't get it.

People on this thread have thrown the word RACIST around like monkeys throwing their own faeces. Doesn't make it true.

Stating that a party simply aren't racist doesn't make it true either.

Though (since Godwins Law has already been broken by references to UKIP and Nazis)

How do you "Break" Godwin's Law? Wouldn't Godwin's law be "Broken" if nobody mentioned Nazis at all? Godwin's Law was just an observation on how internet discussions tend to go. Also I'm not even sure it applies when Nationalism is the subject at hand. This is simply not how you use it.

c_man

mollymosfet wrote: »

Stating that a party simply aren't racist doesn't make it true either.

Usually the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Something substantive (e.g. look at all the dirt on the likes of Nick Griffin) rather than having their beliefs come down to hunches and sheer dislike of the politics of the party ala "their policies are not very good and more often than not those espousing these policies do turn out to be somewhat racist."

mathepac

SeanW wrote: »

...
Yes. The Jim Crow laws were racist. "Blacks to the back of the bus" is racist. Any form of discrimination against someone based on the colour of their skin, is racist.... .

I find it worrying that this narrow definition of racism still has currency in the 21st century. If it's widespread, it might go some way to explaining some of the race-related problems we have.

SeanW wrote: »

... People on this thread have thrown the word RACIST around like monkeys throwing their own faeces. ...

Perhaps, but then some of us who have a broader understanding of the term have used it correctly and not in the very narrow sense you use it.

SeanW wrote: »

... Though (since Godwins Law has already been broken by references to UKIP and Nazis) ...

I'm familiar with it but wasn't aware it could be broken in the sense you mean.

SeanW wrote: »

... Joeseph Goebells once said that:
He would have been proud to see his advice being taken so liberally by the left on this thread.

I think you might mean "literally" not "liberally", but in reference to what I'm not sure.

jjpep

If we leave the racisim issue to a side for a minute, why would mono-culture be a good thing?

greendom

jjpep wrote: »

If we leave the racisim issue to a side for a minute, why would mono-culture be a good thing?

it's a comfort blanket for the insecure and the fearful

SeanW

mollymosfet wrote: »

Excuse me? Your reasoning was fallacious. It's irrelevant whether my reply was good enough for you, because you were wrong. You cannot simply present 2 options between strict immigration control and none, with nothing in between.

The poster suggested that he did not recognise the concept of "illegal" immigration and intimated that he wanted little or no immigration control. I simply asked him/her to clarify if this was the case.

Nothing fallacious about it.

That is only very obvious racism, it's clear from not mentioning any form of more subtle(but still very powerful) racism that you just don't get it.

I get it. You are accusing UKIP of colour-blind racism. This is transparently bullsh**t used by people in the United States for example as a slur against people who disagree with affirmitive action programmes (which are themselves "reverse" or "positive" racist). People who genuinely believe that decisions on jobs, college places, etc should be given to those who are the best fit meritocratically can be slandered as "Laissez-fare RACISTS."

Stating that a party simply aren't racist doesn't make it true either.

True, but when you have evidence (i.e. black candidates) and no counter case beyond people shouting "RACIST" (i.e. no evidence that UKIP has a problem with people of a different colour) it's a different story.

mathepac

greendom wrote: »

it's a comfort blanket for the insecure and the fearful

It can also become a stick to beat any non-conformists with.

mathepac

SeanW wrote: »

... True, but when you have evidence (i.e. black candidates) and no counter case beyond people shouting "RACIST" (i.e. no evidence that UKIP has a problem with people of a different colour) it's a different story.

Monoculturalism as expressed in their own documentation.

Rascasse

jjpep wrote: »

If we leave the racisim issue to a side for a minute, why would mono-culture be a good thing?

They don't want a 'monoculture'. Britain is incredibly diverse and multicultural, and nothing that UKIP are suggesting would, or even could, change that. They simply object to the government forcing multiculturalism on everyone. Diversity audits, a cultural centre for X community, celebrating the countries differences but never celebrating as one.

They want people to buy into a British identity, not a collection of discreet communities that have little contact between one another. It's something various governments have tried to address but the fear of being branded racist or jingoistic means the pace of changes has been too slow.

SeanW

mathepac wrote: »

Monoculturalism as expressed in their own documentation.

That's culture (assuming it's to be taken as an extremist viewpoint) not race.

Show me the evidence that UKIP has a problem with people based on RACE, i.e. physical ethnicity.

mathepac

Rascasse wrote: »

They don't want a 'monoculture'. ...

How do you square that statement with this then -

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

According to Section 3.2 of their policy document Restoring Britishness: A policy document for an independent Britain, the UKIP “promotes uniculturalism, a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours”. ...

Rough translation - "To sit at our table, become one of us, otherwise bugger off"

jjpep

Rascasse wrote: »

They don't want a 'monoculture'. Britain is incredibly diverse and multicultural, and nothing that UKIP are suggesting would, or even could, change that. They simply object to the government forcing multiculturalism on everyone. Diversity audits, a cultural centre for X community, celebrating the countries differences but never celebrating as one.

They want people to buy into a British identity, not a collection of discreet communities that have little contact between one another. It's something various governments have tried to address but the fear of being branded racist or jingoistic means the pace of changes has been too slow.

When I read it though I don't get that impression to be honest. They talk about a return to British culture as opposed the culture in Britain as it is ie multi cultural.

Rascasse

mathepac wrote: »

How do you square that statement with this then -

Rough translation - "To sit at our table, become one of us, otherwise bugger off"

How does "embracing all races, religions and colours” equate to "To sit at our table, become one of us, otherwise bugger off" ?

SeanW

Rascasse wrote: »

How does "embracing all races, religions and colours” equate to "To sit at our table, become one of us, otherwise bugger off" ?

mathpac is intentionally confusing skepticism of multiculturalism and racism.

Ergo "embracing all races" = racism.

mollymosfet

Rascasse wrote: »

How does "embracing all races, religions and colours” equate to "To sit at our table, become one of us, otherwise bugger off" ?

But they're not really embracing all races, religions, and colours if they reject their culture. It's just a fancy version of the "I'm not racist, but" trope.

SeanW

mollymosfet wrote: »

But they're not really embracing all races, religions, and colours if they reject their culture. It's just a fancy version of the "I'm not racist, but" trope.

Racism applies to RACE not culture.

greendom

SeanW wrote: »

Racism applies to RACE not culture.

Their policies may not be racist but they appeal to racists and they are also objectionable

mollymosfet

SeanW wrote: »

Racism applies to RACE not culture.

I already explained why this is not necessarily true. I am sorry you chose to ignore this, and can thus see this is a pointless argument.

MakeEmLaugh

jjpep wrote: »

If we leave the racisim issue to a side for a minute, why would mono-culture be a good thing?

(1) The word 'mono-culture' has not been used in the UKIP's manifesto. 'Mono' denotes monotone, or all being identical. 'Uniculturalism', on the other hard, denotes unity. A much more positive spin, in my opinion.

(2) Perhaps Uniculturalism could reduce immigrants and their descendents sharing the sentiments expressed in the video below.

“I was born an African and I’ll die an African. The only reason I was born in this country is because you fucking people brought my people here. My parents were fucking African, born in Jamaica. And I’m fucking African, born in England. I can’t stand you white people, I tell you... One of these days black people will take back what you fucking dirty little white cunts take from us... I hate white people.”

If wanting to integrate immigrants (and their descendants) into a host country is considered racist by some people, you'll understand if I don't take those people's views particularly seriously.

SeanW

mollymosfet wrote: »

I already explained why this is not necessarily true. I am sorry you chose to ignore this, and can thus see this is a pointless argument.

Racism is about RACE. If it wasn't it wouldn't be called RACISM, it would be called something else.

I suspect that you're just using as a slur to slander people who don't agree with the left-wing view of the world.

Can I take it that you concede that UKIP do not have a problem with people of different RACES?

RandomName2

mollymosfet wrote: »

Stating that a party simply aren't racist doesn't make it true either.

I am writing this on the back of a flying pink elephant that has a wifi receiver built into his trunk.

Go on, try and prove me wrong.

Wait, what's that, I have no evidence for my above statement? Well, excuse me, just stating that I'm not riding the aforementioned elephant doesn't make it true.

mollymosfet wrote: »

Their right wing libertarian stances, too, would greatly favour white, upper class males more than anyone else.

That is an... interesting use of the term libertarianism.

mollymosfet wrote: »

False dichotomy. Though it does also raise the point of why some people "deserve" a better home than others.

This is in response to

A: The only people they want to repatriate are illegals and criminals.
B: What makes them illegal ? Being from a different country ?
A: So you think Western countries should have total open-door immigration policies? No controls whatsoever?

"False dichotomy" doesn't really have any meaning in this context. The dichotomy between... what? *Shakes head*. From wikipedia: Illegal immigration is migration to a country/state in violation of the immigration laws and sovereignty of that country/state. To question why there should be such a term as "illegal immigration", is to question the entire nature of immigration laws - so going down the route of "why should one person get the golden ticket" is just tangential.

mollymosfet wrote: »

Racism is an institutionalised thing.

It can be. Religion can be an institutionalised thing, but sometimes it isn't.

mollymosfet wrote: »

I already explained why this [racism concerns race] is not necessarily true.

Okay, you are really attempting to broaden the scope here. Presumably racism then includes culture.. and religion? I don't like bull-fighting; gee must be racist because that's an inherent part of Spanish culture.

I understand what you mean; that people may face discrimination specifically because of their culture rather than the colour of their skin - but it is consistently difficult to have a rational, coherent discussion concerning the R word without throwing such disparate things as Latin dance and Halal meat into the mix - jaysus. Let's just have racism mean what it means:

Oxford English Dictionary Online: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior

and race means:

each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics

and physical means:

relating to the body as opposed to the mind

SeanW

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

If wanting to integrate immigrants (and their descendants) into a host country is considered racist by some people, you'll understand if I don't take those people's views particularly seriously.

As we've seen in this thread, "racist" can be twisted out of all proportion to reality to mean whatever you want it to mean. It becomes a nice slur to be used against people who disagree with you.

Don't forget, in this new topsy-turvy world only white people can be racist.

So yes, you are a "racist" :rolleyes: For wanting immigrants to integrate, you are a skinhead racist and all you're missing is the white sheet and a Swastika.

RandomName2

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

(1) The word 'mono-culture' has not been used in the UKIP's manifesto. 'Mono' denotes monotone, or all being identical. 'Uniculturalism', on the other hard, denotes unity. A much more positive spin, in my opinion.

uni and mono are synonymous, I'm afraid, insofar that they both mean "one"; the former from Latin and the latter from Greek.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

.....

Don't forget, in this new topsy-turvy world only white people can be racist.

.......

I'm sure that Jo Brand will be taken to task for that by the people who voted for her. She is some elected official or policymaker, I trust?

You do realise thats shes talking about discrimination, albeit in a very awkward and confused manner......?

MakeEmLaugh

RandomName2 wrote: »

uni and mono are synonymous, I'm afraid, insofar that they both mean "one"; the former from Latin and the latter from Greek.

Why deliberately say 'monoculturalism' when the UKIP's manifesto says 'uniculturalism'?

I don't know any political party which would promote 'monoculturalism'. David Trimble once described the Republic of Ireland as a "pathetic... monocultural state".

mathepac

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

(1) The word 'mono-culture' has not been used in the UKIP's manifesto. 'Mono' denotes monotone, or all being identical. 'Uniculturalism', on the other hard, denotes unity. A much more positive spin, in my opinion...

I suppose "spin" is a good word here as "mono" and "uni" are merely linguistic variations of the same word, one.

SeanW wrote: »

As we've seen in this thread, "racist" can be twisted out of all proportion to reality to mean whatever you want it to mean. It becomes a nice slur to be used against people who disagree with you...

I haven't seen the term being used in an accusatory form in the thread or as a slur but I have seen it used in a very old-fashioned obsolete form to mean people whose skin-colour is different or "black: to quote you. As I said already this narrow definition of racism is worrying.

SeanW wrote: »

... For wanting immigrants to integrate, you are a skinhead racist and all you're missing is the white sheet and a Swastika.

If you say so. I used the term as an alternative to mono- or uniculturalism in the context of not embracing or valuing difference.

mathepac

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Why deliberately say 'monoculturalism' when the UKIP's manifesto says 'uniculturalism'?...

Because they are the same thing.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

... I don't know any political party which would promote 'monoculturalism'. David Trimble once described the Republic of Ireland as a "pathetic... monocultural state".

Wee Davey spouted a lot of sh1te in his day, even with the specs on.

SeanW

mathepac wrote: »

I haven't seen the term being used in an accusatory form in the thread or as a slur

"Racist" is a negative term by definition. It should be used with extreme care.

but I have seen it used in a very old-fashioned obsolete form to mean people whose skin-colour is different or "black: to quote you. As I said already this narrow definition of racism is worrying.

Because racism strictly speaking refers to RACE. if it didn't, another word would be needed.

Do I take it that you concede that UKIP does not have a problem with people of different races?

mollymosfet

SeanW wrote: »

Racism is about RACE. If it wasn't it wouldn't be called RACISM, it would be called something else.

I suspect that you're just using as a slur to slander people who don't agree with the left-wing view of the world.

Can I take it that you concede that UKIP do not have a problem with people of different RACES?

Your problem is the inability to see things with are to do with Race, just not immediately blatant and obvious. Homophobia is the same, as it's not just disliking or fearing homosexuals directly, but can be dislike or mockery of characteristics associated with homosexuals.

mollymosfet

SeanW wrote: »

As we've seen in this thread, "racist" can be twisted out of all proportion to reality to mean whatever you want it to mean. It becomes a nice slur to be used against people who disagree with you.

Don't forget, in this new topsy-turvy world only white people can be racist.

So yes, you are a "racist" :rolleyes: For wanting immigrants to integrate, you are a skinhead racist and all you're missing is the white sheet and a Swastika.

And links to the Torygraph, great.

That's not "topsy turvy", which would mean the opposite of true. Focusing on racism "from" minorities misses the point because while White people may be victims of some form of racism, it's not really the same thing because we're still the dominant race in most of western society. In Ireland, or the UK, White people are not oppressed.

When people focus on racism not just being against minorities, all it really means is that they're trying to take attention away from what racism is and why it's bad in the first place - it holds people at a disadvantage.

SeanW

Again, do you concede that UKIP does not have a problem with people of different races?

mathepac

SeanW wrote: »

... Because racism strictly speaking refers to RACE. if it didn't, another word would be needed. ...

Racism is both much broader and more subtle than your narrow definition of "white" skin-colour -vs- "black" skin-colour.

SeanW wrote: »

... Do I take it that you concede that UKIP does not have a problem with people of different races?

Absolutely not, for the sound reasons already given.

A single black electoral candidate does not speak of an open agenda on the issue of race; it could very well be "tokenism". I'd be much more interested to hear how the broader card-carrying UKIP membership breaks down along racial, ethnic and religious lines before conceding. Is UKIP an attractive alternative to other political parties for minority groups based on the monoculturalism?

robbiezero

Lefties getting destroyed in this thread.
Their usual tool of flinging the word racist at something they don't like is being badly exposed.

greendom

robbiezero wrote: »

Lefties getting destroyed in this thread.
Their usual tool of flinging the word racist at something they don't like is being badly exposed.

Strange conclusion to arrive at when this was the best post in the whole thread

There seems to be a sort of extreme intellectual dishonesty amongst those who rally against multiculturalism; presenting the case that because a party's manifesto is not inherently racist, there can be no problem with racism within the party itself, or the practical applications of that party.

The problem is that "Multiculturalism" is not easy to define and total cultural homogeny is an undesirable state(unless you're an actual fascist). Most of the "golden eras" of culture in Europe were not in periods of isolation. Because of multiculturalism, we have rock music, techno, etc. things that exist because of not just different races, but different cultures interacting. People look at crime statistics and the like and see a false dichotomy between this and something approaching nationalism.

The issue is that you can't completely separate one's race from one's culture in this regard, certainly not for minorities. Rallying against other cultures as somehow destructive is, in of itself, somewhat racist since it implies that "their" culture needs to be discarded and "our" culture is so much better. The idea of preserving culture; keeping Britain British, what does that even mean? Is all of it even worth preserving? It's taken as gospel but is never really elaborated on. And a lot of the time, it does end up falling back on racism, despite claims to the contrary. In Sweden, the Sweden Democrats are in trouble over this, trying to push the idea that they're not racist, yet more evidence keeps coming out that key members are, and abusively so. We're all too used to seeing how these things go.

Certainly art, architecture and history are worth preserving and every country should "feel" different to another. But that doesn't require cultural homogeny which again, is actually socially destructive. A lot of other prejudices are fueled by this, since making people put up with difference is actually a good thing. Without multiculturalism, I doubt LGBT rights would come as far as they have - though I'm sure a lot in these parties would be glad of that.

The rallying against "Multiculturalism" and these nonsensical declarations of "MULTICULTURALISM HAS FAILED"(and even moreso POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD) from people who don't even fully understand what they mean by that need to stop. Identify the particular issues caused by the interaction or clashing or cultures - and resolve those. Because more often than not you'll find it's those opposing multiculturalism who are fuelling them by helping propagate a negative stereotype or making minorities feel like second class citizens. Having a token black guy in the party does not help this as you'll always find one idiot who'll go along with that. You can even find gay people who think gay marriage is wrong. They're idiots, or doormats, and don't disprove a general rule. Or as someone said, there will always be differing extremes, it doesn't make the party as a whole a viable entity.

When any party pushes for "X for Xish" it's a red flag for racism or fascism because implying one way of doing things for everyone is inherently exclusionary. It is possible to preserve culture without eradicating others - do you really think Ireland is any better, for example, for it's lack of subculture compared to the UK or Europe? If people who did things a bit differently or dressed a bit strange were to suddenly disappear, would the world be a better place? For me, it'd be a nightmare.

I would argue right wing views in general, at least the ones we have to put up with now, are inherently racist, homophobic, sexist - whatever, because how they ignore or even further the concept of Privilege, and a wealthy, idealised elite. Celebrating normalcy means celebrating one type of individual over all else for no real rational reason, and demeaning those who are different, who generally have enough **** to put up with in the first place. Policies based on ignorance of the fact that many people have a leg up because of how/where they were born, and some have to overcome far greater odds, will always be unfriendly towards those who find themselves the underdog in society. This is why Right Wing "Libertarianism", which is really Objectivism, is a great lie.

We all have to live on the same planet, regardless, so it's about time we started resolving these issues like mature adults. Right wing policies can only work on a truly even playing field, which we do not have.

JustinDee

robbiezero wrote: »

Lefties getting destroyed in this thread.
Their usual tool of flinging the word racist at something they don't like is being badly exposed.

Subjective semantics really.
Racists, xenophobes, bigots all require the same irrational misconceptions, misinformation or lack of education.
Not everyone who objects to these weak character traits is a "leftie" either.

RandomName2

mollymosfet wrote: »

That's not "topsy turvy", which would mean the opposite of true. Focusing on racism "from" minorities misses the point because while White people may be victims of some form of racism, it's not really the same thing because we're still the dominant race in most of western society. In Ireland, or the UK, White people are not oppressed.

When people focus on racism not just being against minorities, all it really means is that they're trying to take attention away from what racism is and why it's bad in the first place - it holds people at a disadvantage.

What you are saying, in effect, is that racism against white people is grand because they have the dominant position. Although when you say 'racist' you actually mean it as a discriminatory umbrella term. So "racist" means.. er... being against any minority for any reason. Which.. um hey.. is um bad.

The funny thing is that I agree with the core of what you're saying; that racism is not necessarily black and white (no pun intended), and that cultural ossification is a bad thing to happen. But you are doing a disservice to discussion on the matter because counter-intuitively you are making it less touchable: broadening the scope whilst saying that all opposition to multiculturalism is an anathema (and then, to add insult to injury, attempting to discriminate against the majority population by extending this blanket cover only to those who might claim to be part of a minority).

You are waving the standard of multiculturalism without really examining what it involves.

Many racists and extreme nationalists from the 1930s were deeply opposed to jazz (as weird as it now seems) not only because it seemed to be artistically radical, but principally due to the fact that it became identified with African-Americans. Seems crazy; and blatantly detrimental to one's country to be opposed to art ffs! Or, as some Nazis after the war grudgingly admitted, perhaps they should have used the Jewish scientists instead of persecuting them into exile.

Of course cultural amalgamation is a positive thing; as is cultural appropriation. Most Islamic art that you see stems from Byzantine Art (the Orthodox Christian Church) - the Ottomans grabbed whatever culture they could and made it their own. The Hagia Sophia, one of the most sacred Christian Churches had minarets placed around it and made into one of the most impressive Mosques in the world. More foolish people would have destroyed it.

But there; even now I'm examining the incorporation of other cultures into one's own - but that's not what you are arguing for; you could as easily be arguing for the separation of cultures: for distinct separate cultures to be present within the same country. This can easily be a meaning of multiculturalism: many cultures, no unity; indeed, sometimes little or no communication between these separate communities. Could you perhaps see how this might be a negative thing? Ah, wait, saying that it might be negative about would be racist, so we better not talk about it at all.

MakeEmLaugh

This is from the UKIP's manifesto. Can someone explain how this is racist?

"The UKIP believes in civic nationalism, which is inclusive and open to anyone of any ethnic or religious background who wishes to identify with Britain. We reject the "blood and soil" ethnic nationalism of extremist parties. UKIP believes Britishness can be defined in terms of belief in democracy, fair play and freedom."

Lemming

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

This is from the UKIP's manifesto. Can someone explain how this is racist?

"The UKIP believes in civic nationalism, which is inclusive and open to anyone of any ethnic or religious background who wishes to identify with Britain. We reject the "blood and soil" ethnic nationalism of extremist parties. UKIP believes Britishness can be defined in terms of belief in democracy, fair play and freedom."

Emphasis is mine. They haven't said that they reject ethnic nationalism; just the socially stigmatic variant preached openly by their cousin-parties. If you go read through the various manifesto and "policy" (ho ho) documents published by £UKIP you will see an overriding theme of keeping "Britain for the British" (direct citation from policy document), furdiners not welcome. Or in the case of the Scottish policy document "Scotland for the Scots & British" (that's also direct citation btw ... ).

And then there's the £UKIP policy document (forget which one it is .. need to look again) that infers a rise in crime is directly related to immigration. Again; fear the furdiner because they're different. They're the ones causing crime on the streets. Because they're different. They're furdin.

Please ...

I would counter that notions of belief in democracy, fair play & freedom are themes of common decency, not unique to any one country. That £UKIP try to hide their true colours behind such notions is an insult to common decency.

Their literature (I get plenty of it through the door unfortunately) reads similar to the BNP, ED, and other fringe parties, except where said literature tries to deal with non racial/cultural matters and they come across as idiots with no clue and no ideas other than on the one-trick pony of "the EU is bad, we must leave the EU. It's full of furdiners all wanting to immigrate here. All 500 million of them".

Any person who spouts "Keep country X for the X" is simply saying a variation on "I'm not a racist but ... ". If anyone on this thread wants to argue that that phrase does not mean what it means well then I have this great deal on London Bridge to sell to you; for sale today only.

Rascasse

More waffle without links. I searched the UKIP website to find this one as it sounded a bit odd:

Lemming wrote: »

"Scotland for the Scots & British" (that's also direct citation btw ... ).

Low and behold, here is the full quote:

An official German Government estimate is that five of every six laws passed in Europe are imposed on us by the EU – by bureaucrats in Brussels whom we, the peoples of Europe, do not elect. Official UKIP policy is that six of every six laws passed in Britain for the British and in Scotland for the Scots shall be passed by us or by those we elect, and by no one else.

Funny how a little editing makes a policy about repatriating lawmaking from Brussels sound more like a Nick Griffin speech.

Spokes of Glory

seamus wrote: »

From listening to a representative on the radio, they often get confused with the BNP probably because so many policies overlap. So that's why some would say they're racist. But their primary ethos seems to be about nationalism and anti-immigration. So people who are already in the UK are OK, but no more, apparently. They're xenophobes.

At the highest level, nationalism/xenophobia is in inherently racist because it presumes that one's nation is superior and worthy of protection from outside elements, but that's a philosophical POV rather than an accepted political one.

Most nation states protect their borders and restrict immigration to some degree. It doesn't necessarily follow they are xenophobic surely ? (Unfortunately) we can't all move to Australia because we feel like it. Being concerned about the economic, cultural and sociological effects of immigration on your society is perfectly natural and doesn't mean to presume one's nation is superior.

Spokes

mathepac

robbiezero wrote: »

Lefties getting destroyed in this thread.
Their usual tool of flinging the word racist at something they don't like is being badly exposed.

The need to resort to stereotypical language to describe posters' positions in the discussion can be indicative of a strong underlying racist (in the broad sense) inclination

RandomName2

mathepac wrote: »

The need to resort to stereotypical language to describe posters' positions in the discussion can be indicative of a strong underlying racist (in the broad sense) inclination

So people resorting to Godwin's law are implicitly racist?

I'm heading for the ramp Fonz, are you sure you want to do it?

mathepac

RandomName2 wrote: »

So people resorting to Godwin's law are implicitly racist? ...

Join the queue. So far I've had Goodwin's [sic] law explained to me, I've been accused [to much hilarity] of breaching Godwin's law and now you have me resorting to it. "Oh my my my my my my my my, I think I'm gonna cry ..."

SeanW

mollymosfet wrote: »

When people focus on racism not just being against minorities, all it really means is that they're trying to take attention away from what racism is and why it's bad in the first place - it holds people at a disadvantage.

In other words, anyone who points out that racism isn't a one way street is themselves RACIST?

mathepac wrote: »

Racism is both much broader and more subtle than your narrow definition of "white" skin-colour -vs- "black" skin-colour.

Yes, the word "racism" to be so broad as to be meaningless. Then lefties can throw it at anyone they disagree with so as to slander them, regardless of whether anyone would even dream of discriminating against or thinking poorly of someone because of their race.

So far we've "learned" from the left that:

1. Libertarians/objectivists are racist.
2. Anyone who dares mention that racism isn't always one way is racist.
3. Only white people or European natives can be racist.
4. Anyone who is in the least bit skeptical of multiculturalism in any form whatsoever is racist.
5. Anyone who opposes quota systems such as affirmitive action in the U.S. is racist.
6. Anyone who feels the need to use stereotypical language (like "lefties" is racist).
7. Anyone who a lefty disagrees with on any issue related to culture, religion or race whatsoever or howsoever arising, is racist.

Thanks for the refresher, but I think I'll stick to the normal definition of racism which is defined as discrimination or distrust of a person or people based on their race. Which is why its called "rac"ism in the first place.

A single black electoral candidate does not speak of an open agenda on the issue of race; it could very well be "tokenism".

You have evidence that Winston McKenzie is a token candidate?
???
???
I didn't think so. As with "racist" you are using "tokenism" as a smear, totally unsubstantiated by evidence.

mathepac wrote: »

The need to resort to stereotypical language to describe posters' positions in the discussion can be indicative of a strong underlying racist (in the broad sense) inclination

Translation
"You called me a lefty ... you're a racist "

I would counter that notions of belief in democracy, fair play & freedom are themes of common decency, not unique to any one country.

I agree, but there are some countries where these are not universal values. Additionally this statement makes it crystal clear that in their view anyone can be British, whatever colour they are (ergo not racist), as well as IMO most religions and many cultures.

TheLastLazyGun

WileyCoyote wrote: »

essentially it demands subservience to UKIPS view of British culture which is white and christian.

According to Section 3.2 of their policy document Restoring Britishness: A policy document for an independent Britain, the UKIP “promotes uniculturalism, a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours”.

So, basically, you are wrong.

And, anyway, I have no problem with British groups which believes in the notion that Britain should be predominantly white and Christian.

After all, Britain is, traditionally, a predominantly white and Christian country and has been predominantly Christian for almost 2000 years and predominantly white for countless millennia.

I don't see why that should be purposefully changed.

TheLastLazyGun

greendom wrote: »

They're pretty much of a joke party tbh

Try telling that to the LibDems and the Conservatives.

The LibDems don't think of them as a joke of a party considering that it is the LibDems whom UKIP are currently in the process of replacing as Britain's third party.

And the Tories don't think of them as a bit of a joke party. In fact, the UKIP's continued rapid rise and increasing popularity is very much worrying the Conservative Party so much that some Conservative MPs have been proposing forming a Coalition government with them, and the only way that Cameron can stop UKIP's rapid rise is if he gives the British people the EU in/out referendum that most of them want by the next election in 2015. If he does that then he will win the next election in 2015. If he doesn't then many, many Conservative voters, and also many Labour ones, will turn their backs on them and start supporting UKIP.

To stop the rapid rise of UKIP, Cameron needs to give us the EU in/out referendum in which the British people will almost certainly vote to leave the EU. If he doesn't give us the referendum and our chance to vote to leave the EU by 2015 then many people, including me, will vote for UKIP in 2015.

greendom

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

According to Section 3.2 of their policy document Restoring Britishness: A policy document for an independent Britain, the UKIP “promotes uniculturalism, a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours”.

So, basically, you are wrong.

And, anyway, I have no problem with British groups which believes in the notion that Britain should be predominantly white and Christian.

After all, Britain is, traditionally, a predominantly white and Christian country and has been predominantly Christian for almost 2000 years and predominantly white for countless millennia.

I don't see why that should be purposefully changed.

You agree with people who believe Britain should be predominantly white ?

For all the grey areas there's little doubt that this is a racist statement.

And why was it ok for Britain to become Christian 2000 years ago. Surely it should have been allowed to continue practising paganism. Again the indigenous population being undone by political correctness

It won't be too long anyway before Christianity is very much in the minority - to be replaced by athiesm/agnosticsm rather than any imported faith.

RandomName2

mathepac wrote: »

Join the queue. So far I've had Goodwin's [sic] law explained to me, I've been accused [to much hilarity] of breaching Godwin's law and now you have me resorting to it. "Oh my my my my my my my my, I think I'm gonna cry ..."

If I had had my wits together I would have actually said that you engineered an own goal.

The need to resort to stereotypical language to describe posters' positions in the discussion can be indicative of a strong underlying racist (in the broad sense) inclination.

I have just said that other posters are implicitly racist for resorting to stereotypical language to describe other posters' positions.

"Strong underlying racist inclination" as a catch-all term is an example of stereotypical language.

My need to resort to stereotypical language to describe posters' positions in the discussion can be indicative of a strong underlying racist (in the broad sense) inclination.