Bernard Sumner (New Order) on Morrissey

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...e-hated-work-and-normality-1.3952803?mode=amp

Excerpt:
Did Johnny broach the subject of his former bandmate, Morrissey, and his increasingly questionable endorsements of a far-right fringe party called For Britain?

“I think we questioned his dubious politics,” Sumner answers. “He has become a bit toxic, hasn’t he? The world has gone a bit like that at the moment. We were only discussing this at dinner last night. It’s gone a bit pear-shaped. These are very strange times and a lot of things don’t seem to make sense. We’ve got Brexit in the UK. I’m not a fan. Obviously you’ve got Mr Trump. I find it difficult to call him President Trump. Let’s call him Resident Trump.”
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Not true. The United States census counts North Africans and Middle Easterners as 'white'. It also counts millions of Mexican and Central Americans as 'white'. And it counts Jews as white as well, many of whom don't consider themselves to be white and they act accordingly. On top of this you have the millions of illegal immigrants in the US, anywhere from 13 to 30 million estimates suggest, and most of whom aren't white either and aren't counted in the census.

Taking all this into account, the actual percentage of 'People of European descent, or Caucasian Americans' is likely in the low to mid 50s --- down over 30% since 1965 when the Hart-Celler immigration act changed the complexion of the US forever without the consent of the people (in fact Ted Kennedy said publicly at the time that it wouldn't change the racial demographics of the country at all). Reagan added to this in the mid-80s by legalising millions of Hispanic illegal immigrants in California, and California today is a white minority state. From the 1990s onwards non-white immigration to the US began to outnumber European immigration in nearly every state for the first time since the US was founded. I read recently that about 29% of school going children in Texas are white. The state itself may still be approximately 70% white but many of them are older and Texas will be white minority within a generation.

It's far more illuminating to look at birthrates as well to see which direction a country is heading in demographically rather than copying and pasting a census figure like you did. We see the level of research you're willing to do.

Now that I've started to debunk your argument, you'll veer from 'the US is still 72% white' to 'why does it matter if the US becomes a white minority country?'. Heard it all before pal :thumb:

Spot on. That 1965 act changed our country profoundly
 
"Thank you for proving the point we've been establishing all along." Who is "we?"

Perfect example of a Gamma. I rebuttal your weak argument against nationalism and since you have no logical response you do exactly what gammas do. You focus on some random point to avoid all responsibility of having no actual logical argument. I manage to waste my time trying to speak logos with you

Also @Trill please block me because i'm tired of your trolling and you add zero to any conversation on these threads. Go butt pump your amigos in a corn field
 

The Truth

about Ruth
Perfect example of a Gamma. I rebuttal your weak argument against nationalism and since you have no logical response you do exactly what gammas do. You focus on some random point to avoid all responsibility of having no actual logical argument. I manage to waste my time trying to speak logos with you

Also @Trill please block me because i'm tired of your trolling and you add zero to any conversation on these threads. Go butt pump your amigos in a corn field

I'm sorry if focusing on a point ruins your argument.
All you did was say "you have proven the point we've been trying to make," and I want to know what "point" I proved and who "we" are. That is not a rebuttal.
What are you talking about?
 

The Truth

about Ruth
the US would NOT exist without MASS immigration???

WTF??? it would disappear??:lbf:

hurry up and send some mass immigration to Mex and India before they disappear.:lbf:
:crazy:

Do you understand that the US is a nation made of immigrants and their descendants?
I'm sorry if you translate "would not exist" to mean "would disappear." I did not say the US requires mass immigration to continue to exist. It is here now. But if, IN THE PAST, people had not immigrated here, there would not be a "United States."
 

The Truth

about Ruth
Not true. The United States census counts North Africans and Middle Easterners as 'white'. It also counts millions of Mexican and Central Americans as 'white'. And it counts Jews as white as well, many of whom don't consider themselves to be white and they act accordingly. On top of this you have the millions of illegal immigrants in the US, anywhere from 13 to 30 million estimates suggest, and most of whom aren't white either and aren't counted in the census.

Taking all this into account, the actual percentage of 'People of European descent, or Caucasian Americans' is likely in the low to mid 50s --- down over 30% since 1965 when the Hart-Celler immigration act changed the complexion of the US forever without the consent of the people (in fact Ted Kennedy said publicly at the time that it wouldn't change the racial demographics of the country at all). Reagan added to this in the mid-80s by legalising millions of Hispanic illegal immigrants in California, and California today is a white minority state. From the 1990s onwards non-white immigration to the US began to outnumber European immigration in nearly every state for the first time since the US was founded. I read recently that about 29% of school going children in Texas are white. The state itself may still be approximately 70% white but many of them are older and Texas will be white minority within a generation.

It's far more illuminating to look at birthrates as well to see which direction a country is heading in demographically rather than copying and pasting a census figure like you did. We see the level of research you're willing to do.

Now that I've started to debunk your argument, you'll veer from 'the US is still 72% white' to 'why does it matter if the US becomes a white minority country?'. Heard it all before pal :thumb:
Why don't you post this as @Born to Harangue ?
 
V

vegan cro spirit 555

Guest
Do you understand that the US is a nation made of immigrants and their descendants?
I'm sorry if you translate "would not exist" to mean "would disappear." I did not say the US requires mass immigration to continue to exist. It is here now. But if, IN THE PAST, people had not immigrated here, there would not be a "United States."


:rolleyes:

OOOOOOOOOO in the past.:straightface:

if in 1877 there had not been MASS IMMIGRATION the US the US would not exist.
now THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.:lbf:
if there had not been unsolicited MASS IMMIGRATION into the US in 1877 the
USA would have been sure to disappear.:crazy:


same can be said about the UK!! had the JUTES and the Cavemen not MASS
immigrated there NO UK TODAY:confused:
 
Do you understand that the US is a nation made of immigrants and their descendants?
I'm sorry if you translate "would not exist" to mean "would disappear." I did not say the US requires mass immigration to continue to exist. It is here now. But if, IN THE PAST, people had not immigrated here, there would not be a "United States."

America is not a nation of immigrants(at least it wasn't). We built and established a nation over conquered land that wasn't itself established and was at war withing itself already. You're presenting a false equivalency...There are actual native Americans and they're mostly of English lineage
 
Last edited:

The Truth

about Ruth
America is not a nation of immigrants(at least it wasn't). We built and established a nation over conquered land that wasn't itself established and was at war withing itself already. You're presenting a false equivalency...There are actual native Americans and they're mostly of English lineage

America is a nation of immigrants. "We built" meaning who?
Who built and established a nation?
immigrants

You say it was built "over" (???) "conquered land"
that wasn't itself established.
I get that this is a way to say that the people that were here before the immigrants don't matter because they were not "established."
So what was conquered?
What was "at war with itself" other than your logic?

And finally, Native Americans are "mostly of English heritage."
lol I understand the semantics tricks you're attempting here but you can't make up your own definitions of words and expect to be taken seriously. Did you read this somewhere? "We're the real Native Americans and we're of English heritage!"
 

The Truth

about Ruth
When you're parroting the talking points of Hillary Clinton , you set yourself up for failure @The Truth
Please show me one place I have "parroted Hillary Clinton." I'll wait.
I've tried to put aside the fact that you're a moron who could instantly raise the average IQ by walking in front of a speeding train. I would ask that you try to stick to the topic if you want to have a discussion.
 

The Truth

about Ruth
:rolleyes:

OOOOOOOOOO in the past.:straightface:

if in 1877 there had not been MASS IMMIGRATION the US the US would not exist.
now THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.:lbf:
if there had not been unsolicited MASS IMMIGRATION into the US in 1877 the
USA would have been sure to disappear.:crazy:


same can be said about the UK!! had the JUTES and the Cavemen not MASS
immigrated there NO UK TODAY:confused:

The US was founded by immigrants.
 
America is a nation of immigrants. "We built" meaning who?
Who built and established a nation?
immigrants

You say it was built "over" (???) "conquered land"
that wasn't itself established.
I get that this is a way to say that the people that were here before the immigrants don't matter because they were not "established."
So what was conquered?
What was "at war with itself" other than your logic?

And finally, Native Americans are "mostly of English heritage."
lol I understand the semantics tricks you're attempting here but you can't make up your own definitions of words and expect to be taken seriously. Did you read this somewhere? "We're the real Native Americans and we're of English heritage!"

You're equating modern immigration to the exploration, conquering and claiming of land which then eventually was formed into a country. That's absurd and not very well thought out. The people that founded America are NATIVE AMERICANS who were vast majority English and built America with English culture, values and beliefs. The many descendants of the founding builders and citizens of this country and there descendants are actual Americans.
 

The Truth

about Ruth
You're equating modern immigration to the exploration, conquering and claiming of land which then eventually was formed into a country. That's absurd and not very well thought out. The people that founded America are NATIVE AMERICANS who were vast majority English and built America with English culture, values and beliefs. The many descendants of the founding builders and citizens of this country and there descendants are actual Americans.
I'm not "equating" anything. It is a fact that people immigrated to what became the United States and that it was founded by immigrants.
How can someone be NATIVE AMERICAN and English? Where were they born? What is the definition of native?
I get that you want to say the people that were here before the United States existed are not "Native Americans" and that term generally is misleading in that it makes many groups of people seem like they were all one large group who were all the same.
But you can't be a native of a place you were not born at, and the people that founded the US were not born here.
 
I'm not "equating" anything. It is a fact that people immigrated to what became the United States and that it was founded by immigrants.
How can someone be NATIVE AMERICAN and English? Where were they born? What is the definition of native?
I get that you want to say the people that were here before the United States existed are not "Native Americans" and that term generally is misleading in that it makes many groups of people seem like they were all one large group who were all the same.
But you can't be a native of a place you were not born at, and the people that founded the US were not born here.

They were there at birth and founding of the nation which makes them very much so the fathers and mothers to that country, therefor they are Native Americans and the descendants of these people are Native Americans
 

The Truth

about Ruth
They were there at birth and founding of the nation which makes them very much so the fathers and mothers to that country, therefor they are Native Americans and the descendants of these people are Native Americans
"they" were "there at birth"
What does that mean?
See, you've lost your original point talking about nationalism and now you're into this goofy stuff where you're redefining words and writing in a way that is (intentionally?) murky.
You have to see the difference between being a native of England, a native of the US, and a "Native American," which I already granted is a confusing term. Most "Native Americans" would see themselves as part of the nation of their ancestors. "Native American" is just a way to stop calling them "Indians" which was always stupid.
I would advise you to just drop the "Native American" thing unless you're talking to people like yourself who are already into the same rhetoric. No one thinks the founders of this country and their children are "Native Americans," except people who have developed a way of defining what that means specifically to deny that they were immigrants.
It's kooky and it has nothing to do with your original point about nationalism. Do yourself a favor and drop it.
 
"they" were "there at birth"
What does that mean?
See, you've lost your original point talking about nationalism and now you're into this goofy stuff where you're redefining words and writing in a way that is (intentionally?) murky.
You have to see the difference between being a native of England, a native of the US, and a "Native American," which I already granted is a confusing term. Most "Native Americans" would see themselves as part of the nation of their ancestors. "Native American" is just a way to stop calling them "Indians" which was always stupid.
I would advise you to just drop the "Native American" thing unless you're talking to people like yourself who are already into the same rhetoric. No one thinks the founders of this country and their children are "Native Americans," except people who have developed a way of defining what that means specifically to deny that they were immigrants.
It's kooky and it has nothing to do with your original point about nationalism. Do yourself a favor and drop it.

Don't play the semantics game where you refer to American Indians(a generic name given by Europeans) as Native American(another generic name, promoted by Jews to subvert our identity as a nation). America was not a country then, yes they may have become part of America but they were just as much immigrants (by your standard anyways), as whoever they themselves had conquered when they "immigrated" there before Europeans discovered and proceeded to conquer the land from them. Vicious cycles that permeate pretty much most of history. A more modern example i suppose would be the small hats themselves and the formation of Israel but that's more convoluted. The fact remains actual native Americans are largely made up of predominantly English but alsoto a lesser extent French and Irish bloodlines. They have many descendants of which are the true inheritors and natives of this country. If you descend from them you are a native , if not you are an immigrant. I can become a Japanese citizen but i will never be Japanese
 

Farnaby

New Member
"they" were "there at birth"
What does that mean?
See, you've lost your original point talking about nationalism and now you're into this goofy stuff where you're redefining words and writing in a way that is (intentionally?) murky.
You have to see the difference between being a native of England, a native of the US, and a "Native American," which I already granted is a confusing term. Most "Native Americans" would see themselves as part of the nation of their ancestors. "Native American" is just a way to stop calling them "Indians" which was always stupid.
I would advise you to just drop the "Native American" thing unless you're talking to people like yourself who are already into the same rhetoric. No one thinks the founders of this country and their children are "Native Americans," except people who have developed a way of defining what that means specifically to deny that they were immigrants.
It's kooky and it has nothing to do with your original point about nationalism. Do yourself a favor and drop it.
You're right about the USA, but you lost the argument : it's a country based on immigration, colony, replacement, destruction of the natives. So does it mean that the country should accept another round of invasion, replacement, colony and destruction of the ones that have been there not since the beginning but since 3 or 4 centuries ? What's your policy about colonies and invasions ? Almost every country has been invaded at one point of its history. Does that mean that it should go on forever ? Should we, the west, go in Turkey and take our land back ?

The world has been built upon migrations, colonies, destructions, wars, invasions and replacement of populations. Funny or tragic thing is that it's the left, the peaceful and moral left that wants that story to go on. You are the imperialists. You are with the power of the powerful. You are the colony ideologists. You are the destroyers of the people, nations and civilisations as they are.

History of the world has come to a planet full of different cultures, nations, civilisations, religions. Why can't we let it as it is ? Isn't the world adult enough to just pause and say : we are the product of an history. We are patrimony. We should keep it that way, just like we are beginning to understand we should try to preserve flowers, trees, animals, monuments as they are. Why would you be so eager to transform France in Algeria ?

And we are the true lovers of peace, diversity and cultures. I love an african Africa. A japanese Japan. A french France.
 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom