Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Curnoack | |
Author: Ben.M(UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 21:05:56 01/09/05 Sun Most members here have been ver restrained and I applaud them for that. However I'm 17 and sometimes I have a fiery temperament. So here goes, fuck off and take you Cornish nationalist bullshit somewhere else! [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Now, now! | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:23:09 01/09/05 Sun I appreciate your anger, and your youth (truth be told, I envy it), but take a deep breath and bear in mind Nietzche's observation that "In fighting against a monster one must be aware that one does not become a monster oneself" [badly paraphrased]. I'm more anti-nationalist than most (born in NI, living in Scotland) but I'm also British and one of our greatest strengths has always been the tolerance of the enraged impotents our society has accumulated. Curnoack's rants are typical of the nationalist who clings to some idea that had it not been the UK that took control of their insignificant little piece of land then they'd be living in some utopian dream. They'll always conveniently forget that had the UK not existed in one of its many forms then they would either be wearing berets or jackboots. Remember, Ben, that you are a Briton - one of the world's most tolerant races in the modern world - and that these poor loons are more to be laughed at than pitied. Don't let them get under your skin. Remember that the best way to deal with errant children is to ignore them, denying them the very reaction that justifies their sad existence and maintains there own delusion that they're somehow making an impact. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Tolerant race... | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:35:28 01/10/05 Mon "Remember, Ben, that you are a Briton - one of the world's most tolerant races in the modern world" aH YES, THE race that helped blow Ireland apart, not to mention Argentina, China, India, Palestine... and inventing the concentration camp and apartheid in Africa. you've yet to taste democracy in the Uk. You can't even try the queen. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Helped blow Ireland apart? We tried to keep it together... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:04:08 01/10/05 Mon The concentration camp was invented by the Spanish seberal years previously, apartheid was certainly not a British idea and was vehmently apposed by the British in South Africa. The Afrikaners were the ones responsible there I'm afraid. Why on Earth should the Queen be tried for anything anyway? She's been raised from birth to a model citizen and head-of-state which is more than can be said for virtually everyone else. If you had an IQ exceeding the temperature of this room in Celsius you would realise that we are among the most democratic countries in the world. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: The Queen's blood | |
|
Author: Seb [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:27:50 01/10/05 Mon "She's been raised from birth to a model citizen and head-of-state which is more than can be said for virtually everyone else." She also has the pure blood, undiluted by Jew or Commoner. That is why she can rule us, as a Christian monarch... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: "pure blood": what nonsense - we all have pure human blood | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:20:15 01/10/05 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Er... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:53:14 01/10/05 Mon In point of fact she is of about the most mixed blood of any human being anywhere. I refer you to the following page: http://www.monarchist.ca/archives/ethnic.htm I am particularly keen on dilution by Jewish blood! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: that confirms it then: pure human blood | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:07:54 01/10/05 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Excepty... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:16:53 01/11/05 Tue ... According to a BBC programme last month, the fifth most popular conspiracy theory on the internet is that the British Royal Family are actually a race of alien lizards. This conspiracy is just more popular than that they killed Diana and just less popular than that aliens abduct hillbillies and sexually molest them. Nevertheless, web-nutters aside, I tend to agree that the royals are probably human, and not the worst humans at that. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ha, this was David Icke's theory... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:03:57 01/11/05 Tue Who was a former BBC sports commentator. However, when he was challenged to produce some evidence to substantiate this claim, he maintained that he only meant "lizard" as a metaphor. However, his speeches state otherwise, and one wonders if there are many insects present within the walls of Buckingham Palace. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Creoles | |
|
Author: anon [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:05:29 01/11/05 Tue "In point of fact she is of about the most mixed blood of any human being anywhere." Not so sure about that. What about the Creoles in the Caribbean etc? Blood from every continent in some cases! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:49:03 01/11/05 Tue I would say that the Royals are about as mixed as that. If you have a look at the link in my post, you'll see that it's pretty comprehensive. That's why they look kind of funny, in my opinion; although I still believe that they should have gone further - for example, by Victoria marrying her eldest son to an Indian princess, which would probably have meant that there would be Emperors at Delhi today. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: hmmm | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:00:46 01/12/05 Wed Well to be fair most of the alleged lines of descent are caucasian - there are no Africans or aboriginal peoples from the New World, both of which would possibly occur in Caribbean blood. I also worry a little that the list is designed to somehow justify a 'world monarchy', or to make the monarchy the embodiment of multicultural political correctness rather than routed in one race or continent, when clearly the Royals are pretty undeniably European in most respects. On the other hand, I quite like the idea, and we are all clearly inter-related to some extent, in that we are all descendents of 'Lucy' (or Eve if you prefer) and if it makes a Chinese restuarant owner in Chorley more likely to be a monarchist, that's fine by me. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It's just a tad dodgy | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:13:18 01/12/05 Wed The list tells you that the Queen is descended from some line, Prince Phil from somewhere else, then suddenly it will tell you that Charles is descended from someone or other without suggesting on which side. Couldn't they be a little more consistent on that? They are also talking about membership of the royal families of different European countries, which is hardly the same as being related to the actual peasants of those same countries. That said, it's several trillion times better than some shaven-headed nong suggesting that the royal family is "pure" something or other. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Dodgy dossiers | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:33:54 01/12/05 Wed I agree that the point is to deconstruct the myth that HM holds her position because she is an embodiment of racial purity. This is clearly nonsense, and so it doesn't matter how iffy some of that info is. On the other hand, there is still a tendency to talk about a "European" race, wich is clearly nonsense. There is no such thing. Slavs and Teutons and Latins and Scandinavians and such like are more closely related to each other than, say, Australian aboriginies and Japanese, but they are different races nevertheless, and many of them more alien to us culturally than Indians, Singaporeans etc. In a way, then, this attempt to show the multi-racial origins of the royals is a bit hypocritical because of the relative racial but not cultural proximity. Charlie should have married Crown Princess Wossname from Japan - that would have put the puma among the pigeons. On the other hand, the previous leader of the Conservative Party was a quarter Japanese, and no-one seemed to care, so who knows? Considering it from another point of view, though, it would be a potentially monarchy-killing disaster if William marries some European or even non-European aristocrat's daughter. He should find a nice wife from Down Under somewhere, preferably called Sheilla or Katelyn or some such thing. See how Mr Latham and Ms Clarke like that. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Royal Renaissance | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:46:40 01/12/05 Wed Would that mean Australians would have to start liking the stuck up British Royals as much as they like the nice working class Danish ones? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: If Wills were to marry a nice Australian girl, the repulican movement would be dead before you could say "glossy magazine" | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:10:53 01/12/05 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Yep, tolerant, that's us | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:50:33 01/11/05 Tue Yep, the British are, though I cannot remember who said it, 'the world's most tolerant bigots'. If you have any doubt about the tolerance of the British, mad republican Lord Protectors notwithstanding, then just look at our society: the average Briton in today's world can be of any colour, of any faith, of any sexual preference, of any political allegiance and of any physical or mental ability. Now compare that to, for example, the US, the rest of Europe, the rest of the world or even your Cornish utopia, and I think you'll find we compare very well. After all, were the British so awful, how come so many nations still remain members of the Commonwealth? As for ripping Ireland apart, I think you'll find that the worst thing done in Ireland by the British was done under a British republic, the very system you seem to promote so vociferously. As for partition, Ireland has never been a united nation except under British rule. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Do you have any concept of history? | |
|
Author: Frank (US) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:16:28 01/11/05 Tue Your history is terribly inaccurate Curnoack, While British rule can be argued to have oppressed Ireland for a long time...how the hell can u argue that Britain blew up Argentina?...the Falklands war was fought around the Falklands and the British aspirations of an Argentine Empire died nearly before the began around the napoleonic era i believe. Also Pakistan and India, while both offshoots of British India started b/c of dissent in the Indian National Congress and eventually escalated until the Muslims were moving to Pakistan (and Bangladesh, but we'll ignore for now) and Hindus moving to India...while the British certainly played on this, this was by no means a British act. As for China...I'm chinese and i can tell you that Britain had no part in "blowing it up" in the terms of ruining china, the Opium war, in which they invaded and took Hong Kong, didnt really ruin china...you might want to look toward Japan (pre WWII as well as WWII) Oh yes, while I'm not sure about the concentration camps, but the apartheid was instigated by the Boers under British control, and the British actually tried to rein them in somewhat, which is why apartheid became huge especially after the British left. In fact, check out Rise and Fall of the British Empire by Lawrence James, it ends with a quote by Nelson Mandela who praised Britain... Please know your history before you start spewing ur deluded nonsense [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Well said. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:59:14 01/11/05 Tue A) Britain bought Argentina, which is one of the reasons why they dislike us - we never annexed the country. B) Indian Muslims were killing each other for centuries before Brits even knew India existed - best look at the Abbassids and whatnot for an explanation for that. C) Ditto Ireland: the problem is that Papists and Protestants hate each other, not this or that particular British Government policy. D) Unless you are in to moral absolutes, I would be wary of defending the despotic Chinese empire in its competition with Britain, which, although far from perfect, can point at the success which we made of Hong Kong with pride. E) South Africa, my native land, was a mess because of the Boers. They founded the two Boer states which later went to war with the two British ones precisely BECAUSE we banned them from keeping slaves; and Cecil Rhodes, that bane of 'liberal' anti-colonialists, stood for and won the Prime Ministership of Cape Colony on the policy of allowing black South Africans the vote. We had to accept curtailing the black franchise as a condition for the Boers signing the treaty of Union after the Boer War. Bastards... calling me rooinekke and hans khaki and suchlike. Good for you, Frank. You show a nicer historical sense than most British people. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The Opium Wars and Moral Absolutes | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:59:52 01/12/05 Wed And if you are into moral absolutes, you could also ask how well the Chinese acquitted themselves in the opium wars relative to Britain. Brtiain fought the wars merely to avoid continued humiliation and unbearable corruption and discrimination in trade with China (I would have to concede this is a dubious reason for fighting a war, but it was a more legitimate reasoning in the C19th, and the US and France weren't far behind Britain in making the same demands and profiting from the Opium wars themselves). The Chinese, on the other hand, viewed anyone not from the Celestial Empire as barbarian ghosts with no rights or honour, and indeed, they seem to have viewed their own people in much the same light. The Chinese authorities regularly gave out orders for Chinese people to poison westerners or destroy their property - indiscriminately and en masse - as well as seizing produce and closing ports to trade or imposing arbitrary fines and taxes when it suited them. This was the background to the wars. Once the wars started British troops generally behaved with honour and fairness, although lootings and rapes did occur. The British smashed through Chinese defences time and again with hardly any casualties despite massively superior numbers and relatively sophisticated weaponry being pitted against them. Yet Chinese officials were so scared of failure and dismissive of foreigners they behaved as if each defeat were a victory. British delegations to make peace with the Chinese were regularly murdered and tortured, their treaties invariably ripped up before they could even be signed, yet in every city the British took they praised the bravery of its defenders and released the prisoners to return to their homes. The Chinese on the other hand murdered the civilian populations of each city (and committed suicide) rather than suffer the indignity of barbarian conquest. In contrast to Chinese atrocities against both their own people and British soldiers, officials, merchants and other civilians, the worst British 'atrocity' of the wars, often cited as one of the prime evils of British Imperialism, was the burning of the Summer Palace. Now while I admit that this was an act of cultural barbarism, I would make the following observations for others to ponder and take as they will; 1) the palace had already been trashed and looted by French troops and Chinese civilians days before the decision was taken to burn its remains, 2) the chinese had routinely failed to end the second war or respect treaties and persisted in dismissing and covering up British military successes 3) the burning of an empty and looted palace which was itself a symbol of a corrupt imperial elite is not a war crime. It does not constitute mass murder, or indeed the murder of one civilian or enemy combatant. Compare this to the carnage the British encountered in each city they entered, with women and children slaughtered by their own men and thrown into wells to poison the water. The British may have been the aggressors, but they were by far the more 'moral' combatants in a dirty war. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: British = race? Not too keen on that one | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:49:24 01/10/05 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Point conceded - how about nation? | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:37:49 01/11/05 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: ho wabout "one of the world's most tolerante peoples" - seems open-ended enough | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:09:03 01/12/05 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Trixta Paisley | |
|
Author: Orange Mom [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:33:16 01/10/05 Mon "(born in NI, living in Scotland) but I'm also British" Do you still go in for the wearing of the Orange? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Could someone explain this to me? | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:09:46 01/10/05 Mon Though considering it comes from someone who has managed to misspell the first word I ever learnt... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: surely... | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:20:42 01/10/05 Mon Surely a Cornishmen would nto spell mum as "mom" perhaps he isnt Cornish after all, but an American or European who likes to spend his time trying to annoy people. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: No orange in my family (thank God) | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:35:54 01/11/05 Tue Paisley? Uhh, I feel dirty. But, to be clear, neither I, nor any member of my family have EVER had anything to do with that ragtag mob of xenophobic morons. Nor have we had anything to do with the other bunch of xenophobic morons that seem intent on running that pissing little country I regretably must call my birthplace. I'm one of the apparently few, though in truth majority, that detest the small-minded, psychotic plebians who think they represent the decent people of NI (and please note that the word decent carries no religious or political connotation). I'm British, yes, and identify myself as such because I was born in the UK, live in the UK and, dodgy government notwithstanding, have every intention of dying in the UK (many years from now if I can knock my smoking on the head). Roberdin, she's referring to the Orange order, a collection of low lifes whose rabid protestantism is on a parallel with your average Islamic fundamentalist. Think puritanical zealot, or US administration, and you're pretty much there. As stated above, I wouldn't wear a sash (the symbol of their klan) if my life depended on it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I really must go and take a very long, hot, sodium-hydroxide bath. Hopefully then I'll get off with compulsive hand-washing for the next few years. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |