Liberty GB Candidate

[Jackbuckby]

What is your posting of this video meant to prove or suggest?

I am not trying to prove anything. The video is there as background for people to make their own judgements about you and your methods. Not influenced by me but by yourself.

I had never heard of LibertyGB until the first post here. I used your own site (old and new) to discover what it was, what it stood for. Well, despite what you say, the impression it appears to wish to portray is of a white racist party (see quote above). And while you say you have fallen out with the BNP you appear to have fallen in love with the EDL (if LibertyGB's TV channel is to be believed).

I really couldn't care about the merry go round between the BNP, LibertyGB and EDL. What I do care about is that on one hand you deny racism and on the other promote it. Why do you not expect me and other people to fear the worst of those? And the consequences which, I note you continue to avoid responding.

In a way I hope you do find ten people here to put up a candidate. So we can judge just how many people you can convince. Even at a cost of undermining non-white people. Oh, and are Jews white or non-white atm?

Admin

We don't promote racism. Period. Never have, never will. Nor does the EDL. Islam is not a race. Our concern is with Islam. We do not hate anybody because of their race, either. Your claims are unfounded and ludicrous.

We have a horribly uneducated chap with a doctorate who is willing to stand if SquashedCommuter wishes to fund the candidacy. We of course will not win, given that we are such a new party. We will receive a small vote, and you will claim that is a failure, which is of course nonsense - every party starts somewhere.

Finally, Jews are not a race. That sounds like something a Nazi would say, admin. You shouldn't be propagating that kind of ignorance.

I come from a Jewish family and if I was anything like you, I'd cry 'I'm offended at your statement'.

[admin]

We don't promote racism. Period. Never have, never will. Nor does the EDL. Islam is not a race. Our concern is with Islam. We do not hate anybody because of their race, either. Your claims are unfounded and ludicrous.

Pardon? The two quotes I gave at the start on racism and the criminal way we English whites are being subjugated are nothing to do with you or your leader?

They were planted by some Islamic group to discredit you?

Come off it - you started by being grossly offensive to me. Well libelling me actually. Remember the unfounded and ludicrous claims were the ones you made that I was merely questioning
.

Finally, Jews are not a race. That sounds like something a Nazi would say, admin. You shouldn't be propagating that kind of ignorance.

I'm not Jack. Perhaps you hadn't noticed I share the view that 'race' is an artificial construct defined by racists. So I wouldn't know what is a race and what isn't. But you do. That's kind of interesting don't you think?

Admin

[Rachael]

This is a common mistake. The Bible is not the word of one man claiming to be channeling the word of a deity. The Qur'an is. The Bible is therefore interpreted in many ways.

Many Christians believe the Bible is the word of their god, channelled through those that wrote it. The fact it was written by more than one person does not stop them insisting that every word must be taken literally (even when contradictory) because their deity put the exact words into their heads (or mouths).

The Qu'ran is clearly interpreted differently by different followers of that faith and to say it isn't is quite frankly ludicrous. There is evidence of this every day in the fact that some commit acts of terrorism in the name of Islam, while other condemn them on exactly the same grounds.

[Jackbuckby]

This is a common mistake. The Bible is not the word of one man claiming to be channeling the word of a deity. The Qur'an is. The Bible is therefore interpreted in many ways.

Many Christians believe the Bible is the word of their god, channelled through those that wrote it. The fact it was written by more than one person does not stop them insisting that every word must be taken literally (even when contradictory) because their deity put the exact words into their heads (or mouths).

The Qu'ran is clearly interpreted differently by different followers of that faith and to say it isn't is quite frankly ludicrous. There is evidence of this every day in the fact that some commit acts of terrorism in the name of Islam, while other condemn them on exactly the same grounds.

These are some more common mistakes.

Firstly, they may believe they are the words of God channeled through many people, but there are contradictions and unlike the Qur'an, there is no specific rule that suggests which verses are 'true' and which verses are not.

Secondly, yes, clearly some people do interpret the Qur'an - and the people that interpret the Qur'an to be peaceful simply do not understand their book and therefore, are not Muslims.

Some purposely deceive, however. This is called Taqiyyah.

Remember, this isn't us saying 'all people who call themselves Muslims are terrorists'. We are not sayign that. But even if we assume it is a minority of Muslims who want to destroy the West, the threat is still real - it only took a minority for the Nazis to take over Germany and kill six million Jews.

Even 40% of Muslims in the UK want Sharia - and that doesn't include those practicing Taqiyyah.

There is clearly a real and present danger. Denying it is suicide.

[Rachael]

Reading your posts is suicide to my brain. Contradictory and full of unsupported claims (your posts, not my brain).

Let's start with this, as it at least claiming to be a fact:
Even 40% of Muslims in the UK want Sharia - and that doesn't include those practicing Taqiyyah

Please define more clearing what you mean by 'want Sharia' and also provide the source for that figure, and the credentials of the person or institution that arrived at it.

[Jackbuckby]

Reading your posts is suicide to my brain. Contradictory and full of unsupported claims (your posts, not my brain).

If knowledge is suicide to you, I think you need to re-examine your priorities in life.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm

http://muhammadanism.com/Quran/SatanicVerses.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Abrog ... e_Qur%27an

http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Faro ... gation.htm

http://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/

[Jackbuckby]

We don't promote racism. Period. Never have, never will. Nor does the EDL. Islam is not a race. Our concern is with Islam. We do not hate anybody because of their race, either. Your claims are unfounded and ludicrous.

Pardon? The two quotes I gave at the start on racism and the criminal way we English whites are being subjugated are nothing to do with you or your leader?

They were planted by some Islamic group to discredit you?

Come off it - you started by being grossly offensive to me. Well libelling me actually. Remember the unfounded and ludicrous claims were the ones you made that I was merely questioning
.

Finally, Jews are not a race. That sounds like something a Nazi would say, admin. You shouldn't be propagating that kind of ignorance.

I'm not Jack. Perhaps you hadn't noticed I share the view that 'race' is an artificial construct defined by racists. So I wouldn't know what is a race and what isn't. But you do. That's kind of interesting don't you think?

Admin

The way we English are being treated is criminal. It is population replacement. Talking about that is not racism. It is not condoning hatred against people for their race.

I didn't libel you. You made a number of unfounded and ludicrous claims and continue to do so. You have provided no evidence that we believe in racism, in hating people for their race, or forcing people to go home.

Race is not an artificial construct. It exists. Put an African man next to an English man and there is a difference. Denying race exists is on par with denying that cheese or bicycles exist.

You asked if Jews are white or not - suggesting that all Jews fall into one racial category. Don't tell lies, admin. You've been caught. Jews are not a race.

[Rachael]

I was editing my post while you were last posting, and you will see I made a request for knowledge. Rather than click on any of those links you provided (my mother told me never to follow strangers, and I apply that to internet safety too), can you answer my question on your sources in the body of your next post?

[Jackbuckby]

Reading your posts is suicide to my brain. Contradictory and full of unsupported claims (your posts, not my brain).

Let's start with this, as it at least claiming to be a fact:
Even 40% of Muslims in the UK want Sharia - and that doesn't include those practicing Taqiyyah

Please define more clearing what you mean by 'want Sharia' and also provide the source for that figure, and the credentials of the person or institution that arrived at it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-law.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... in-UK.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreen ... asphemers/

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/146

[Jackbuckby]

Reading your posts is suicide to my brain. Contradictory and full of unsupported claims (your posts, not my brain).

Let's start with this, as it at least claiming to be a fact:
Even 40% of Muslims in the UK want Sharia - and that doesn't include those practicing Taqiyyah

Please define more clearing what you mean by 'want Sharia' and also provide the source for that figure, and the credentials of the person or institution that arrived at it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-law.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... in-UK.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreen ... asphemers/

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/146

[Jackbuckby]

I was editing my post while you were last posting, and you will see I made a request for knowledge. Rather than click on any of those links you provided (my mother told me never to follow strangers, and I apply that to internet safety too), can you answer my question on your sources in the body of your next post?

I have provided you with sources. I should be doing work for a client right now but instead I'm talking to you.

Make some effort yourself, why don't you.

[somerandombloke]

As for the definition of indigenous - we do not have our own definition. The word has an official definition and it is:

"originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native"

When you consider Britain, this refers to the people who are native to this island. The indigenous folk of Britain are the 'white' European folk who have lived here for over 16,000 years -- in fact, since the end of the last ice age'.

So you can trace your bloodline back 16000 years can yuo?

[Rachael]

Oh, well, if we are taking the Telegraph as a respected news source, you might want to read this:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdo ... -telegraph

(You see I can make some effort myself.)

[Jackbuckby]

As for the definition of indigenous - we do not have our own definition. The word has an official definition and it is:

"originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native"

When you consider Britain, this refers to the people who are native to this island. The indigenous folk of Britain are the 'white' European folk who have lived here for over 16,000 years -- in fact, since the end of the last ice age'.

So you can trace your bloodline back 16000 years can yuo?

The majority of it, yes. That much is obvious by looking at me. I'm not suggesting there is such a thing as a 'pure race'. I'm part American Indian myself, but I am majority stock white European.

[Jackbuckby]

Oh, well, if we are taking the Telegraph as a respected news source, you might want to read this:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdo ... -telegraph

(You see I can make some effort myself.)

The source is within the article. The source is not the Telegraph.

You can't dismiss a source because you don't like a newspaper that reported on it.

[somerandombloke]

As for the definition of indigenous - we do not have our own definition. The word has an official definition and it is:

"originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native"

When you consider Britain, this refers to the people who are native to this island. The indigenous folk of Britain are the 'white' European folk who have lived here for over 16,000 years -- in fact, since the end of the last ice age'.

So you can trace your bloodline back 16000 years can yuo?

The majority of it, yes. That much is obvious by looking at me. I'm not suggesting there is such a thing as a 'pure race'. I'm part American Indian myself, but I am majority stock white European.

Sadly i cant. Im kind of white im pretty European though I got dark brown eyes. Can I stay? Or where do you draw the line?

[Jackbuckby]

So you can trace your bloodline back 16000 years can yuo?[/quote]


The majority of it, yes. That much is obvious by looking at me. I'm not suggesting there is such a thing as a 'pure race'. I'm part American Indian myself, but I am majority stock white European.[/quote]

Sadly i cant. Im kind of white im pretty European though I got dark brown eyes. Can I stay? Or where do you draw the line?[/quote]

Why are you asking if you can stay? I've never suggested kicking anyone out.

[somerandombloke]

Why are you asking if you can stay? I've never suggested kicking anyone out.

No Im just trying to find out where you draw the line as to who can legitimetly live here and who is culturly ineligible. This century? Last one? The 1600s? When?

[Rachael]

Oh, well, if we are taking the Telegraph as a respected news source, you might want to read this:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdo ... -telegraph

(You see I can make some effort myself.)

The source is within the article. The source is not the Telegraph.

You can't dismiss a source because you don't like a newspaper that reported on it.

That's a fair point. However, the way the source is reported has to be taken into account. Anything can be spun, and the more proficient the spinner, the less you notice the web.

That MORI poll certainly looks convincing, but the way the statistics have been framed in the Telegraph report is very loosey-goosey. For example, it says 40% of those polled support the introduction of Sharia in 'some areas of Britain'. Which areas? Large areas? Very specific areas? And what exactly was the question? What does did it mean by 'Sharia'? Are there specific and limited circumstances in which this 40% thought it should be applied? I can't begin to know what that 40% figure means without knowing exactly how the question was worded.

[Jackbuckby]

Why are you asking if you can stay? I've never suggested kicking anyone out.

No Im just trying to find out where you draw the line as to who can legitimetly live here and who is culturly ineligible. This century? Last one? The 1600s? When?

Again, I'm not suggesting anyone get kicked out.

You say you're mostly European but you have dark eyes, right? Well I'm mostly European and have dark eyes. I also have a nose that is not very European at all - because I'm part American Indian! Going on the basis that I am mostly white European, with heritage from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, I am without question an indigenous Brit. As, I imagine, are you.

This isn't a matter of finding DNA records or anything like that - it's fairly obvious to anyone what their ethnic background is.

Our policy is to stop immigration for at least five years and anyone who is needed here can come on a fixed term contract.

After that, we will have a strict policy that brings people here based on merit, but only those who share the same values as us would be able to come here. This means people who believe in Sharia would not be welcome - as Sharia (and Islam) is homophobic, misogynistic and violent.