The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 24 Nov 08 - 01:31 AM

"Oh, and Smokey, you're a guest, but a regular, why not start a thread about some of your musical interests? "

Because I would probably sound like a grumbling opinionated old git and be quite irritating, Peregrina, though thanks for the encouragement.

---

Continuation thread here (click)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 24 Nov 08 - 01:08 AM

In fact, I should have said "One is no better than the other in my opinion", and avoided the opportunity of spelling forgivable wrong :-)

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 24 Nov 08 - 01:05 AM

"Everything and anything can be forgivable...provided one has enough insight into another person's origins and personal problems, and also the willingness to forgive. That does not mean everything is justifiable or allowable, however. Think about the difference between those two, and see if you get what I mean.

What happens when you or anyone refuses to forgive someone else for something they said? Anything good? I don't think so. That doesn't mean, however, that you should allow the unjustifiable to be done when you are in a position to prevent it being done."

Yes Hawk, I do see your point. 'Forgiveable' was a bad choice of word on my part. I should have said "One is no better than the other in my opinion", it would have sufficed, although the difference is nothing to do with the point of my post.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 04:12 PM

And the fun goes on and on...just like a Celine Dion song.

Well, let's see now.

Don - We both seem to keep thinking that the other is acting "smug" and "superior", while not feeling that we are acting that way at all ourselves. Ironical, isn't it? Maybe we're both just sincerely saying exactly what we think is true. Consider that. Look for something else besides the very worst in my intentions and WAV's intentions, and I will gladly return the favor. I do not think you are smug, or an ass, or anything bad at all. I just think you should not be calling him a "racist". I think you should find a less vicious label to use in its place.

- Smokey - "Racism is prejudice based upon race, it is not necessarily hatred"

You're absolutely right, Smokey. Thanks for that clarification.

"He implies, or perhaps we infer, racial hatred, but doesn't literally preach it. One is no more forgiveable than the other in my opinion."

Everything and anything can be forgivable...provided one has enough insight into another person's origins and personal problems, and also the willingness to forgive. That does not mean everything is justifiable or allowable, however. Think about the difference between those two, and see if you get what I mean.

What happens when you or anyone refuses to forgive someone else for something they said? Anything good? I don't think so. That doesn't mean, however, that you should allow the unjustifiable to be done when you are in a position to prevent it being done.

- Insane Beard - "Bollocks. WAV couldn't give a shit about actual English Culture (something he consistently demonstrates he has no understanding of whatever, which is hardly surprising given that he's a naturalised Australian), instead he has fabricated a fantasy of Our Own Good Culture which is specifically designed to exclude, ignore and oppose the multi-cultural & ethnic realities of England."

Fine. ;-) What WAV does give a shit about, though, is his fabricated fantasy OF English culture...a fantasy which is obviously 100% real to him. You have to remember that it is real to him, and that in his own mind he is defending what he thinks of as English culture. Therefore it makes sense to him. And this is the case with most people, isn't it? Their lives, in a cultural sense, are largely arbitrary, and ARE a fantasy, based upon centuries of similarly arbitrary fantasies held by their forbears. For this they are willing to enlist in a war, go to another country, and kill people who are defending a different set of arbitrary fantasies.

And most of them are completely unware of how ludicrous and unnecessary that is.

*****

I have compassion for people in general. You know why? I know that most of them know as little as I do and are as vulnerable as I am. As such, they deserve a bit of compassion, even if they are not perfect and even if they occasionally say something stupid or something that indicates some form of prejudice.

To quote that famous line from you-know-where: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: olddude
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 03:21 PM

I said I would not come back to this thread however for some reason I have. It seems to me that this forum is composed mainly of people who have a love for the arts and offer suggestions, share common goals and have strong moral values towards others from all races or cultures. With that in mind, I would say that anyone posting messages that have elements of intolerance towards others will most certainly be taken to task very quickly. As stated by others this is probably not the place to do it. I am sure there are websites that have followers who believe in only a certain culture, or a certain race or a certain political system. In my short time here at mudcat, nearly to the person, most believe that diversity and multiculture values only bring positive aspects to any society. So the responsiblity and the adverse reaction afterwords rests solely on those who create such post on mudcat. In addition, serious and heart felt attempts to show where and how such things are not welcome, to point out how to improve a body of work, are met with resistance.

Subject: mobius strip smoked out
From: peregrina
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 01:25 PM

Oh, and Smokey, you're a guest, but a regular, why not start a thread about some of your musical interests?

Subject: RE: The endless loop - or is it a mobius strip
From: peregrina
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 01:19 PM

Rosy, I think a thread discussing the substantive issues separately would be a bit of progress!
Whether those who come in here for, apparently, the exclusive purpose of name-calling would actually want to contribute to a constructive discussion, well, who knows?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 06:29 AM

Peregrina (and/or perhaps other thready posters),

Thanks for offering some thought provoking comments.
Just scanning through here and picking up a little smattering of what you say. Though it's tricky to follow the thread of some of the discussion, due to the high volume of postings here.

If you felt like opening a fresh thread specifically targeting some of the key issues that this thread may have sparked. I for one would be interested to view, and question, and listen to some informed responses.

Cheers, Sleepy Rosie

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Will Fly
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 06:22 AM

I'll repeat yet again what was posted by many of us earlier up this thread (Franks's words):

this record amount of capitalist/economic immigration (perhaps hoping for the ethnic vote) that many citizens, and wildlife, are now going to pay for

The phrase "perhaps hoping for the ethnic vote" shows me that it's not simple immigration per se that Franks is against - it's the ethnic, i.e. racial difference of the immigrants. Would he use that phrase if the mass of immigrants were, like him, white men from Australia, i.e. from the same ethnic grouping? I doubt it.

And that is why I think that his constant protestations of loving the multicultural world and the like are a smoke-screen - possibly an unconscious one, but who knows - for what are essentially racist views. He also thinks that the promotion of his attitude to culture, especially folk music, which will somehow return us to a wildly inaccurate, Good English Culture of a non-existent 1950s Golden Age - and all the rest of his baggage will be "good for humanity". I can put up with this narrow-minded insanity - if he wants to believe it, let him - but I object to him trying to conceal racist views behind this smoke-screen and peddle them on this forum without being challenged.

Good for humanity, eh... Gawd 'elp us.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 05:03 AM

Why not just say that you disagree with his views on immigration, and explain how you disagree?

I have done, several times. The trouble is, I disagree with his views on immigration precisely because they're racist. Yes, it's a very loaded term, but I don't believe any other term fits (see also Oxford English Dictionary).

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 23 Nov 08 - 04:36 AM

...WAV's defensiveness about the sanctity of English culture equate to him being a racist, because it is NOT based on race at all...it's based on cultural values

Bollocks. WAV couldn't give a shit about actual English Culture (something he consistently demonstrates he has no understanding of whatever, which is hardly surprising given that he's a naturalised Australian), instead he has fabricated a fantasy of Our Own Good Culture which is specifically designed to exclude, ignore and oppose the multi-cultural & ethnic realities of England. This is not defensiveness on his part, rather an out and out assault on COMMON TRUTH, consisting as it does of divisive lies voiced in inflammatory polemic in order to promote a political agenda of cultural and ethnic purity as he perceives it. When WAV states that English culture is taking a hammering and when people lose their culture society suffers and English was a more English place 50 years ago he is nailing nailing his racist colours firmly to the mast of his sinking ship. Also - If WAV wasn't a racist, none of this would be an issue, let alone the core purpose of his rancid Life's Work.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 11:27 PM

"Racism is hatred based upon race, period."

Racism is prejudice based upon race, it is not necessarily hatred. WaV preaches racial prejudice, not racial hatred. He implies, or perhaps we infer, racial hatred, but doesn't literally preach it. One is no more forgiveable than the other in my opinion.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 11:07 PM

Forget all that Hawk......... He's a bigot and prejudiced with some elements of racism.............Don't care anymore except to note he's still an ass! So..................

I'm heading for the century marker......................vvvrrrrooooooooommmmmm



Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 10:49 PM

There you go again, Little Hawk. Smug and superior. You stick with your definitions, I'll stick with the OED. I'm not trying to "triumph" over anyone or anything, and I'm not the one who's trying to tell people how they have to live, who they can associate with, and what they can sing.

So just leave me out of your analyses. You still don't get it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 08:56 PM

What you have just quoted, Don, suggests this to me:

As paranoia and hostility are clearly common aspects of the kind of fear-based psychology that can result in racism, so is any fear of that which is perceived as different, so it wouldn't be at all surprising if a racist attitude also included ancillary aspects such as "prejudice and antagonism towards ........those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occasionally in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities."

That does not mean, however, that those aspects themselves can be defined as "racism", merely that they may accompany racism.

Racism is hatred based upon race, period. That's what it is, and that's why it's called "racism". The other things in your quoted definition are many other aspects of prejudice which are reasonably likely to be found in the kind of mindset that naturally is inclined to racism.

This is the same as to say that bank robbers (a very specifically definable group of criminals) are also likely to be:

violent (though probably a few of them are not)
antisocial
ammoral
emotionally unstable
hostile
irresponsible
etc.

Fine. But just because someone is ammoral or antisocial or violent or irresponsible does NOT equate to him being a bank robber, does it?

Neither does WAV's defensiveness about the sanctity of English culture equate to him being a racist, because it is NOT based on race at all...it's based on cultural values. It is English cultural values that concern him, as opposed to Scottish cultural values, Irish cultural values, Indian cultural values, Caribbean cultural values, etc. Those are all a question of custom and mindset...not race...not skin color...not hair color...not any physical characteristic of a person whatsoever.

You can perhaps call him a cultural xenophobe if you want. You can say he's prejudiced if you want. You have no justification to call him a racist. The popularity of the word "racist" in popular dialogue these days is more based upon the devastating power of the word itself to utterly damn and fatally wound its target than on anything else, in my opinion, and that is why it comes up so much in the public dialogue.

This is not true of the word "prejudice". WAV, arguably, can be said to be showing prejudice. He is not showing racism.


To triumphantly say to someone "Game, set, and match." is like delivering one of those snappy sound bites that figure so largely in network news and political campaigns these days. It sounds impressive! It holds no actual content. It doesn't prove anything.

Accordingly, you won't find me saying it.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 07:23 PM

"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, especially those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occasionally in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities."

Game, set, and match.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 06:48 PM

"Smokey, name-calling doesn't really advance the discussion."

You're right, P, but after a while on here the temptation is sometimes just too great. I completely approve of your efforts, but which subject? I'm now off out for a few hours, so don't think I'm being ignorant.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: peregrina
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 06:09 PM

Smokey, name-calling doesn't really advance the discussion. I'm trying to make things a bit more interesting by bringing in some points of content about the topic rather than labelling. Please join me. I would like to know what you think about the subject rather than the person.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 05:53 PM

I see that he is being defensive about what he perceives as "English" culture, Pip, and there is indeed such a thing as English culture, and I suspect that most English people are somewhat sensitive or defensive about it in a variety of ways. It would be very surprising if they were not, because all people tend to naturally defend their own familiar cultural values and they experience some anxiety when seeing those cultural values watered down or subjected to outside influence.

That does not equate to being racist.

It's a matter of degree.

Why not just say that you disagree with his views on immigration, and explain how you disagree? What use is it to label him or his views "racist"? There is no defence any human being can advance against an accusation of racism in the present milieu, anymore than there once was any defence against an accusation of witchcraft.

Wait until someone calls you a racist, and you will find out that what I am saying in that regard is true.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 05:47 PM

Oo look - he hates imperialism and loves the world being multicultural. Why ever didn't you mention that before WaV?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 05:39 PM

...and I have to state the fact again that I hate imperialism - be it Nazi, Victorian or any other; and, accordingly, do indeed love our world being multicultural; and do, accordingly, probably know and respect the world's cultures as well as anyone here (major in anthropology, 40 countries, etc.); and, accordingly, have here at least tried to defend the land rights of Aborigines, etc.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 05:31 PM

racist - someone who hates other people merely because of what racial type they belong to.

No. Here's the Oxford English Dictionary definition of racism (again):

"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Hence: prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, especially those felt to be a threat to one's cultural or racial integrity or economic well-being; the expression of such prejudice in words or actions. Also occasionally in extended use, with reference to people of other nationalities."

Look at the part after 'Hence'. WAV doesn't hate people from other cultures - nobody's ever said he does. He just believes they pose a threat to English culture and wants to discriminate against them, by stopping them coming here.

As I've said before, we don't say he's a racist because we believe immigration can never be questioned; we say he's a racist because he questions immigration on racist grounds. Earlier on today, I asked him:

what would your response be if a million English expats immigrated from Canada or Australia or Spain? Would you question their immigration? If not, why not?

He replied: "an expat, in your above example, would be repatriating NOT emigrating"

Now, if a million Canadian expats arrived in England tomorrow, they'd cause a lot of social upheaval. They'd want to work, which would tend to drive wages down; they'd need somewhere to live, which would tend to make housing that bit harder to find; and they'd want to stay healthy, which would mean that doctors' waiting lists got longer. Anyone who 'questioned immigration' on economic or political grounds would question it just the same in the case of returning expats - because, in economic and political terms, returning expats have exactly the same effect as new immigrants. But, in WAV-world, a million English-born incomers wouldn't even qualify as immigration.

Let's try a different example. According to the 2001 Census, there are 400,000 British citizens who give their ethnicity as Indian and their religion as Muslim or Sikh. Let's say that about half of them were born in Britain (almost certainly an underestimate). Let's suppose that half of those people get tired of living in Britain and emigrate to India, land of their forefathers. Ten or twenty years down the line, let's suppose that there's a massive revival in Hindu fundamentalism in India; suddenly it's a bad place to be a Muslim or a Sikh. Our 100,000 British-born Indian Sikhs and Muslims dust off their British passports, pack their bags and get the next plane for tolerant old England.

So, WAV: what would your response be if 100,000 British-born Indian Sikhs and Muslims immigrated to England? Would you question their immigration?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 05:30 PM

Take your point LH, but I fear subtlety may be wasted on some - I was specifically aiming the question at WaV - possibly the wrong etiquette here. If so, I apologise.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 05:23 PM

Yes, I understand that. What I was really objecting to was the use of a common rhetorical device (and a very popular one), that of pulling Hitler or the Nazis out of your hat while disagreeing with another person over some political point, thus equating them with the most awful stereotype possible in our present culture. I've probably done that myself, mind you, but I think it's being done far too often.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 05:18 PM

LH - I don't think nationalism is WaV's only defining characteristic - and I have no real idea how good or bad he is. I just don't like what he says.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 05:10 PM

"Hitler liked bunny-rabbits - does that make nazism okay?"

No, it simply indicates that being a Nazi was not Hitler's only defining characteristic. This is always important to remember when dealing with other human beings. They are neither as bad as you might like them to be (for the sake of your argument)...nor as good as you might want them to be.

Subject: RE: thoughts on construction of identity
From: peregrina
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 05:08 PM

As I've said in this thread before, the first important phase of european folk lore collection is associated with romantic nationalism (the Grimms, Elias Lonnrot, Herder, Fichte). Ideological uses (and misuses) of folk music would be a nice subject for another thread.

I find it intriguing that the focus here is ENGLISH rather than, say, Lincolnshire, Lancashire, Yorkshire or Northumbrian regional ra-ra-ing.

It seems to me that an English identity is oppositional, and is sharpened by the need for definition AGAINST those over a border (to Scotland or Wales). It is, in other words, self definition that is negatively constructed AGAINST a non-English OTHER.

Whereas a regional area identity is far more 'real' in the sense of being associated with specific regional dialect, food, field and farming traditions, vernacular architecture and so forth.

Honestly, I'm not sure why I am bothering to post coherent thoughts here in the middle of a playground name-calling mob.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 05:04 PM

Ah Don.. I suspect your Japanese friends aren't proper Japanese nationalists, otherwise they'd have been deeply offended - it stands to reason. You are bratantry ditheminating lacist plopaganda.

"nationalism with eco-travel and fair-trade"

Hitler liked bunny-rabbits - does that make nazism okay?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 05:02 PM

No, Will - I haven't criticized or knocked (as some others on this thread have: Don, IB, "Engrish frute") any particular ethnicity...once again, it's the questioning of immigration itself.
Smokey - I don't like imperialism and monarchism and see my country as England only; and, as I also think that nationalism with eco-travel and fair-trade (via a stronger UN) is a good way forward for humanity, I am indeed an English nationalist, who wishes Plaid Cymru and the SNP well with their DEMOCRATIC bids for full independence.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 04:53 PM

Whoo Hoo! Great picture in that last link, Don. By God, it makes me want to pull out my mighty claymore and cleave some vile Englishmen in twain.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 04:48 PM

We have Scottish nationalists. We have Quebecois nationalists. We have Basque nationalists.   Why then should we not have English nationalists? ;-) Do the English not rate as having a unique culture because they have been too successful at conquering others in the last millenium? How does it equate to being "racist"? Racism is the hatred of a specific racial type regardless of culture, not the exclusive promotion or defence of a local or national culture.

I am reminded of a parrot and a minah bird squawking at one another from separate cages...

"You're a racist! Squawk!"

"Liar! You're the racist! Squack!"

"Shut up, you feathered racist! Squawk!"

"Pipe down, you avian racist! Squawk!"

Ad infinitum......

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 04:41 PM

You? Are ginna try to tell me where I can and canna' live?   I dinna think so!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 04:19 PM

"I'm an English NOT a British nationalist"

So WaV, that means you're more restrictive in your sense of nationalism than the BNP. That's some claim pal.. although in a way I have to admire you for publicly nailing your colours to the mast and not being ashamed of your political beliefs - even to the point of actively publicising your own image and telling everyone where they can find you. That's more than most BNP members dare do. You also believe that your proposed barriers should apply to the Welsh and the Scots - though presumably in the belief that it would be beneficial to them? How nice - I'm sure they'll be eternally grateful to you. I hope you have a good explanation ready for them, even though you don't seem to be willing to give us one.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 04:13 PM

David, I told a couple of friends of mine about how you have picked up on the expression "Engrish Frute" (originally part of a joke, and I also told them the context of the expression), and that you keep throwing it back, implying that it is some kind of racist slur or epithet. They both agreed that a) it was not racist in any way, and that b) in the context of the joke, it is pretty funny. But that you are attempting to turn it into a racist slur. So David, my boy, the egg is on your chin.

They also agreed that if this was the best you could do by way of attempting to justify your own blatant bigotry, then you really don't have much.

Both of them are long-time friends of mine. One's name is John Matsumoto and the other's name is Teri Honda (she's no relation to the auto manufacturer, or if so, only very distantly).

So, David, take that and shove it up your "Engrish frute!" (That, by the way, is what John suggested I tell you to do.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 12:45 PM

Remember, Spaw, it only takes 1 post to win it. Quality, my man, not quantity!

racist - someone who hates other people merely because of what racial type they belong to.

People, I don't think WAV's views on immigration and/or cultural crossover have any bearing on that whatsoever, therefore it is incorrect to call him a "racist", no matter how much it satisfies your inner need to prove to yourselves and everyone else here that he's a very bad person. You're using the wrong word.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 12:41 PM

IB - if you keep calling me a "racist" when all I've ever done is question the ACT OF IMMIGARATION ITSELF and NOT any particular culture, then I have to keep reminding how you told us of FRIENDS who make racist remarks at the pub

And as I've told you umpteen times, in the land of free speech & the guaranteed sanctity of self-expression no matter how misguided that self-expression may be they are entitled to say what they want for whatever reason; generally as a non-PC wind-up whilst in their cups. What they do not do is PUBLISH & PROMOTE & DEFEND overtly & inflammatory racist bullshit as you do, let alone agree with the policies of the BNP. As for the act of IMMIGARATION (sic) - the one particular culture you are constantly banging on about is ENGLISH culture - at least your rather perverted anti-utopian vision of same; this whiter-than-white-more-English-than-it-is-now fantasy which in the context of the cultural & ethnic landscape of England in 2008 is one of the things that marks you out as a racist.

If you weren't a racist, you'd see things very differently believe you me. Only a racist would trouble over the fecking half.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Will Fly
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 12:20 PM

DF - let me remind you (yet again) of this phrase of yours:

this record amount of capitalist/economic immigration (perhaps hoping for the ethnic vote) that many citizens, and wildlife, are now going to pay for

The phrase "ethnic vote", in relation to immigration, has a clearly racist connotation. Got it now? It doesn't matter how much you obfuscate or try to put a spin on your beliefs, they are essentially racist - which is why you have been reviled on this forum.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 11:58 AM

I'm an English NOT a British nationalist, Pip; and an expat, in your above example, would be repatriating NOT emigrating.

IB - if you keep calling me a "racist" when all I've ever done is question the ACT OF IMMIGARATION ITSELF and NOT any particular culture, then I have to keep reminding how you told us of FRIENDS who make racist remarks at the pub, and that you referred to a recorder made in Japan as an "Engrish frute."

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 09:31 AM

No English person I've ever known uses the word 'chooks'.

I agree with our political parties, including the BNP, on some, not all, things - as you can tell from my previous posts

That's quite a feat, considering that the BNP disagree vehemently with all the major political parties - and what we can tell from your previous posts is that you agree specifically with them.

Answer me this: what would your response be if a million English expats immigrated from Canada or Australia or Spain? Would you question their immigration? If not, why not?

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 07:46 AM

I'd never describe a recorder made in Japan as an "Engrish frute" (IB) or New Labour as "all mother fuckers" (IB) - that's for sure.

If you must quote me at least get it right - the phrase was a bunch of mushy-mouthed mother-fuckers, which is merely my expressed opinion, unlike the inflammatory racist lies you publish and promote at every opportunity, or the further racist bullshit you come out with in its defence.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 06:19 AM

Ruth: I'm an English repatriate, NOT an immigrant, and an English nationalist, not a British nationalist; I agree with our political parties, including the BNP, on some, not all, things - as you can tell from my previous posts or my website.
Minus any recording device, I can't prove that at interviews I've had to put up with "Why ON EARTH did you come back?", "You must be mad!", etc., but I can prove all my many attempts to get work, within an hour-and-a-half of public transport, as I keep the rejection/keep-you-on-file letters in order to keep track of who's who.

Sleepy Rosie: I hate imperialism - be it Nazi, Victorian, or any other; and love our world being multicultural - including English culture.

"But, as with racism, no doubt you've got your own personal definition of realism too..." (IB)...I'd never describe a recorder made in Japan as an "Engrish frute" (IB) or New Labour as "all mother fuckers" (IB) - that's for sure.

And I sped through the rest to...

THE WEEKLY WALKABOUT, E.G.

(Which, as it happens, relates to Olddudes last post.)

Poem 95 of 230: A GOOD LIFE

To fauna,
    Home-flora.
Sheep for wool -
    Fed till full.
Chooks for eggs -
    Free-range legs.
Milk from cows -
    Should well house:
Better grade
    Can be made.
Fish for game -
    Cut the pain.
Dogs for pets -
    No regrets.
And question
    Castration.

This does say
    Buddha's way,
And Blake's way:
    A good life -
For all life.

From walkaboutsverse.741.com

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 01:37 AM

"Zzzzzzzzzrrrroooowwwwwwwww,"

I hope you noted the implied Doppler effect.

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 01:33 AM

Hey-Hey-Hey------------------Ain't called "Smoke" for nothin' are ya'?

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 01:31 AM

Zzzzzzzzzrrrroooowwwwwwwww, he said, on his way to the Good land of Peaceful Slumber.....

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 01:27 AM

And Spaw flies past on the inside.............

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Nov 08 - 12:22 AM

To dream...the impossible dream....

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 10:59 PM

Sorry Don.....Almost missed your post......I got this baby really flyin'..........................But I think you're right!

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 10:57 PM

LOL Smokey.....That really is a piece of shit work isn't it? No kidding, I couldn't believe my own ears. He has problems on all fronts but man that one song sums up his musical abilities..........Sums up.....thats' addition, right? Okay, so let's add up the good things.......................



















































..........uh............................it finally ended when I hit the back button? Does that count?

Okay..................let's forget it and go back to the race!

I'm back on the throttle, goin' up through the gears.............

Turn it on.....Wind it up...Blow it out....GTO

WAAAAH-WAH-WAH-WAAAAAH.................

Spaw

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 10:56 PM

Man, you are good, Spaw, but when it comes to really rank, I think Wavery Davy has you beat on this one. And that's goin' some!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: The Weekly Walkabout (part 2.)
From: GUEST,Smokey
Date: 21 Nov 08 - 10:44 PM

My nostrils are still choked up from 'Oh Come All Ye Faithful'.. It's enough to put the faithful off coming for life.. "Nostrils?" I hear you ask - well, my ears gave up after verse one.