"This bit of propaganda is often used by the leftists in this country who want to strip all Americans of their Constitutional rights to bear arms in order to consolidate their dreams of control. The obvious solution is to take full personal responsibility for owning a firearm and to make sure that if you purchase a gun, you also purchase plenty of gunownership lessons and target practice. One does similarly for owning a motor vehicle or even a computer. Anything less is foolhardy"

I'm not really concerned with what American leftists think. However, gun ownership is all about perspective: do you trust your government? Obviously Americans do not as they are willing to tolerate disgusting murder rates; quite frankly I'm more worried about rapists and murderers than my own police force. Motor vehicles are for transport; guns are for killing. You do the math pal.

@ Kapitein A

Why do we have to repeat the same stuff all over again?  If you make the effort to read CAREFULLY the first time, then it wouldn't be necessary to go around again.

You claim that your primary allegiance is to your country, but in the same paragraph you go on to say that "if I become a minority....it is of no concern to me what its politics are".  Hence, I was right!  Your primary concern is to (physical) race/ethnicity, not principles and values.   You seem quite capable of saying contradictory things in the same breath.  

Once again, I agree with you that "there is a great deal of overlap" between race/ethnicity and culture.  But that is an overlap based on circumstances and historical 'accident'.  It is not INHERENT in the physical manifestation of 'race'.  Condi Rice (whom you refer to with your customary racial arrogance as a Mexican dish) is a good example of that.  

Once again, I also agree that any people has a (moral) right to cultural self-determination, and thus implicitly to immigration control.  And the latter should be determined internally via democratic means.  

None of this disproves that you fail to make a PROPER distinction between race/ethnicity and culture.  You do fail to do that.  Hence, you are an explicit 'racist' and, I repeat, I don't mean to use that word as an insult.  Although you must realise that I have a low opinion of racists, whatever their race might be.  For me human morality must be based on respect for the individual before respect for any group.   

I do recall an incident when a fellow made some remark towards me (in a semi-humorous way) about Asian females being "subservient".

That is a strange comment indeed. I have generally found East and Southeast Asian females to be particularly assertive, even if they are demure about it.

I laughingly joked back about it; that assertion hardly applies since I pack a .357 Magnum in my purse. He blanched.

Subservience or unassertiveness are states of mind, and have little to do with the possession of weaponry, although that gives people an artificial sense of confidence. Short of someone physically threatening you, and even then it would have to be life-threatening, your gun is useless, unless of course you're willing to accept a life sentence in order to prove a point.

His primary allegiance is thus not to values and principles but to own 'race/ethnicity'. If he sees for instance Condi Rice, what he sees is a 'black' not an 'American'. His kind of racism is of the direct kind.
 
Further errors. My primary allegiance (excluding myself, family, etc.) is to my country. However, if I become a minority in that country, it is of no concern to me what its politics are. As far as values and principles are concerned, I am a liberal nationalist, who generally believes in centre-right values (not moral ones but economic ones) and centre-left government size and spending as a safety net.
Nor do I see Condoleeza Rice (which sounds like a Mexican dish to me) as not American. The United States does not have a set-in-stone ethno-racial composition as does Europe, East Asia, etc.
I do believe that the United States (as well as Canada and Australasia) should be Western and majorily White (like 75%), however, that has nothing to do with national self-determination but for my own convenience.
*There are certain Americans of various European ancestry who refer to themselves as White Nationalists, as they belong to no one single ethnicity. I am not advocating their ideas...While I believe in the national self-determination of each White country (European), I do not believe that they should be part of a White superstate or surrender their underlying national cultures, etc.

Indeed, you do not seem to be "politically-correct", but perhaps you are unfamiliar with the racism of the 'Kapitein' which is commonly found in most of the world. He fails to make the distinction between race/ethnicity and culture, and mistakenly assumes that culture is inherently linked to physical characteristics.

Incorrect. There is a distinction between race/ethnicity and culture, however, there is also a great deal of overlap. When it comes to ethno-nationality, physical characteristics is one of several factors. F.e. this Bishop is obviously a British citizen, however, he is neither English, Welsh, Scotch, or Irish - the indigenous groups. British nationals in his position, including both non-Whites and "other Whites" (according to UK Statistics) identify as "British" rather than English, etc.

He dislikes "melting-pot regions" of the world, including America of course, and clings to some ludicrous illusion of racial 'purity' in other parts of the world.

Incorrect again. I have nothing against melting-pot states. However, I do dislike: (a) the absolute decline in the numbers of Europeans and their descendants, otherwise known as *Whites, (b) the relative decline of the White share of world population, and (c) the potential loss of White self-determination in Europe and North America. Had White fertility rates kept up relative to immigrants and their children, I would have no problem with immigration.

The good bishop may not be Anglo Saxon, but he may be Anglicized, and that's fine with me.

The term 'Anglicized' generally refers to names e.g. Agnes instead of Agnieska.

As a matter of fact, if all of the UK's immigrants were "Anglicized" then we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then.

BTW, I wouldn't do well in Brussels or Strasbourg or any other Euro city. I like to pack heat. ;)

Well if you have a firearm, you should be prepared and know how to use it, otherwise it could be used against you.

@ Atheling

Thanks for your personal 'testimony'. 

I am glad that I was careful enough to write "PERHAPS you are unfamiliar etc.....", because as an ethnic 'minority' in a broad multi-ethnic common culture one must almost inevitably have some familiarity with the direct racism of the KA type.  And the less COMMONALITY there is in that multi-ethnic culture, the more of that particular 'familiarity' (with overt racism) there will be.

Perhaps - there is that "perhaps" again! - we do have some minor differences here and there. 

-- I think that your reference to "prehistoric creature" is off the mark.  The overt kind of racism is not pre-historic, but very modern and widespread in many parts of the world.

-- Also, the 'soft' kind of racism of the naive-left is very real.  As an American you interpret that immediately in terms of "affirmative action", whereas I (who grew up in Europe) see that more in terms of the application of double standards and of absurd moral equivalencies to different cultural behavior patterns.  In any case, the soft racism of the naive-left is certainly not the only kind of subtle indirect racism.  The naive-left kind is an almost exclusively 'western' phenomenon, based on ideologically-induced self-hatred (i.e. self-criticism gone astray or overboard).  There are other kinds of 'soft' racism/bigotry, which are more common elsewhere in the world, and which are not based on self-hatred, but on ignorance and lack of self-criticism. As a 'non-Asian' I have definitely experienced it in Asia, and even among some ethnic 'Asians' in America.  "It" meaning 'negative pre-conceived notions solely based on the ethnic origin of the person concerned'.

Yes, your analysis and comparison of the two types of racism is spot on. I am familiar with both kinds of racism because as an AMERICAN of Asian descent I have experienced both types. KA's type, the more overt and crude sort, I recall in from my childhood. They like to make one feel that one is excluded from the "club". Not too many of them exist now, so when KA's comment appeared I was quite astonished. Rather like the surprise scientists must have felt when they discovered the reappearance of a prehistoric creature in their midst. I do recall an incident when a fellow made some remark towards me (in a semi-humorous way) about Asian females being "subservient". I laughingly joked back about it; that assertion hardly applies since I pack a .357 Magnum in my purse. He blanched.

The soft kind which you describe prevails now, and I must admit that it rarely applies to American-Asians, since they are no longer subject to Affirmative Action (thank God) and generally assimilate into American society.

@ Atheling

Indeed, you do not seem to be "politically-correct", but perhaps you are unfamiliar with the racism of the 'Kapitein' which is commonly found in most of the world. He fails to make the distinction between race/ethnicity and culture, and mistakenly assumes that culture is inherently linked to physical characteristics. He dislikes "melting-pot regions" of the world, including America of course, and clings to some ludicrous illusion of racial 'purity' in other parts of the world. His primary allegiance is thus not to values and principles but to own 'race/ethnicity'. If he sees for instance Condi Rice, what he sees is a 'black' not an 'American'. His kind of racism is of the direct kind.

By contrast, the racism of the naive-left is much more subtle and 'indirect'. Indeed they would be horrified at the thought of direct racism of the 'Kapitein's type'. But the naive-left equally is devoid of adherence to values and principles and judges by the 'character of the skin' (in the sense of ethnic origin) and not by the 'content of character'.  Its views are rooted in self-hatred for own race and/or culture, and hence their application of double standards.  Or, if you will, the refusal to apply the same standards to all people.  Let's call it subtle racism or - in the words of a famous sociologist/politician (?) - "the bigotry of low expectations".

Both kinds of racism are equally detestable, and both are anti-democratic at the core. 

It is no wonder that both the racist 'extreme-right' and the (currently ruling) naive-left in western Europe have no qualms about 'limiting' free speech.

Ah now I am called politically correct. That would make those who know me collapse into spasms of laughter. I'm just calling a spade a spade.  Occasionally what appears to be bigotry and racism are just that: bigotry and racism. A preponderance of gray does not negate the existence of black and white, pardon the pun.

The good bishop may not be Anglo Saxon, but he may be Anglicized, and that's fine with me. As a matter of fact, if all of the UK's immigrants were "Anglicized" then we wouldn't be having this discussion. 

BTW, I wouldn't do well in Brussels or Strasbourg or any other Euro city. I like to pack heat. ;)

Your previous comment on another thread about how we should kill disabled babies because they cost too much reflected your utilitarian philosophy towards human life. Not very pretty.Now this statement reflects another inhuman dimension to your thinking. And it's quite ugly. Shame on you.
 
Please don't try to analyze what my so-called philosophy is...it would give your small brain a seizure. And I never advocated the killing of disabled babies - I pointed out the hipocrisy of the Christian Right, which wants smaller government (i.e. less taxes, less public services/goods) but wants every fertilized egg saved and murderers to rot in prison, all of which tax the public purse.

What a racist, bigoted statement.

Ah, it's the political correctness police! It sounds like you belong in Brussels or Strasbourg.

By your reasoning, a convert  is NOT a true member of a religion?

No I did not reason that at all. I noted that converts often have the "something-to-prove syndrome," case in point being the Jewish convert to Islam. Did his father convert to Christianity because it appealed to his tenets, or because he was making a statement against Islam?

Or a child of an immigrant is NOT really a member of their adopted country? If that were the case then many Americans are not American.

Notice that I said White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Anglo-Saxons, or the English are not a nationality but an ethno-national group i.e. one with specific cultural, historical, linguistic, and yes physical characteristics. While Nazir Ali may be a British national, he can never become an Englishman. Period. Similarly, a Mexican can immigrate to the United States and become an American citizen but not a German-American or Italian-American, or visa versa. However, the United Kingdom is composed of four distinct and indigenous ethno-national groups: the English, Welsh, Scotch, and Irish. The United States, on the other hand, has no indigenous ethnic group(s) save that of the Amerindians - it is multi-ethnic and multi-racial. While the Americas, Australasia, and Central Asia may be melting-pot regions - Europe, East Asia, South Asia, Western Asia, and Africa are not.

"Quite frankly, his comments are meaningless to me. He is not a true White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and as such does not really have a say on English or Anglican values. I would have been more relieved had an English bishop made those statements."

What a racist, bigoted statement. By your reasoning, a convert  is NOT a true member of a religion? Or a child of an immigrant is NOT really a member of their adopted country? If that were the case then many Americans are not American.

Your previous comment on another thread about how we should kill disabled babies because they cost too much reflected your utilitarian philosophy towards human life. Not very pretty.

Now this statement reflects another inhuman dimension to your thinking. And it's quite ugly. 

Shame on you.

Quite frankly, his comments are meaningless to me. He is not a true White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and as such does not really have a say on English or Anglican values. I would have been more relieved had an English bishop made those statements. Like many who adopt and assimilate into another's way of life, he is fervent; similarly, a Jewish convert to Islam was interviewed on television whose geopolitical beliefs were more unpalatable than even those being issued from Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Contemporary Islam is not merely a by-product of the falling out of science and religion in the Islamic world, but of the geopolitics of empire.

The Ottoman Empire, which at one time represented the cultural, military, technological, and scientific zenith of Islamic civilization was already crumbling prior to the First World War. While the losses of the Balkans, the nationalist uprisings of the Arabs caused great consternation, the real terror was the Western powers. The Empire's co-religionists and allies in Persia and India (once great powers in their own right) had succumbed to decay from within and European conquest from without. 1918 hailed the defeat of the last vestige of Muslim military and political power, with the British, French, and Soviets firmly in control. The Turks, of course, fell back on ethno-national identity and turned to the West; as Japan did when faced with American gunboat diplomacy.

Today, the Arabs cannot return to their pre-Islamic tribal ways, nor can the Iranians return to being Persians with their significant minority groups.

Islamic states have been declining for centuries, and religion is the only way left to maintain their unity and direction. Just as the Germans in 1918 and 1945 launched their final abortive counter-offensives, complete with heightened conviction, ferocity, and atrocities - startling their enemies briefly - so too is Islam in its death throes. Of course this is insofar as military and economic power are concerned: without the beach-heads in Europe and elsewhere, Muslims would be only of concern w.r.t. acquiring oil and gas. Also, if Europe wants to surrender to the teeming Muslim masses, it cannot be stopped. However, without the foreign fronts, Sunni would turn on Shi'a, Arab on Kurd, Kurd on Turk, and Turk on Persian... a'la Iraq.

How is it that the bisphop's convert father was not put to death by his family or other Muslims?  Apostacy is, of course, a capital offence under Islam.  It makes me wonder if Islam maybe reached a level of modernization mid-20th century that it has now lost.  Not that there weren't always true believers who were willing to kill apostates.  But perhaps the general atmosphere in Muslim cultures and among the immigrant communities in Europe was one that made clear that intelligent people looked down upon literal interpretations of the Koran, which-- alas--are now the rule throughout the Muslim world and among transplanted Muslims in the West.

I wish there were more people in high places in this country who can speak their mind,may be they are too scared of the backlash from muslims.
Good,health and good luck to Bishop.