The truths you can't tell in today's Britain

[FlyingJesus]

Language, accents, clothing, our food, our drink culture, English liberty and so on and so forth. Without those, we cease to be a nation.

Would you then suggest that a Brummie transvestite who dines mostly on tagines and drinks only sparkling water is not really English? On one hand you're saying that you don't want to impose on what a person's choices are and on the other are saying that only certain choices are "right" and others should be discouraged

[Vodafone]

At the end of the day, all religions are as bad as each other - the world would certainly be better without them all.

Yer, Shintoism is so bad man.

[karter]

Is there something within the religion or ideology of Islam which somehow encourages, or merely facilitates, extremist Muslim maniacs to maim or kill non-Muslims?

Yeah there is. The concept of 'Kafir' and the practice of 'Tafkir' which majority of Islamic institutions use to label non Islamic believers as infidels. The word is mentioned in the Quran but is misinterpreted. That's why in Shari'a law, a Muslim can testify against a non-Muslim but not vice versa not to mention the fact that Sunnis and Shias have internal problems where both groups insist that the other is kafir. Islam is extremly intolerant when it comes to religious conversions and apostasy means death in most of the Middle East countries.

The Quran says men are maintainers of women and women should be obedient towards their husbands, one of the verses also hints at men beating their wives if they disobey them.

In short, Islam is not the religion of peace but neither is any religion. Islam and its extremely violent nature comes into mind only when you look at the middle east countries. Majority of South and South East Asian countries have peaceful muslim communities.

Christianity/Hinduism/Buddhism ain't so innocent either and there are a lot of examples of how these aren't exactly religions of peace as well

[-:Undertaker:-]

Language yes. Accents, err yeah that's just dumb. "Sorry mate, can't speak with that Indian accent, please speak Brummie or Cockney or Scouser or Geordie etc." Clothing, to a certain extent although I would say that this would be imposing moral authority especially if said item of clothing has any religious significance (a crucifix or a hijab), our food and drink is surely enhanced with the input of the different cultures (chinese, italian, indian etc), English liberty yes.

I suppose that's the problem with trying to impose one culture. What defines that culture would vary from person to person.

But I haven't argued for domestic laws to impose a culture at all. Integration with the host nation happens naturally provided that immigration is limited to such numbers that immigrants have no choice but to integrate with the people around them otherwise they simply won't get by. If you allow the numbers coming in that we currently have, then it makes integration near impossible as there's then no desire to integrate with the local community and thus you end up with isolated ghettos springing up. Britons in areas of Spain are also guilty of this.

Is that a good thing? Is that what we want? Whether we do or not, we should first be consulted to give our consent.

Would you then suggest that a Brummie transvestite who dines mostly on tagines and drinks only sparkling water is not really English? On one hand you're saying that you don't want to impose on what a person's choices are and on the other are saying that only certain choices are "right" and others should be discouraged

There's on a personal level and on a nation level as you know very well. Most stereotypes about countries hold up because we with all stereotypes there's truth to them - that's the shared culture level, something/values/traits that nearly everybody in a country will have. On the other hand there's personal traits which on the whole don't matter.

Point is, we can see what is happening around this country with multiculturalism and areas becoming increasingly divided. In parts of Yorkshire for example, all I can hear around me are foreign languages on the bus and shopping. What kind of a community can be built and how can integration take place when we have such numbers of migrants in a town/city that you might aswell be in Warsaw, Sofia or Basra? It can't.

The only way to make integration happen naturally is to control the borders and drastically cut immigration. Then we won't have silly gimmicks from politicians (including UKIP in the past) such as the banning of the burka which is a gross overstep of the state. But again, as the areas where people live increasingly feel alien - policies like that are beginning to appeal to people because nothing else is being done.

Just came across this brill piece in Telegraph, worth a read if anyone is interested.

Non-Economic Costs of Immigration-Robert Henderson

1. The colonisation of parts of the UK, especially in England, for example, much of inner London, Leicester, Birmingham and Bradford by immigrants who create separate worlds in which to live with next to no attempt at integration. This makes living in such areas for native Britons very problematic, because not only will they feel they are a minority in their own land, a severe psychological burden, those native Britons who are parents will have a very real concern that the state schools (where the large majority of British pupils are educated) in their area will be Towers of Babel in which their children will be neglected, taught more of the cultures of immigrants than their own culture and quite probably bullied simply for being native Britons. The poorer native Britons in such areas will often not have the option of moving – as white liberals frequently do – to an area where there are few immigrants because of the cost of moving, especially the cost of housing. It is also much more difficult for someone in an unskilled or low-skilled occupation to find such work in areas without a large immigrant component.

2. The damaging effect on the morale of the native British population of seeing parts of their country colonised with the connivance of their elites.

3. The damaging effect on the morale of the native British population of employers and politicians claiming that immigrants are more able and possessed of a superior work ethic than the native Briton.

4. Immigrant Ghettoes. Their formation is a natural tendency amongst immigrants which was given a great deal of added energy by the British elite’s adoption of multiculturalism in the 1970s. This was both a consequence of the Left-Liberal internationalist terminally naïve happy-clappy “we are all one big human family” ideology and an attempt to ameliorate when it became clear that assimilation/integration had not taken place amongst the black and Asian immigrants of the fifties and sixties after several generations had been born in Britain. The effect has been to create long-lasting ghettoes which are not only separate from the British mainstream but hostile to Britain, its native population and its culture

5. Censorship. The need by the British elite to suppress dissent amongst the native population at the invasion of their country has resulted in a gross diminution of free speech. They have done this through legislation, for example, the Race Relations Act 1976, Public Order Act 1986 and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000; by creating a willingness amongst the police to intimidate by pouncing with the greatest zeal on those who dare to be any other than rigidly politically correct in the matter of race and immigration (this done frequently with no intention of bringing charges because no law on the statute book will fit the pc “crime” but simply to frighten), and through the complicity of those in the media and employers (especially public sector and large private employers) to punish the politically incorrect heretics with media hate campaigns or the loss of jobs.

6. Double standards in law enforcement. As mentioned above, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service show great eagerness in investigating and prosecuting cases when a white person (especially a white Briton) is accused of being racist on the flimsiest of evidence and a remarkable sloth where someone from a racial or ethnic minority group has been blatantly racist. The case of Rhea Page is an especially fine example of the latter behaviour whereby a vicious indubitably racist attack by Somali girls on a white English girl and her boyfriend did not result in a custodial sentence (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... The strong reluctance of the British state to act against crimes specific to ethnic and racial minorities can be particularly seen in the case of “honour killings”, Female Genital Mutilation and the clearly racist grooming of white girls by men from the Indian sub-continent.

7. The general privileging racial and ethnic minorities over the native British population. The incontinent pandering to immigrant cultures, especially Muslims, by politicians, public service organisations, large private businesses and much of the mainstream media. The pandering ranges from such material advantages as housing associations which cater only for specific ethnic and racial minorities (http://englandcalling.wordpres... and a toleration of customs and morals which would be unreservedly declared to be wrong if practised by the native population, for example, the ritual slaughter of animals.

8. The incessant pc propagandising in schools and universities, even in subjects which do not seem to readily lend themselves to pc manipulation such as economics and geography. The most pernicious effect of this ideological corruption of schooling is to effectively rob native British (and especially English) children of their history. This occurs because the general history of Britain (and especially that of England) is not taught (there is no meaningful chronology of British or any other history delivered to children because themes rather than periods are the order of the day) and the history which is covered is heavily slanted towards portraying the British as pantomime villains forever oppressing subject peoples and growing rich on the wealth extracted from them. The upshot is the creation of several generations of native British (and especially English) children who have (1) no meaningful understanding of their history and general culture and (2) have acquired a sense that any praise of or pride in their own land, culture and history is dangerous and that the only safe way to get through school is to repeat the politically correct mantras of their teachers.

9. The piggy –backing on “anti-discrimination” laws to do with race of the other politically correct mainstays of sexual and gender equality and lesser entrants to the equality game such as age and disability. Racism is undoubtedly the most potent of all pc voodoo words and without it the present gigantic edifice of the “diversity and equality” religion would in all probability not exist, or would at least exist in much less potent form.

10. The claustrophobia of diversity (http://englandcalling.wordpres.... A sense of paranoid claustrophobia (something common to totalitarian states) has been created amongst the native British population by the suppression of dissent about mass immigration and its consequences, by the imposition of the multiculturalist creed and by the ceaseless extolling of the “joy of diversity” by white liberals who take great care to live well insulated against the “joy”. The effect of this claustrophobia is to generally reduce the native British population to an ersatz acceptance of the pc message, but the discontent every now and then bubbles over into public outbursts such as those of Emma West (http://englandcalling.wordpres.... Such outbursts, which are a basic form of political protest, are increasingly visited with criminal charges and jail sentences.

11. The enemy within. The creation of large communities of those who are ethnically and racially different from the native British in Britain produces de facto fifth columns. We are already seeing how countries such as India and China respond to any attempt to restrict future immigration for these countries by making veiled threats about what will happen if Britain does this. At a less direct level of foreign threat, British foreign policy is increasingly shaped by the fact that there are large ethnic and racial minorities in Britain. There is also the growing numbers, especially amongst Muslims in Britain, of those who are actively hostile to the very idea of Britain and are willing to resort to extreme violence to express their hatred, actions such as the 7/7 bombings in London and the recent murder of the soldier Lee Rigby.

12. Violence based on ethnicity and behaviours peculiar to immigrant groups such as “honour” killings”, street gangs and riots. Every self-initiated British riot since 1945, that is a riot started by rioters not violence in response to police action against a crowd of demonstrators, has its roots in immigration. The Notting Hill riots of 1958 were the white response to large scale Caribbean immigration; every riot in Britain since then has been instigated and led by blacks or Asians from the Indian Sub-Continent. This includes the riots of 2011 in England which the politically correct British media have tried desperately to present as a riot which in its personnel was representative of modern England. In fact, it began with the shooting of a mixed race man in North London by police and even the official statistics on the race and ethnicity of those convicted of crimes in the riots show that blacks and Asians comprised more than fifty percent of those brought to book (http://englandcalling.wordpres....

13. Uncontrolled immigration. The larger the number of immigrants, the louder voice they have, the greater the electoral power. This in practice means ever more immigration as politicians pander to immigrant groups by allowing them to bring in their relatives or even simply more from their ethnic group. This trait has been amplified by the British political elite signing treaties since 1945 which obligate Britain to take large numbers of asylum seekers and give hundreds of millions of people in Europe the right to reside and work in Britain through Britain’s membership of the EU. Britain cannot even deport illegal immigrants with any ease because either the originating countries will not take them or British courts grant them rights to remain because of Britain’s membership of the European Convention of Human Rights. The overall effect is to create de facto open borders immigration to the UK.

14. The introduction of ethnic based voting. This is phenomenon which is in its infancy as a serious threat, but it can already be found in areas with a large population of Asians whose ancestral land is the India sub continent. This is a recipe for eventual racial and ethnic strife.

15. The corruption of the British electoral system. Voter fraud had been rare in Britain for more than a hundred years before the Blair Government was formed in 1997. This was partly because of the general culture of the country and partly because of the way elections were conducted (with the vast majority of votes having to be cast in person) made fraudulent voting difficult. The scope for postal voting was extended from special cases such as the disabled and the old to any elector by the Representation of the People Act 2000. The frauds which have been discovered since the extension of the postal vote have been disproportionately amongst Asians whose ancestral origin were in the Indian sub-continent

[FlyingJesus]

There's on a personal level and on a nation level as you know very well. Most stereotypes about countries hold up because we with all stereotypes there's truth to them - that's the shared culture level, something/values/traits that nearly everybody in a country will have. On the other hand there's personal traits which on the whole don't matter.

So at what number do people suddenly stop being a personal difference and become CULTURE DESTROYING TERRORISTS because quite frankly subculture has influenced mainstream culture ever since the beginning of metropolitan life and there really is no one shared culture at all - what you're describing is majority rule, argumentum ad populum, which is all sorts of problematic

Point is, we can see what is happening around this country with multiculturalism and areas becoming increasingly divided. In parts of Yorkshire for example, all I can hear around me are foreign languages on the bus and shopping. What kind of a community can be built and how can integration take place when we have such numbers of migrants in a town/city that you might aswell be in Warsaw, Sofia or Basra? It can't.

You only hear the foreign languages because you don't understand them - it's a simple case of the unknown being more apparent than the norm. There will be just as much English babble (most likely more since Yorkshire is definitely not a minority white county) but you tune that out by no conscious effort of your own because it's just background noise to people who've been around English speakers all their lives. Human beings are instinctively built to be inquisitive and over-perceptive when it comes to the unknown in case it represents a threat: we turn and look when there's a loud noise or a flash of light or even just someone with a really bad haircut, and anything outside of the norm takes precedence in our minds over everything else around that's 100% what we always expected it to be. Believing that Britain is being taken over because there are some people who don't look and sound like you is just a case of not actually paying attention to anything other than base impulses.

[GommeInc]

The Quran says men are maintainers of women and women should be obedient towards their husbands, one of the verses also hints at men beating their wives if they disobey them.

Is that where the belief that women should wear a veil to cover their bodies comes from, or at least supports? I remember hearing somewhere that there is no proof that the burka, nijab etc is in the Qu'ran, but it would make sense for them to exist as a modern creation to support an ancient belief or practice.

[FlyingJesus]

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Ephesians 5:22-24


The Bible has the same teachings as the Qu'ran, they're pretty much the same book. Neither of these things means that all of any religious group are evil. Except Buddhists, those guys will kill you as soon as look at you

[GommeInc]

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Ephesians 5:22-24


The Bible has the same teachings as the Qu'ran, they're pretty much the same book. Neither of these things means that all of any religious group are evil. Except Buddhists, those guys will kill you as soon as look at you

I hate that verse, it's so poorly written. It starts reasonably well, then changes topic to the church then back to women in a way which suggests men can be sinful and disobedient. It opens itself up to easy criticism. That said, it is the active part of the Bible which nuns abide by - presumably why nuns wear habits to show they are servants of God and (linking back to) the burka and other items of clothing in other religions and cultures. I've never understood where the burka comes from and presumably it was a creation of culture than a creation of religious text.

[FlyingJesus]

Not sure if or where it shows up in the Qu'ran because I'm not nearly as well versed in that as I am in the Bible, but:


But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1 Corinthians 11:3-6

[The Don]

Is that where the belief that women should wear a veil to cover their bodies comes from, or at least supports? I remember hearing somewhere that there is no proof that the burka, nijab etc is in the Qu'ran, but it would make sense for them to exist as a modern creation to support an ancient belief or practice.

I believe that it's more due to the culture rather than the Qu'ran explicitly telling them to wear it, however, I have not read the Qu'ran so I can't verify it 100% but loads of different sources seem to agree that it's not in there.