|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 2, 2024 10:46:22 GMT
The issue is with a religious belief that actively defines a them and us situation. Unlike Christianity or Judaism which have little influence on the politics as a group in contemporary Britain we can see that the followers of this faith have a tendency, on specific political issues, to become a block power base. Only in your head. A quick sum this morning, I employ about 45 people who are likely to be Muslim. We never discuss their religion and it has no effect on their work. They like a laugh and do their jobs. They don't stop twice a day to face mecca no long for Jihad or sharia law. You want them to be different so you can pass the buck for this countries failures onto a third party. You've been suckered. Truth is this countries ills are due to bad management and greed. But the people who influence you with their money are the very ones you keep electing. There's a very good reason we don't trust our politicians its because we keep electing crooks who rip us off. In my head it is clear that Islam defines a them and us through most of its literature. To say otherwise is just plain wrong. Passing the buck on is neither my intent or MO however I would point out that for 60 years the UK electorate have consistently voted for strictly controlled immigration and been ignored by the political class influenced by those who may have a different political agenda. It is a bit like asking a man if he wants raspberry or strawberry ice cream each time it is offered and he consistently says strawberry and is always give raspberry. It makes no sense unless raspberry is what those doing the asking want to impose upon him but need to go through a process of seeking permission that effectively means little. It is not bad management it seems to boil down now to deliberate policy as there can be no other reason that does not smack of gross negligence. I admit culpability in electing Blair twice but since 2005 the scales have not so much fallen from my eyes as been forced. One tries ones best withion the democratic system but if those of whom ones outs ones trust are duplicitous then democracy will be destroyed and it is at risk. If Islam was not a problem why would we spend so much on watching Islamists who derive their ideology from their faith. One of the noticeable things as regards many of those we watch, and many who have acted out terrorism, is that they are often described as good Muslims. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 2, 2024 10:48:13 GMT
Muslims are threatening our politicians because of a situation in the Middle East .
Those politicians are trying to tie in ‘ far right groups ‘.when they are not part of the threat .
If that isn’t a red flag then nothing is .
I can’t be proud to be associated with alien cultures who threaten UK politicians and or UK politicians who deny reality .
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 2, 2024 10:53:05 GMT
In terms of Judaism I do not think they do, when one moves onto race that is a far more complex issue and at the moment I am restricting my viewpoint to religious groups. Of course Judaism is small in number and Christianity is wide in belief and reducing in number whereas Islam is fairly narrow in belief and increasing in number. Unlike Muslims, Jews have the distinct advantage of being considered in law as a 'distinct racial grouping', like Sikhs but unlike Christians. In that sense, influence on and in the host society can be exercised on two distinct fronts, the ethnic and the religious. Muslims on the other hand can only advance, as a collective, on the one front - the religious. Which is what they tend to do. |
|
ginnyg2
Full Member
Don't blame me - I voted for someone else.
Posts: 414
|
Post by ginnyg2 on Mar 2, 2024 10:58:46 GMT
You can call yourself anything you want. That doesn't make it so, nor does it influence how others see you. For example, a man in a dress who calls himself Wendy is still a bloke. I don lish.'t call myself English, I am EngWhat positive outcome are you trying to achieve by telling me otherwise? Well that's a contradictory statement if ever there was one! Say again, what did you just call yourself? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 2, 2024 10:59:17 GMT
Only in your head. A quick sum this morning, I employ about 45 people who are likely to be Muslim. We never discuss their religion and it has no effect on their work. They like a laugh and do their jobs. They don't stop twice a day to face mecca no long for Jihad or sharia law. You want them to be different so you can pass the buck for this countries failures onto a third party. You've been suckered. Truth is this countries ills are due to bad management and greed. But the people who influence you with their money are the very ones you keep electing. There's a very good reason we don't trust our politicians its because we keep electing crooks who rip us off. Comes back to what I was saying earlier on this thread about scapegoating. Indeed. Its very common when a country is in crises. If it were a family we would calling it lashing out. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Mar 2, 2024 11:01:43 GMT
Probably the same thing as an actual Irish person in Ireland would say if confronted by an immigrant of English extraction. Two wrongs make a right eh? I notice you use the term "actual Irish", does that imply I'm not? So I can't be English or Irish according to you? Face it, your just second class. 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 2, 2024 11:02:30 GMT
I don lish.'t call myself English, I am EngWhat positive outcome are you trying to achieve by telling me otherwise? Well that's a contradictory statement if ever there was one! Say again, what did you just call yourself? Ok Mr pedant, I don't JUST call myself English, I am English. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 2, 2024 11:03:22 GMT
In terms of Judaism I do not think they do, when one moves onto race that is a far more complex issue and at the moment I am restricting my viewpoint to religious groups. Of course Judaism is small in number and Christianity is wide in belief and reducing in number whereas Islam is fairly narrow in belief and increasing in number. Unlike Muslims, Jews have the distinct advantage of being considered in law as a 'distinct racial grouping', like Sikhs but unlike Christians. In that sense, influence on and in the host society can be exercised on two distinct fronts, the ethnic and the religious. Muslims on the other hand can only advance, as a collective, on the one front - the religious. Which is what they tend to do. I do not disagree and it is a bit of a mess. Which is why there is a desperation for Islamophobia to be a recognised term within the race laws. The point of course is that either racial or religious there is a tendency for any group to be more interested in the advancement of its own. However Islam is the fast growing faith that has a clear them and us definition, Judaism has a similar outlook but is in terms of religion a much smaller profile. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 2, 2024 11:08:49 GMT
Two wrongs make a right eh? I notice you use the term "actual Irish", does that imply I'm not? So I can't be English or Irish according to you? Face it, your just second class. 🤣 No, just different, some people are English, yet he is English (and adds of his own accord) of Irish ancestry. That is either important or unimportant and if the latter would not be mentioned. His rights are not reduced in any way but may be increased as if it was an advantage he could class himself as an ethnic minority with all the benefits that identity brings. So in reality, in England, it is the English who are second class both in law and in general treatment. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 2, 2024 11:15:46 GMT
Face it, your just second class. 🤣 No, just different, some people are English, yet he is English (and adds of his own accord) of Irish ancestry. That is either important or unimportant and if the latter would not be mentioned. His rights are not reduced in any way but may be increased as if it was an advantage he could class himself as an ethnic minority with all the benefits that identity brings. So in reality, in England, it is the English who are second class both in law and in general treatment. Would you mind letting me know what these benefits are I apparently have and how I can claim them? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 2, 2024 11:58:29 GMT
No, just different, some people are English, yet he is English (and adds of his own accord) of Irish ancestry. That is either important or unimportant and if the latter would not be mentioned. His rights are not reduced in any way but may be increased as if it was an advantage he could class himself as an ethnic minority with all the benefits that identity brings. So in reality, in England, it is the English who are second class both in law and in general treatment. Would you mind letting me know what these benefits are I apparently have and how I can claim them? As an ethnic minority you could claim preference for training for employment, you could claim discrimination if you felt unjustly passed over in favour of any other group, you may be given preference for employment against an 'equally qualified' English person, you could form an association with those of the same ethnic minority to pursue objectives of your choosing. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 2, 2024 12:17:56 GMT
Zany, I am explaining to you that landowner in the UK does not have a base (absolute) title to the land he 'owns' - that his title is through (provided by) the united kingdom and therefore the united kingdom has a slice of the ownership of that land. Simple illustrations of a UK landowner's lack of absolute title are things like taxes, the right the state reserves to enter the land and various conditions on his usage. This is all uncontroversial and obvious - nobody who thinks about it can dispute this. However, it seems because this observation has frustrated your apparent claim the United kingdom itself (or its people) is of (or should be) zero size and owns nothing, you appear to have become hysterical and are wasting energy denying the patently true. If I had known this was of such importance to you emotionally, I would have not have intervened. I agree that landowners have been influential, but what was owned by all was not sold by all.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhornet on Mar 2, 2024 12:24:56 GMT
Would you mind letting me know what these benefits are I apparently have and how I can claim them? As an ethnic minority you could claim preference for training for employment, you could claim discrimination if you felt unjustly passed over in favour of any other group, you may be given preference for employment against an 'equally qualified' English person, you could form an association with those of the same ethnic minority to pursue objectives of your choosing. How can be given preference for employment over an English person when I'm English? The facts would seem to contradict your argument about preferential treatment for ethnic minorities in employee: www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/unemployment-and-economic-inactivity/unemployment/latest/ |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 2, 2024 12:42:15 GMT
No, But the MSM on the whole is supportive of immigration. There are detractors, but the balance is pro.
Your other 'small party' point was already dealt with. Are they? The Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, The Sun, Sunday Sun, Telegraph, The Times, The Sunday Times, The Express, GB News, Talk TV are all pro immigration are they? I said 'on the whole'. The biggest MSM outlets are things like the BBC, and ITV and internet forms like social media. You can make a short of newspapers (a media form few bother with latterly) and a couple of stations , but this is covered in my original comment. The only point being made is that the MSM are clearly not overwhelmingly anti-immigration and this is something that is needed for your position to make any sense |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 2, 2024 12:50:01 GMT
Apparently the prime minister gave an impromptu speech last night in which he lamented 'the extremists who are trying to tear us apart'.
He doesn't seem to have noticed that British society is already fragmented along a number of deep and widening fault-lines into mutually antagonistic social, cultural, ethnic and even economic groups that really don't get along with each other. Many of them are not even of domestic origin. 'Extremists' have had very little to do with it.
He himself is a prominent symbol of that ongoing and accelerating process.
I think George Galloway is right in that a large number of ordinary Brits like me are dismayed by our countries tacit support for Israels killing of 30,000 Palestinians in their supposed hunt for Hamas. And NO, I'm not a Muslim, not a funny colour. Would you support your British government if they killed 30,000 Northern Ireland citizens in their hunt for the IRA? I think if regular and repeated rocket attacks emanated from the republic of Ireland and the Irish government refused to control the situation, then you may have seen the RAF being used against Ireland. This is the problem with comparisons between differing situations. To me your reasoning looks suspiciously like it might be motivated or lazy, but it seems Nick Griffin agrees with you so I will clearly have to review my position. |
|
