British Values

[OtherSheep]

Should citizens or approved residents of a nation have the right to express religious convictions, whatever they may be, when they harm nobody else?

a pretty radical revision of the customs the West has established post-WWII, and likely to be very destabilizing as minority faiths riot and businesses divest from an authoritarian-seeming Britain.

it would make people look warily at Britain.

Freedom of religious expression is one of the worst decisions any nation has ever been made to suffer. The harm is the soul of the nation. The consequences you mention would be a good thing. When minority faiths riot, action can be taken against them... forcing their hand, so to speak... which gives you a good reason to export them... and shows the world what harm is done by this so-called freedom of religious expression you seem to be so fond of. Heck, maybe you'd like to take these harmless-until-provoked... er... religious types... to live with you in your country?

If any nation doesn't have the authority to do pretty much whatever it wants in it's own land, then the UN needs to be abandoned as an albatros, and national sovereignty restored.

When the dust settles, the woman will have been cast into the sea as the millstone she so truly is. Because interfaith is Babylon, by definition, and any nation which calmly claims that Babylon does no harm is being deceived by special-interest aliens.

 

[OtherSheep]

And, is there a scrap of evidence that any of this medieval mythology is true?

Anybody who doesn't know that the Cymry were the first settlers in Britain must be living in a cave... or reading whatever passes for history, these days.

 

[Altfish]

Freedom of religious expression is one of the worst decisions any nation has ever been made to suffer. The harm is the soul of the nation. The consequences you mention would be a good thing. When minority faiths riot, action can be taken against them... forcing their hand, so to speak... which gives you a good reason to export them... and shows the world what harm is done by this so-called freedom of religious expression you seem to be so fond of. Heck, maybe you'd like to take these harmless-until-provoked... er... religious types... to live with you in your country?

If any nation doesn't have the authority to do pretty much whatever it wants in it's own land, then the UN needs to be abandoned as an albatros, and national sovereignty restored.

When the dust settles, the woman will have been cast into the sea as the millstone she so truly is. Because interfaith is Babylon, by definition, and any nation which calmly claims that Babylon does no harm is being deceived by special-interest aliens.

So, who decides which religion a particular country follows?

A secular attitude to religion (and none) is the only fair way for a country to behave.

 

[Loviatar]

Freedom of religious expression is one of the worst decisions any nation has ever been made to suffer. The harm is the soul of the nation. The consequences you mention would be a good thing. When minority faiths riot, action can be taken against them... forcing their hand, so to speak... which gives you a good reason to export them... and shows the world what harm is done by this so-called freedom of religious expression you seem to be so fond of. Heck, maybe you'd like to take these harmless-until-provoked... er... religious types... to live with you in your country?

I'd gladly take refugees from the V for Vendetta-esque clerical fascism you're advocating here.

If any nation doesn't have the authority to do pretty much whatever it wants in it's own land, then the UN needs to be abandoned as an albatros, and national sovereignty restored.

I support the principle of national sovereignty, so long as human rights are upheld; i.e. prevention of genocides, war crimes, systematic mistreatment. The UK should of course be free to decide what its laws are or people it wants to enter it within those confines. The UN is a fairly incompetent body that clearly needs reform, but it's not at all a block on this; you'd have a partial case with regard to the EU for migration policy.

Other countries also have the right to balk at whatever decisions it may make though and act based on them, and citizens who you'd be trampling on have the right to react against suspension of their rights. One is another exercise of the right to national sovereignty. The other, the right to rebel against oppression when there is no avenue for peaceful redress, is another principle stemming from the same basic liberal (in the 17th-18th century sense) cultural framework as the right to national sovereignty and actually going back further than that in much of the world. Confucius advocated it, for example.

So, I'm saying the UK does really have no leg to stand on if it wanted to just throw out anyone but your preferred religious group. That's a human rights violation, part of the British citizenry excising another part in a catastrophic example of mob rule, and would rightly provoke a response. It does legally have the right to block further admission of people outside a preferred religious group, but if you were to choose that be prepared for the consequences. An emboldened far-right and an international community that balks at the UK, leading to increasing isolation and destabilization.

 

[Altfish]

Anybody who doesn't know that the Cymry were the first settlers in Britain must be living in a cave... or reading whatever passes for history, these days.

So these are the people
"The earliest evidence of human occupation in the UK is around 900,000 years ago is at Happisburgh on the Norfolk coast, with stone tools and footprints probably made by Homo antecessor. The oldest human fossils, around 500,000 years old, are of Homo heidelbergensis at Boxgrove in Sussex"

 

[Altfish]

To be fair, he's good at publicity in a clown like way.

His cock-ups when Mayor of London go on and on. Cutting police numbers despite rising crime (Then blaming Khan) , buying water cannons that were not required on wanted; bendy buses that were demonised by him as cyclist killers (No one was killed) ordering buses without air-con (great for the weather we are currently having);
Claiming credit for the Olympics that his predecessor did all the work for...you could go on.

Another take on Boris and the Burka...

Warning NSFW

 

[OtherSheep]

So, who decides which religion a particular country follows?

A secular attitude to religion (and none) is the only fair way for a country to behave.

The politics of the country which obtained before the influx of aliens would be the right thing to think. Back in the day, the British were Protestants. And then, only Protestants were allowed to hold political office. Something that people don't seem to realize, these days. The Romans burnt up the histories of every land they invaded, as though that was the specific reason for their conquest. And then the carpetbaggers pried the coins from the dead man's eyes and stole the home of his widow and orphans. Some things haven't changed at all since Jesus walked the earth. The same people are doing the same things.

They were never secularists or the followers of Islam, in any case. Fair is what a land decides for itself... and fair is what God had in mind when He divided the nations into their lands in the first place. A nation without God is at great risk of being overrun by heathens who worship false gods.

 

[OtherSheep]

So these are the people
"The earliest evidence of human occupation in the UK is around 900,000 years ago is at Happisburgh on the Norfolk coast, with stone tools and footprints probably made by Homo antecessor. The oldest human fossils, around 500,000 years old, are of Homo heidelbergensis at Boxgrove in Sussex"

Ham was given Africa and Arabia. But he squatted in the land of Shem, until God dispersed him into his own land. Ham is seen squatting in Japheth's land as early as Egyptians came into the lands that belonged to Javan. Is it a stretch of the imagination to think that Ham did that sort of thing all throughout history? And still does it today?

 

[OtherSheep]

I'd gladly take refugees from the V for Vendetta-esque clerical fascism you're advocating here.

Are you saying that Britons have a need to be vengeful and send their enemies to your house? Then, what you call fascism would apply to what you would do to keep them from imposing their rule in your home.

Fascism it is always called, when law and order are made to prevail over the anarchy which the subverting alien always brings with him. ... Odd to see aliens trying to tell Britain to sit down and shut up in the face of such a subversion.

The same sort of thing happened in the French Revolution, where aliens paid the people to riot... whose bread they themselves had stollen... and blame starvation on the King and Queen of France. And the following bloodbath was held by those aliens, who became its new kings and queens.

It worked before, and it will work again, until the lesson is learned.

I support the principle of national sovereignty, so long as

Other countries also have the right to balk at whatever decisions

So, I'm saying the UK does really have no leg to stand on

Britain has the only rights there are to govern it's own land. People of other races have only the rights Britain allows them to have within its own land.
All people who talk about Britain and pretend to be able to tell Britons how they should be running thier God-given nation, have only the right to support the nation in its sovereignty. Unsupporters have no rights at all.

 

[Notanumber]

I thought it was amusing to see Julia’s reaction when the Imam said that Boris was eating two sides of the same sausage so to speak (about 3 minutes from the start).

I very much doubt that talkRADIO would go to the trouble of videoing her program if she insisted on having her face covered.

The UK needs more Muslims of the same calibre as this man - Imam wins landmark battle against 'Muslim McCarthyism'

 

[Loviatar]

Fascism it is always called, when law and order are made to prevail over the anarchy which the subverting alien always brings with him.

"The subverting alien." Do you have a thing for Chaplin moustaches too? Or perhaps the writings of Henry Ford?

I don't like to be so glib, but your post literally sounds exactly like Nazi propaganda and it bears pointing out.

Britain has the only rights there are to govern it's own land. People of other races have only the rights Britain allows them to have within its own land.

So, you're defining Britain racially then, rather than by shared cultural values and citizenship?

All people who talk about Britain and pretend to be able to tell Britons how they should be running thier God-given nation,

I do not believe the mythical "British race" have the right to force out fellow citizens, many of them having the same basic values and upbringing we define as "British," on the basis of their race or creed. That would be regarded by those minority Britons as an infraction against their rights, and justly. It would also destabilize Britain, as other countries impose sanctions for the aforementioned glaring human rights violation.

Unsupporters have no rights at all.

Try not to get lint on your blackshirt.

 

[Altfish]

The politics of the country which obtained before the influx of aliens would be the right thing to think. Back in the day, the British were Protestants. And then, only Protestants were allowed to hold political office. Something that people don't seem to realize, these days. The Romans burnt up the histories of every land they invaded, as though that was the specific reason for their conquest. And then the carpetbaggers pried the coins from the dead man's eyes and stole the home of his widow and orphans. Some things haven't changed at all since Jesus walked the earth. The same people are doing the same things.

They were never secularists or the followers of Islam, in any case. Fair is what a land decides for itself... and fair is what God had in mind when He divided the nations into their lands in the first place. A nation without God is at great risk of being overrun by heathens who worship false gods.

Back in the day, the British were Pagans - remember Stonehenge - when Christianity arrived it was Roman Catholicism, not Protestants!!! Read your history, learn about Henry VIII. He invented the Church of England so that he could get a divorce. It was then that Catholics were not allowed to hold office.

So your saying the UK should become Pagan again.

Priceless

 

[Altfish]

Ham was given Africa and Arabia. But he squatted in the land of Shem, until God dispersed him into his own land. Ham is seen squatting in Japheth's land as early as Egyptians came into the lands that belonged to Javan. Is it a stretch of the imagination to think that Ham did that sort of thing all throughout history? And still does it today?

Yes, because that is all bull. God dispersed no one.

 

[OtherSheep]

"The subverting alien."
Do you have a thing for Chaplin moustaches too?
Or perhaps the writings of Henry Ford?

but your post literally sounds exactly like Nazi propaganda

Try not to get lint on your blackshirt.

I don't put people in a box to control them. If I cannot respond without
attempting character assassination, I move on. Feel free to copy me.

Anyone who does the following in, or about, a country which they admit
is not their own, is a subverting alien, by definition : --

Subvert definition, to overthrow (something established or existing).
Overthrow definition, to depose, as from a position of power; overcome, defeat, or vanquish.
Character assassination is a deliberate and sustained process that destroys the credibility and reputation of a person, organization...
Or nation.

I do not believe the mythical "British race" have the right to force out fellow citizens, many of them having the same basic values and upbringing we define as "British," on the basis of their race or creed. That would be regarded by those minority Britons as an infraction against their rights, and justly. It would also destabilize Britain, as other countries impose sanctions for the aforementioned glaring human rights violation.

By pretending that the British Race doesn't exist, you've literally committed racism and genocide... and are plainly saying that Brits don't have a right to the land which God has given them.

I doubt very much that you consider Ashkenazi to be a mythical race... therefore, it also means that you cannot truly consider Gomer to be a fiction. And these are the tribes, little heathen, which make up the British Race.

 

[Loviatar]

By pretending that the British Race doesn't exist, you've literally committed racism and genocide...

That's very hyperbolic misuse of both terms, and would fall under the heading of bearing false witness. Genocide is a very serious charge and isn't a term that should be thrown around frivolously.

and are plainly saying that Brits don't have a right to the land which God has given them.

The British people as a civic body, built around a series of related common cultures (English, Scottish, Welsh, etc.)? Of course it does. The British people as a racial unit? No, I'm not a racial nationalist. I view racial nationalism/blood and soil nationalism as intrinsically racist by definition, and that's the normal use of the word.

I doubt very much that you consider Ashkenazi to be a mythical race...

Actually, I do. They're an ethnic group, and more self-isolating than Britons historically were so there are some medical conditions near-isolated to them. But to talk about "the Ashkenazi race" looks about as odd as "the British race," considering racial definitions have a cultural dimension and are only loosely linked to genetics, and both are generally defined as part of "the white race" except by alt-righters.

Genotypically, Ashkenazim are about 50% Levantine and 50% Eastern European, with occasional Northwestern European (German/French) and Turkic (Khazar) input. People from Britain mostly share genetic markers with other Northwestern Europeans, with some shared with Iberia (Celts) and some with Scandinavia (Vikings). Neither is a genetic vacuum unto its own.

Also curious that Jews were the first group you jumped to... I'd have given you the benefit of the doubt since you mentioned the Old Testament figure Gomer as well, but you mentioned "Ashkenazi" as a race, not Ashkenaz. That seems like you're positing a connection between Ashkenaz and the Ashkenazi (i.e. European Jews), beyond just said Ashkenazim believing they lived in the land of Ashkenaz?

 

[OtherSheep]

Back in the day, the British were Pagans - remember Stonehenge - when Christianity arrived it was Roman Catholicism, not Protestants!!! Read your history, learn about Henry VIII. He invented the Church of England so that he could get a divorce. It was then that Catholics were not allowed to hold office.

So your saying the UK should become Pagan again.

Priceless

I have read my history. The British Church was in existence long before the man in a black dress showed up to order the burning of British Records. Dig a little deeper, Altfish. Modern History has been written by the publishers.

 

[Altfish]

I have read my history. The British Church was in existence long before the man in a black dress showed up to order the burning of British Records. Dig a little deeper, Altfish. Modern History has been written by the publishers.

I give up
Stonehenge was built about least 2500 BC, well before Christianity or any "British Church". There is evidence of the site being used at 8000BC.
Britain didn't exist that far back

 

[OtherSheep]

That's very hyperbolic misuse of both terms.
I view racial nationalism as intrinsically racist by definition, and that's the normal use of the word.

Your opinion. Not mine. And you're continuing to do it... as further proof of my opinion. How very obliging of you.

The British people as a civic body, built around a series of related common cultures (English, Scottish, Welsh, etc.)? Of course it does. The British people as a racial unit?

English is a language, not a race... they invaded the British.

Welsh, Scottish, Cornish, Briton... Kelts are British, according to even the worst of the History books.

People from Britain mostly share genetic markers with other Northwestern Europeans, with some shared with Iberia and some with Scandinavia. Neither is a genetic vacuum unto its own.

Scandinavians are also Gomer, as the rest of NW Europe.
Iberia is such a mixed bag that anything resembling genetic testing is fatally flawed. They had people, according to Sallust, which came from Persia and Armenia as well as the Egyptian Phoenicians, and Libyans, etc.
I wonder how many people know that the alphabet came from Egypt.
Because the Egyptians hadn't lingered in Babylon and helped to build the tower, they had carried intact, the original alphabet from the land of Shinar. Which is also why the Welsh retained a somewhat less pure version of the original language and stil is called such a close match to Hebrew... which was spoken by the Canaanites... while Laban spoke Chaldean, according to the Scriptures.

I doubt very much that you consider Ashkenazi to be a mythical race... therefore, it also means that you cannot truly consider Gomer to be a fiction. And these are the tribes, little heathen, which make up the British Race.

Genotypically, Ashkenazim are about 50% Levantine and 50% Eastern European.

Also curious that Jews were the first group you jumped to...

Not as curious as you, jumping where I didn't, and then...

Shem plainly has nothing at all to do with Japheth's Ashkenaz.

Genesis 10:2 "The sons of Japheth, Gamer, and Magog, and Madoi, and Jovan, and Elisa, and Thobel, and Mosoch, and Thiras. 3 And the sons of Gamer, Aschanaz, and Riphath, and Thorgama. 4 And the sons of Jovan, Elisa, and Tharseis, Cetians, Rhodians. 5 From these were the islands of the Gentiles divided in their land, each according to his tongue, in their tribes and in their nations."

The people who call themselves Ashkenazim aren't even members of the race. Davies wrote a book called Celtic Researches, and calls the Celts: Ashkenaz. The British Race is not non-existent, it has been the victim of... identity misappropriation.

 

[Loviatar]

Not as curious as you, jumping where I didn't

You said "Ashkenazi," not "Ashkenaz." Meanwhile, you referred to supposed descendants of the biblical person Gomer just as that, not "Gomeri" or somesuch. How was I supposed to know you were referring to a fringe theory about the origins of the Celts, rather than the actual ethnic group referred to by "Ashkenazi"?

The British Race is not non-existent, it has been the victim of... identity misappropriation.

Race is always a nebulous concept. If one is defining it by the presence of genetic markers primarily associated with British Isles peoples, then one could say there's a British genetic distinctiveness... except those markers are also common in Northern France and in Benelux. And those markers are only part of the British ethnic groups' genetic make-up.

I really find culture a much more useful line to draw than genes and bloodlines, since the latter always relies on cherrypicking and has led to genocide in every case where it became the prevailing conception of nationhood. If Britishness is defined by blood and soil, forcing out those who aren't of the "British race" is the logical result as advocated by you above, and that's some very dark territory.

 

[OtherSheep]

I give up
Stonehenge was built about least 2500 BC, well before Christianity or any "British Church". There is evidence of the site being used at 8000BC.
Britain didn't exist that far back

Find the books that talk of the Patriarchal Religion. It was carried in a sometimes-mangled form from the dispersion by people who didn't help build Babylon. Davies and James talk about it, like the Welsh in their triads, etc. People who are looking for hard copy from back in the day... well, Job had writing and every other skill of modern day. So did the Egyptians have written testimony of before the flood. Many people don't like to hear about Sanchoniathan because they take him literally... but even the Clementine Homilies will tell you that they hid their meaning from the people who were even then subverting the faith. Mizraim is Osiris, for instance. Davies' Celtic Researches is a help in that area. I'm not saying that I believe all of anyone's words besides Jesus, so don't come back and show me where Davies is wrong. But the old books are often right... where most of today's history is little better than glorified comic books.