British Values

[Notanumber]

For all those of you that believe Islamic women are proud to wear the burka and willingly choose to do so you should watch this from 38 minutes in. The whole video is well worth watching if you like to have your finger on the pulse.

 

[OtherSheep]

You said "Ashkenazi," not "Ashkenaz." Meanwhile, you referred to 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 that name?


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, others of which ar

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 don't have "British genes" is the logical result as advocated above, and that's some very dark territory.

So what... Ashkenazi is nothing but a plural... meaning the plurality of the Keltic races. Fringe theory... as opposed to the history which is the lie that everybody else has signed on to? Give me fringe, every time. History written by the conquerors is useless. It's like trying to get the Egyptians to tell you what the Sea People thought.

Genetic markers from whom... the people who's gggrandfather's lived there? Big deal. People have been mixing since the dawn of man. But here's the thing that stays the same: The people who have always lived there, crowded into their worthless hills, are alike as peas in a pod. And even where the nations have been taken over by other races, the majority race is generally the indigenous... because the new genes have been absorbed. Even back when Britain was having its skulls measured and its hair categorized, the researchers had a hard time finding the ellusive blue-eyed blonde conqueror. Because these men rarely brought their wives to the party, even if they had them to bring. They married the local dark-eyed beauty, and had a passel of dark-eyed children with lighter skin... and a tendency for moles... which IMHO, are the submerged pigment trying for all it's worth to surface. Some people tell you that the dark-haired child started out with very fair hair... which is also proof of the submerged race. In any case, the indegenous Celts were not the tall red-heads and blondes that Caesar et al would have noticed for being different... Caesar saw the Belgae.

The Spanish are a different race entirely... if such a thing has existed anytime since the conquest of America. Except that the Celts were there for quite a long time. France is the land of Gomer, just as Josephus tells us. And we would expect to find the same genes of the father running through the veins of the son.

It would be a very good thing if the people who came as strangers to the land of Britain attempted to live as "when in Rome." And the same can be said for any stranger in a strange land. Respect the people who let you in, don't make them wish you were never born. Yeah, it's a bit strong, but that doesn't mean it never happens. I promise you, it does, and it always will.

Race wars are a reality which, if ignored long enough, will have the exact result of making us hate the woman and burn her with fire. And different faiths mix even less well than do the races of the different sons of Noah. If that aversion didn't happen we'd all be Babylon.

I often think that this whole thing is just like what happened in WWII, where antisemitism was actually encouraged by their leaders just to make the Semites go to Israel... we are not all such children that we haven't seen what has been done by whom and why. Why else were the leaky ships sent overloaded to Palestine, and nowhere else, to land amongst reasonably hostile people who were previously promised the land? by the Brits... who had their collective arms twisted to make us the bad guys and be forever called duplicitous Albion... while the arm-twisters kept to the shadows. And what miscarriage of justice gave the Asian Turks the land of Anatolia? and yet another foothold in Europe... which men had already bled for and died to keep from happening.

It remains to be seen why the Islamic people moved out of their lands... if it had nothing to do with the 911 event... forcing people to see that what happened to them is what will happen to all of us, as... your V for Vendetta shows, in reality. Which, even if it could make the ships of the world's police go home, will still not make Islam go back to Arabia... and Persia where it came from. Every righteous death is blamed on the Pharoschim, Pharisees out of Persia. And if Islam is murdering the children of God, then they are Pharisees, too... just as were the Romish Inquisitioners. Jesus' Prophecy will come to pass. And the blood of the saints is found in Babylon... their blood is found in Jerusalem... and Jesus is blaming the Pharisees for each and every drop.

 

[Estro Felino]

For all those of you that believe Islamic women are proud to wear the burka and willingly choose to do so you should watch this from 38 minutes in. The whole video is well worth watching if you like to have your finger on the pulse.

Very good interview...I mean, are there still people who believe that most women wear burqas willingly?
Without any imposition from the males of her family?

The female senator I was speaking of defines burqas "portable prisons"..

 

[OtherSheep]

the actual ethnic group referred to by "Ashkenazi"?

They are not Ashkenaz, Ashkenazi, or Ashkenazim. The Jews never ever had any single toehold in the Race of Gomer. They lived in the land of Germany, which they were, at that split-second in time, pretending was Ashkenaz. But that doesn't make any portion of the Semites into the son of Gomer: Ashkenaz. Some people just plain don't like having their identity stollen. Who would?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Why are people feeding the trolls? OtherSheep is clearly demented.

To return to the Johnson affair. In 2009 the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University (for a thousand years the leading authority on Sunni doctrine) issued a fatwa stating that the face veil was not Islamic but merely a tribal custom. He also stated that it was a potential disguise for terrorists. As for Shia Muslims, how many veils do you see in Iran? To claim that Muslim women who veil are expressing their religion is clearly wrong. And it won't do to say that they are justified if they think they are following a religious practice simply wont do. Can any abuse be justified by claiming it's your religion?

Nor can we say this practice only affects the wearer of the veil. As the Sheik said, it's a security risk. It's also socially devisive. The niqab is apparently rare in the USA, probably because people emigrate there to embrace the US way of life. Many Pakistani and Bengali immigrants to the UK have no desire to be British or to associate with British people.

Johnson simply speaks the truth in a blunt and witty way, unlike the mealy-mouthed May.

 

[Altfish]

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.

Yes, as Harry Potter says it left from Platform 9 and 3/4 at Kings Cross.

Evidence please

 

[Altfish]

For all those of you that believe Islamic women are proud to wear the burka and willingly choose to do so you should watch this from 38 minutes in. The whole video is well worth watching if you like to have your finger on the pulse.

Aaaaaargh he is still alive. The Russian stooge, Mr Banks' lacky.

 

[Altfish]

For all those of you that believe Islamic women are proud to wear the burka and willingly choose to do so you should watch this from 38 minutes in. The whole video is well worth watching if you like to have your finger on the pulse.

You make the gross error of thinking that there are only two points of view, Boris' and pro-Burka.
It wasn't Boris' opinion that caused offence, it was the way it was said. He could have said, "I don't agree with the Burka because many women are forced to wear them" - that would have not cause such a row.

 

[Estro Felino]

You make the gross error of thinking that there are only two points of view, Boris' and pro-Burka.
It wasn't Boris' opinion that caused offence, it was the way it was said. He could have said, "I don't agree with the Burka because many women are forced to wear them" - that would have not cause such a row.

Indeed...that's the point...but I still don't understand why in secular Europe, certain Carnival costumes should have the privilege of not being ridiculed.

 

[Notanumber]

You make the gross error of thinking that there are only two points of view, Boris' and pro-Burka.
It wasn't Boris' opinion that caused offence, it was the way it was said. He could have said, "I don't agree with the Burka because many women are forced to wear them" - that would have not cause such a row.

What Boris has done was far more effective than demanding a burka ban and far less costly for the country to police.

 

[Altfish]

What Boris has done was far more effective than demanding a burka ban and far less costly for the country to police.

Who mentioned a ban?

 

[Notanumber]

Who mentioned a ban?

Denmark did.

Rowan Atkinson defends Boris Johnson over burka comments | Daily Mail Online

Political Islam aided by Political Correctness has forced the Conservative Party to shoot itself in the foot over this issue.

Maybe, the establishment will finally realise that the country is fed up with being a hamstrung nation.

How much is this costing the country?

Rochdale grooming gang members face possible... | Daily Mail Online

 

[Loviatar]

Why are people feeding the trolls? OtherSheep is clearly demented.

They're eloquent for a possibly mentally ill alt-history writer, so I felt like engaging them. There might have been glimmers of insight in there. xD

To return to the Johnson affair. In 2009 the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar University (for a thousand years the leading authority on Sunni doctrine) issued a fatwa stating that the face veil was not Islamic but merely a tribal custom.

It is primarily a Salafi custom, and I think barring Salafi migration would bring burqa wearing to a near halt. However, it is actually seen as a religious obligation for certain subsections of Sunni Islam. Al-Azhar has a very antagonistic attitude towards Salafism, which is a good thing but means I wouldn't trust what they say to encompass Sunni doctrine as a whole.

He also stated that it was a potential disguise for terrorists.

The security argument is a fair one. I can see a very credible argument for having female staff members privately verify the identity of the person under the burqa, in airports, at civic ceremonies (i.e. the citizenship ceremony issue that became big in Canada), and in check-ins to major public venues.

Can any abuse be justified by claiming it's your religion?

I do believe that religious customs that are integral to a specific community, that hurt nobody outside of that community, and where members of that community are given the opportunity to leave if they so wish should be protected. That's why I'm not in favor of an outright ban. It raises the specter of illiberally trying to force a unitary set of customs and behaviors on citizenry - while certain shared broad-based cultural values are things that near-all Britons can agree on, and I believe willingness to assimilate into them should be factored into migration policy, I don't believe regulating peoples' style of dress or specific religious expression (beyond restricting unassimilable extremism) falls within protecting said broad-based values. Britain is a fairly individualistic and religiously pluralist society, after all.

From what I can see as an outsider contrasting British society with my own, its shared values tend to be more within the realm of civic first principles (i.e. conception of rights), community structure, and certain behavioral traits that aren't shared by all but that are prized as quintessentially British.

Johnson simply speaks the truth in a blunt and witty way, unlike the mealy-mouthed May.

I actually like May a lot, but it may be because I'm from a Nordic country. We tend to put a high emphasis on politeness, especially Sweden and Finland. She reminds me of our conservatives, I like Jon Huntsman and to a lesser degree John Kasich in the US for the same reason.

Still, the reaction to Johnson's comments seems to show they're widely seen as mean-spirited among British people too. As Altfish said, it's not so much that he was criticizing burqas, fair criticism can be made. It's more that he was insulting their wearers.

 

[Kirran]

They're eloquent for a possibly mentally ill alt-history writer, so I felt like engaging them. There might have been glimmers of insight in there. xD


It is primarily a Salafi custom, and I think barring Salafi migration would bring burqa wearing to a near halt. However, it is actually seen as a religious obligation for certain subsections of Sunni Islam. Al-Azhar has a very antagonistic attitude towards Salafism, which is a good thing but means I wouldn't trust what they say to encompass Sunni doctrine as a whole.


The security argument is a fair one. I can see a very credible argument for having female staff members privately verify the identity of the person under the burqa, in airports, at civic ceremonies (i.e. the citizenship ceremony issue that became big in Canada), and in check-ins to major public venues.


I do believe that religious customs that are integral to a specific community, that hurt nobody outside of that community, and where members of that community are given the opportunity to leave if they so wish should be protected. That's why I'm not in favor of an outright ban. It raises the specter of illiberally trying to force a unitary set of customs and behaviors on citizenry - while certain shared broad-based cultural values are things that near-all Britons can agree on, and I believe willingness to assimilate into them should be factored into migration policy, I don't believe regulating peoples' style of dress or specific religious expression (beyond restricting unassimilable extremism) falls within protecting said broad-based values. Britain is a fairly individualistic and religiously pluralist society, after all.

From what I can see as an outsider contrasting British society with my own, its shared values tend to be more within the realm of civic first principles (i.e. conception of rights), community structure, and certain behavioral traits that aren't shared by all but that are prized as quintessentially British.


I actually like May a lot, but it may be because I'm from a Nordic country. We tend to put a high emphasis on politeness, especially Sweden and Finland. She reminds me of our conservatives, I like Jon Huntsman and to a lesser degree John Kasich in the US for the same reason.

Still, the reaction to Johnson's comments seems to show they're widely seen as mean-spirited among British people too. As Altfish said, it's not so much that he was criticizing burqas, fair criticism can be made. It's more that he was insulting their wearers.

Jeremy Corbyn is highly polite too

 

[Estro Felino]

That's why I'm not in favor of an outright ban. It raises the specter of illiberally trying to force a unitary set of customs and behaviors on citizenry -

I am in favor of a burqa-ban in my country, for two primary reasons: a ethical one, and a juridic one.
From an ethical point of view, it is a piece of clothing that humiliates women, and it doesn't deserve any respect, since it was invented as instrument of subjugation.
From a juridic standpoint, in Italy it is forbidden by law (law 152\1975) to cover your face in public. This law enables mayors and regional governors to issue burqa-bans at local level. Local burqa-bans already exist in many places in Northern Italy, and mulcts are applied to transgressors.

What we need is a specific law at national level.

I actually like May a lot, but it may be because I'm from a Nordic country. We tend to put a high emphasis on politeness, especially Sweden and Finland. She reminds me of our conservatives, I like Jon Huntsman and to a lesser degree John Kasich in the US for the same reason.

Well...sometimes politeness can be counterproductive.
I am sure that the British people would use a politician like her (despite her bluntness and Roman boorishness).

 

[Notanumber]

I actually like May a lot, but it may be because I'm from a Nordic country. We tend to put a high emphasis on politeness, especially Sweden and Finland. She reminds me of our conservatives, I like Jon Huntsman and to a lesser degree John Kasich in the US for the same reason.

Look what politeness has done for Sweden.

The sexual harassment capitals of Europe

The burka must be a requirement there if you want to be relatively safe.

 

[Loviatar]

Jeremy Corbyn is highly polite too

He seems like a nice man. Occasionally self-righteous, and like many politicians prone to manipulative spin (he's just good at it), but we all have our flaws. Unlike Donald Trump for example, I don't seriously mind him on a personal level any more than most political leaders. I do have sharp disagreements with him on the issues though.

From an ethical point of view, it is a piece of clothing that humiliates women, and it doesn't deserve any respect, since it was invented as instrument of subjugation.

What about very revealing clothing? One could equally argue that humiliates women, Muslim women tend to believe it does. I prefer leaving that decision up to the person and their convictions, not forcing it through state power.

I am sure that the British people would use a politician like her (despite her bluntness and Roman boorishness).

I consider Meloni's party a demagogic far-right radical one, and it descends openly from the neofascist Italian Social Movement. Not at all something I'd praise, nor something I think Britain would be wise to emulate.

I don't like the Finns Party back home either, and they're considerably more moderate than Brothers of Italy. I vote Centre Party, who would be considered socially mildly center-right and economically clearly center-left by US standards, socially center-right and economically very mildly center-right by British ones. In Britain, I'd be considered a moderate Tory.

The sexual harassment capitals of Europe

Catcalling is an issue, yes, and I do think we need more focus on assimilability in immigration policy. I do not believe that requires surrendering our freedoms internally, it requires better standards on who is let in.

The burka must be a requirement there if you want to be relatively safe.

For what it's worth, I've actually felt more unsafe in Helsinki on a bus with a far-right skinhead gang than on a bus with Muslims. There are issues with Nordic immigration policies, but this statement is incredibly hyperbolic.

 

[Notanumber]

For what it's worth, I've actually felt more unsafe in Helsinki on a bus with a far-right skinhead gang than on a bus with Muslims. There are issues with Nordic immigration policies, but this statement is incredibly hyperbolic.

And those that have already been let in.

If only it were exaggerated.

Worryingly, it’s not just Sweden.

 

[Altfish]

Denmark did.

Rowan Atkinson defends Boris Johnson over burka comments | Daily Mail Online

Political Islam aided by Political Correctness has forced the Conservative Party to shoot itself in the foot over this issue.

Maybe, the establishment will finally realise that the country is fed up with being a hamstrung nation.

How much is this costing the country?

Rochdale grooming gang members face possible... | Daily Mail Online

Where is Denmark's post in this thread?

Not more Daily Mail quotes - I know I've seen those stories in proper newspapers. But it does explain your xenophobic views.

Do you actually read other people's posts before you respond.

 

[Notanumber]

Where is Denmark's post in this thread?

Not more Daily Mail quotes - I know I've seen those stories in proper newspapers. But it does explain your xenophobic views.

Do you actually read other people's posts before you respond.

'Boris was speaking out against a ban of the type that's taken place in Denmark and some other countries.'

Boris Johnson under fire for comparing niqab-wearing women to 'letter boxes'