Sentences too harsh!

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Correct. And this posting above has nailed it.

But surely its a similar crime if a Doris says 'blow up the mosque' to a Holy Book saying 'cut his head off' ?

Except that the former could be done by JCB's to knock down a small mosque to make way for a giant super-mosque. We have often seen explosives used to demolish antiquated tower-blocks. Its only a building , after all.

And the latter is a unequivocal incitement to murder.

So will we jail shopkeepers who sell that Holy Book ?

Oh for sure, but the difference is that Muslims don't represent a threat to government in their current numbers. They also generally vote to the left, and the left are the useful idiots of the elites.

 

[kevlee]

Oh for sure, but the difference is that Muslims don't represent a threat to government in their current numbers. They also generally vote to the left, and the left are the useful idiots of the elites.

A genuine question about all this "elites" stuff. Who are they, in the UK anyway? Were Boris Johnson and Sunak elites when they were PM's, but not any more, but Starmer now is? Are they the internet moguls like Musk and Zukerberg? Are there any names to go with it?

 

[Matov]

Oh for sure, but the difference is that Muslims don't represent a threat to government in their current numbers. They also generally vote to the left, and the left are the useful idiots of the elites.

Yes and no. Yes, in that the Left have relied on the Muslim vote in a whole variety of ways although we also need to take into account that Labour actually lost seats to Islamic independents based on what is happening in Gaza. Their support is not unconditional.

One thing I think we on the Right are missing is that for all this talk of a multicultural society and integration, the actual strength of the Muslim vote is that in large part it refuses to integrate. It remains a specific and definable culture in its own right. Its entire sense of 'otherness' is what garners it the respect from the Left despite the seeming contradictions (many Islamic beliefs on a range of issues are far beyond what many of us on the Far-Right support in terms of feminism, apostasy and homosexuality).

Now you could argue that because of the ability of certain Muslim communities to arrange block-postal voting and so on, the Left over-look this by way of seeking electoral advantage, which they do/have, but there still remains the fact that essentially the Left are scared of them. Fearful of upsetting them because they present a united front.

Which the Far-Right needs to start emulating.

If there is a sliver of hope from what is happening due to the reaction of the Establishment to the 'white-riots' it is that their OTT response is actually a sign of an inherent weakness. Plus it serves as a reminder that at this stage of history, our fight is not on the streets. What matters is that it has served as a wake-up call to many many hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people about the double standards it has exposed. This is what needs to be seized upon. Spoken about. Discussed.

Does any reasonable person support a retired train driver taking part in a violent street protest? Then no. But does any reasonable person accept that the same system that imposes a custodial sentence on him then allows nonces to walk free after they have been found guilty of knowingly downloading videos of little kids being raped on their computers is a fair one? Then most certainly not. This is the reality we need to make the most of.

Because when far more effective and civil forms of protests start to emerge, people will be more likely to engage if they see the system as inherently biased against them.

We can learn a lot from the example of the Muslim community in the UK. They offer us a blue-print for how we might have to shape our own futures. They are not our friends but they are also not our primary enemy, at least on a national level. It is the Left we need to defeat if we are to have any hope for our children and grandchildren.

 

[Penge Eagle]

Yes and no. Yes, in that the Left have relied on the Muslim vote in a whole variety of ways although we also need to take into account that Labour actually lost seats to Islamic independents based on what is happening in Gaza. Their support is not conditional.

One thing I think we on the Right are missing is that for all this talk of a multicultural society and integration, the actual strength of the Muslim vote is that in large part it refuses to integrate. It remains a specific and definable culture in its own right. Its entire sense of 'otherness' is what garners it the respect from the Left despite the seeming contradictions (many Islamic beliefs on a range of issues are far beyond what many of us on the Far-Right support in terms of feminism, apostasy and homosexuality).

Now you could argue that because of the ability of certain Muslim communities to arrange block-postal voting and so on, the Left over-look this by way of seeking electoral advantage, which they do/have, but there still remains the fact that essentially the Left are scared of them. Fearful of upsetting them because they present a united front.

Which the Far-Right needs to start emulating.

If there is a sliver of hope from what is happening due to the reaction of the Establishment to the 'white-riots' it is that their OTT response is actually a sign of an inherent weakness. Plus it serves as a reminder that at this stage of history, our fight is not on the streets. What matters is that it has served as a wake-up call to many many hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people about the double standards it has exposed. This is what needs to be seized upon. Spoken about. Discussed.

Does any reasonable person support a retired train driver taking part in a violent street protest? Then no. But does any reasonable person accept that the same system that imposes a custodial sentence on him then allows nonces to walk free after they have been found guilty of knowingly downloading videos of little kids being raped on their computers is a fair one? Then most certainly not. This is the reality we need to make the most of.

Because when far more effective and civil forms of protests start to emerge, people will be more likely to engage if they see the system as inherently biased against them.

We can learn a lot from the example of the Muslim community in the UK. They offer us a blue-print for how we might have to shape our own futures. They are not our friends but they are also not our primary enemy, at least on a national level. It is the Left we need to defeat if we are to have any hope for our children and grandchildren.

There is an argument for the right to work with Muslims on putting an end to teaching LGBTQ and transgenderism to young children in local schools.

 

[Matov]

There is an argument for the right to work with Muslims on putting an end to teaching LGBTQ and transgenderism to young children in local schools.

Totally disagree. We are actually weaker because of it as it allows the Left to frame it as a wider 'faith' based resistance.

When it is primarily Muslims objecting then it is a win-win for us. A win if they succeed and a win if they don't as it, once again, shows the double standards at play given how the Left are exposed for their hypocrisy.

Let the left use Muslims as their Gollems. Not us.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

A genuine question about all this "elites" stuff. Who are they, in the UK anyway? Were Boris Johnson and Sunak elites when they were PM's, but not any more, but Starmer now is? Are they the internet moguls like Musk and Zukerberg? Are there any names to go with it?

OK.
Elites, in this case, is a simple label for those that gain from immigration and the proliferation of divisive culture. It isn't a simple picture however.
What is straightforward is the motive. Money, power and control.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Yes and no. Yes, in that the Left have relied on the Muslim vote in a whole variety of ways although we also need to take into account that Labour actually lost seats to Islamic independents based on what is happening in Gaza. Their support is not unconditional.

One thing I think we on the Right are missing is that for all this talk of a multicultural society and integration, the actual strength of the Muslim vote is that in large part it refuses to integrate. It remains a specific and definable culture in its own right. Its entire sense of 'otherness' is what garners it the respect from the Left despite the seeming contradictions (many Islamic beliefs on a range of issues are far beyond what many of us on the Far-Right support in terms of feminism, apostasy and homosexuality).

Now you could argue that because of the ability of certain Muslim communities to arrange block-postal voting and so on, the Left over-look this by way of seeking electoral advantage, which they do/have, but there still remains the fact that essentially the Left are scared of them. Fearful of upsetting them because they present a united front.

Which the Far-Right needs to start emulating.

If there is a sliver of hope from what is happening due to the reaction of the Establishment to the 'white-riots' it is that their OTT response is actually a sign of an inherent weakness. Plus it serves as a reminder that at this stage of history, our fight is not on the streets. What matters is that it has served as a wake-up call to many many hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people about the double standards it has exposed. This is what needs to be seized upon. Spoken about. Discussed.

Does any reasonable person support a retired train driver taking part in a violent street protest? Then no. But does any reasonable person accept that the same system that imposes a custodial sentence on him then allows nonces to walk free after they have been found guilty of knowingly downloading videos of little kids being raped on their computers is a fair one? Then most certainly not. This is the reality we need to make the most of.

Because when far more effective and civil forms of protests start to emerge, people will be more likely to engage if they see the system as inherently biased against them.

We can learn a lot from the example of the Muslim community in the UK. They offer us a blue-print for how we might have to shape our own futures. They are not our friends but they are also not our primary enemy, at least on a national level. It is the Left we need to defeat if we are to have any hope for our children and grandchildren.

There is a lot to agree with there.
The Palestine situation has been a bit of a spanner for Labour. That is why they are so desperate to get the Muslims back on side one suspects. Clamping down on them won't help.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

There is an argument for the right to work with Muslims on putting an end to teaching LGBTQ and transgenderism to young children in local schools.

The question though, is who is really driving this stuff?

The vast majority don't generally approve, and the conservative religions surely don't.
How are we allowing a clique of people the power to do this? How did these people get into positions of authority in the first place?

 

[Matov]

The question though, is who is really driving this stuff?

The vast majority don't generally approve, and the conservative religions surely don't.
How are we allowing a clique of people the power to do this? How did these people get into positions of authority in the first place?

Perhaps the most pertinent question of our age. My own take on it is that the people running the show push it because they can. Remember that for them, everything is about power. Yes, financial wealth matters but ultimately it is merely a tool. What they really get a kick out of it is the implementation of actual power over as many people's lives as possible. And one of the biggest impediments to this is the traditional family unit.

Hence doing everything to try and screw that up because that is literally playing at being God. The trans stuff in particular is the ultimate expression because it gets to attack the very heart of the entire Adam and Eve narrative.

God made man and then he made woman.

So if you want to be play at God, then why not turn that narrative on its head?

There are only so many super-yachts or private jets a person can own. I suspect the novelty soons wears thin very quickly. And ultimately, people scorn you for it. Tacky baubles of invariably criminal activity.

Real Power is about much much more than that. Real Power is about f***ing with what essentially defines us as human beings.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Perhaps the most pertinent question of our age. My own take on it is that the people running the show push it because they can. Remember that for them, everything is about power. Yes, financial wealth matters but ultimately it is merely a tool. What they really get a kick out of it is the implementation of actual power over as many people's lives as possible. And one of the biggest impediments to this is the traditional family unit.

Hence doing everything to try and screw that up because that is literally playing at being God. The trans stuff in particular is the ultimate expression because it gets to attack the very heart of the entire Adam and Eve narrative.

God made man and then he made woman.

So if you want to be play at God, then why not turn that narrative on its head?

There are only so many super-yachts or private jets a person can own. I suspect the novelty soons wears thin very quickly. And ultimately, people scorn you for it. Tacky baubles of invariably criminal activity.

Real Power is about much much more than that. Real Power is about f***ing with what essentially defines us as human beings.

Playing god is not a new thing in human civilisation. It kind of goes with the narcissism and psychopathy that is often inherent in the super ambitious or already super rich.
I'd imagine there is an element of disruption to aid control involved. It is easier to dupe and manipulate a society that is divided and in fear. Removing and replacing societal norms would certainly have that effect.

 

[Stirlingsays]

A genuine question about all this "elites" stuff. Who are they, in the UK anyway? Were Boris Johnson and Sunak elites when they were PM's, but not any more, but Starmer now is? Are they the internet moguls like Musk and Zukerberg? Are there any names to go with it?

Elites are those with the money/power to take or heavily influence decisions. Being well known isn't a requirement.

For example, the CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink, has more real world influence than either Musk or Zuckerberg but most people don't know his name.

So you can use that criteria to make your own decisions on the names you mention.

 

[Matov]

Playing god is not a new thing in human civilisation. It kind of goes with the narcissism and psychopathy that is often inherent in the super ambitious or already super rich.
I'd imagine there is an element of disruption to aid control involved. It is easier to dupe and manipulate a society that is divided and in fear. Removing and replacing societal norms would certainly have that effect.

Causing the disruption is no doubt part of the buzz. Literal Power Addicts. Remember reading about the power of brands and how they are not targeted at rich people. Or rather not at the actual wealth creators.

Branding is all about convincing poor people to pay extra for stuff they don't need.

Yes, money is required to wield power but it is always about far more than just what is in your bank account. I confess it is a subject that fascinates me as I grow older because ultimately aging is all about facing up to the fact that you ain't going to be around for ever.

And that perhaps the simplest way we can all have the smallest idea of what it means to be truly powerful, is to plant a tree whose shade or fruit we will never get to enjoy. Probably sounds weird but for me, legacy is the only game in town now. And I wish I had realised it earlier.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Totally disagree. We are actually weaker because of it as it allows the Left to frame it as a wider 'faith' based resistance.

When it is primarily Muslims objecting then it is a win-win for us. A win if they succeed and a win if they don't as it, once again, shows the double standards at play given how the Left are exposed for their hypocrisy.

Let the left use Muslims as their Gollems. Not us.

And in the meantime a generation of children are taught degeneracy?

Personally I agree with working with whoever you need to....Sparta failed, even though it had the strongest army, exactly because it never had the numbers to sustain itself against bigger threats.

Working with social conservatives, where we agree, is a far stronger threat to the progressives than staying divided on everything. Why should I agree that a Muslim's child gets taught alphabet ideology?....I don't.

 

[Stirlingsays]

The question though, is who is really driving this stuff?

The vast majority don't generally approve, and the conservative religions surely don't.
How are we allowing a clique of people the power to do this? How did these people get into positions of authority in the first place?

The explanation of that would fill several books and it is far from one cause but the agglomeration of several over the passing of generations.....you could possibly look back to WW1 and the suffragettes....if you read what the women led anti suffragette movement of the time said would happen (children aren't taught that this movement was just as strong) with women's voting rights you see a lot of it came true.

WW1 itself radically changed the country and not long after you had Labour and the slow march of socialism and communism into the youth via the universities. There is a hell of a lot more to it but rather than bore you with a long post I'll end on what I mentioned the other day.....O'Sullivan's first law.....and the often repeated quote in the DR:

'Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times'.

 

[Matov]

And in the meantime a generation of children are taught degeneracy?

We are not powerful enough to stop it as things stand. And the Muslims are not either. But we need to break the client-relationship they have with the Left. And we do that by allowing the obvious contradictions between the two to become obvious.

Ultimately the West is either submerged by Islam or else it repulses it, just like it has in the past. But that civilisational struggle only occurs much further down the tracks. For the time being, we need to focus on making the Left weak. And by encouraging the split between Muslims and them needs to be part of that.
We don't do that by acting as allies.

 

[Stirlingsays]

We are not powerful enough to stop it as things stand. And the Muslims are not either. But we need to break the client-relationship they have with the Left. And we do that by allowing the obvious contradictions between the two to become obvious.

Ultimately the West is either submerged by Islam or else it repulses it, just like it has in the past. But that civilisation struggle only occurs much further down the tracks. For the time being, we need to focus on making the Left weak. And by encouraging the split between Muslims and them needs to be part of that.
We don't do that by acting as allies.

Muslims have already stopped alphabet ideology being taught to their kids via exemption....We saw that with their protests outside a school a couple of years back. The state just don't shout about it. Essentially they also get their own schools to swerve it.

The contradictions between the left and Islamic communities will happen regardless of anything done by the right. It's an inevitable consequence of the growth of demographics. So what the right does or doesn't do on that score makes no difference. However, the split you see happening between the Muslims and left probably won't happen quite as you see it..... as a growing Islamic influence in Britain would be more like Turkey than Iran. The left would rub along with that just as atheists rub along in the more liberal Turkish cities.

Nothing actually changes in a country like Britain until welfare collapse.....you'd need the institutions to lose power.....only then does it gets spicy.

However, in the meantime you could actually push back against degeneracy more effectively. I wouldn't call it allies, it's limited mutual interest.....not that it's going to happen.

 

[Matov]

Nothing actually changes in a country like Britain until welfare collapse.....you'd need the institutions to lose power.....only then does it gets spicy.

On that point I agree, 100%. Which is why we need to start our own collective detachment and wean our people off welfare dependence via apprenticeship schemes along with favouring to spend our money with businesses owned by people of our own background.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

The most visible forms of control recently have been with Covid. CCTV, forcing people to have bank accounts, Having a huuuuuge cross-referenced database of everyone.
The the new laws about protests. Having prior approval, etc ,etc
Then the fast-tracking through the legal system for agitators.

They have you by the gonads. It's going to take some major passive and organised defiance to get these measures pushed to one side. (now posting,...at risk of being called an extremist, and having old bill knock on my door)
Defiance can be still using cash wherever you can, avoidance of data-gathering such as Loyalty cards.
Not allowing samples of your DNA to be taken, everything from Trace Your Ancestors, to getting a Caution from the police. Using a PAYG mobile.

Trouble is, The Government are so busy creating disharmony between groups, they are succeeding in keeping us all distracted by their authoritarian measures.

 

[Badger11]

Just seen this about the woman arrested for praying.

Christian arrested for prayer outside abortion clinic wins payout

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce issued a claim against West Midlands Police for two wrongful arrests and false imprisonments and for a breach of her human rights.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[HKOwen]

Good for her and common sense