Remember when anytime you point out the savage, primitive and barbaric nature of all Islamic countries, you substantiate it with facts and statistics, and point out how the Islamic brain rot is different than other superstition-induced brain rots like Christianity, the first thing that pops out of western political-correctness zombies is-->racist!.

This has happened to me many times and every time I was left befuddled how can this be, surely people can comprehend that Islam is an ideology and as such has no skin pigmentation, surely anyone who watches news sees the stark contrast between Islam and any other superstition.

I thought that this bizarre behavior, from the very people who supposedly care about human rights, is caused by the need to have emotional comfort and not confronting anything Islam-related gives greater emotional confront than facing the facts that this planet has a huge population of barbarians, but there is another more insidious explanation.

Only a total idiot would say that "Islam is a race", sadly I have met a quite a few of these people (who generally read/watch left-wing media).

I keep on telling people "Islam is NOT a race in the same way that Christianity is not a race, if I say something that people of religion X don't like does not make me a racist..... religionist for sure, but all religions are a crock of shit anyway, its just that some are more evil and backward than others", that of course always starts a rather enjoyable (from my perspective) discussion/argument, by the end of that discussion/argument everyone (no joke) admits that Islam is the least welcome religion, followed by Scientology, various forms of Christianity and then the religions that have little or no impedence on general life in my part of the world, its always the same order (when, as I do, I only use "today" as the measure of time and not the last few thousand years of extremely boody history, which also rules out great works of art and the funding (by tithe) of education or science - today really matters it seems).

This story sickened me a great deal and I will be very interested in how much police involvement there will be.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... ldren.html

This is a racist "hate crime" in exactly the same way it would be if the children being attacked for no reason other than their hair colour were being attacked for no reason other than their skin colour. Will the police treat this as a "hate crime", of course not, the indigenous population has fewer rights in the UK than "ethnic or religious minorities" regardless of how few "gingers" there are in the UK vs other minorities.

Don't forget the "Feminists", (of which I consider myself one). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GeeNHxMB-U

Andy

PS: I apologise in advance for thread hijacking as my included news story will likely gain more attention and responses than your original story, although I will personally try to keep to the original subject as much as possible.

If you don't mind me asking, how come things in UK went so horribly wrong like this:



If that's not a clear condemnation of multiculturalism I don't know what the hell is.
But more importantly why did UK go to great lengths to allow Muslim immigration for many decades knowing their primitive culture and beliefs were completely incompatible with modernity, democracy and human rights.

There were dozens of countries of eastern Europe and ex-soviet block to draw the immigration from whose people basically have the same mentality and culture and would be very easily assimilated.
Instead, UK went out of their way to allow Muslim immigration from the most backward countries on the planet and then made sure they don't integrate under the guise of multiculturalism.

This just boggles the mind, it's like for decades there was no common sense in UK at all, am I missing something here?

The simple answer I give as 2 points.

The "British" people are generally welcoming and generally don't make much of a fuss over many matters including sadly this point (British history explains a great deal of this).

"Multiculturalism" was essentially imposed upon us by many governments over many years without the will of the the voters (e.g. it was not in the manifesto's of any UK political party ever, but they are all to blame, helped a great deal by the previous point). It has now got to the point where "Multiculturalism" is regularly defended by politicians and just about everyone in the left-sphere of politics although a great deal of left wing voters don't like it because its generally the lower paid (unskilled) workers who lose out, which is why a great many people will be voting UKIP.

This explains a lot if you as it were "read between the lines", and added to this one of my prefered things to do when reading the news is to also read a few of the "best rated" comments left by other people who have read this, I find that the user comments are sometimes of more value than the article itself, this article I didnt even read, I just read the subtitle and moved onto the best rated readers comments. To my Delight the first two read as follows:

:--- "We are constantly called little Englanders when we stand up for our own culture, are we surprised about his?"

:--- "This has everything to do with not offending anyone who is not English. This is disgraceful."

The full article is here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... s-Day.html

I would love to know where your getting your statistics from BTW.



I have no answer except "stupidity" and to keep themselves (e.g. politicians that made this happen) rich, cynical - yes, truthful - likely.



Most native and long since assimilated people dont understand this either. The only vaguely sensible answer is "an apology for the British Empire", that might have been true 20-30 years ago, now we let anyone in from countries that have never had anything to do with the British Empire, so basically that's just a lame excuse now.



Your not missing anything, my mind is totally boggled as well, that is why I voted UKIP at my last local elections and will be voting for them in the General (main) election in 2015, they are the only party in the UK that is (a) non-racist and (b) anti mass-immigration, and for a bonus point (c) want us to leave the EU which is where the majority of our immigrants (non-skilled with families that cost the UK a fortune, never to be recouped) come from and cannot (legally) be stopped whilst we are a member of the EU.

BTW, what country are you from and where do you currently live.?


Andy

Croatia.

I just came across this article, unbelievable.

It really seems to me like there are no public intellectuals in UK, it's not rocket science to predict what the results will be if you allow the existence of oxymoronic faith schools of any type, there is a reason why there is only one science in the world.

Everything starts with childhood indoctrination and UK is hellbent on subverting evidence based reasoning.

That article is over 4-years old, and yes various new faith schools of all types have been created. Generally in the UK "Catholic" schools generally give the best level of education, but the pupils are not restricted to Catholics only.

The Muslim mindset is different, and this has been in the news for the last week.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-de ... e-24548690

This school has actually failed in every single category, did I see this happening - of course I did, it was obviously going to happen.


Andy

We're not saying Islam is a race.

We're saying you're racists. And liars. Because you are. Nothing to do with Islam but your fantasies about Islam which are something else.

How many times are you going to post your hateful BS on SPCR?

Hm, care to elaborate on anything in that word salad of buzzwords and baseless assertions?

So, why do people think that such a weird thing as faith school should exist?

Faith is belief without evidence and most of the time a belief despite evidence, how is that compatible with schooling and education?
Just to name schools according to different superstition sects is detrimental and subversive.

Are you seriously accusing me of being a racist because I don't like religion in any form, but dislike Islam the most (for a great many obvious and factually correct reasons), even though it is plainly obvious to anyone with a reasonable IQ that you cannot be racist for disliking a religion.

You have also accused me of being a liar, about what.?



Its not hateful, or even aimed at any particular person, it is my own point of view that is backed up by an enormous amount of evidence, so I will continue "to post my personal views on SPCR for as long as I wish to do so".

HFAT, you totally failed to backup your counter argument on a similar subject previously, would you be so kind as to do so this time.?

For example please give me a sensible counter argument to the following point.

"Islam is inherently sexist within the UK. Female Muslims are very often found with Hijabs and rapidly becoming more popular are Niqabs, men do not have to wear these. Please explain how this is not sexist.?"



This goes back a very long way, back to the days where there were very few people who were educated at all, and most of those who were educated were Christians who discovered that if you could teach people to read, and there was only one single book found commonly in the whole of the UK and that was the Bible, you could then more easily convert those who could read into Christianity, and strengthen their convictions for the existing believers. As you can then guess, "Faith Schools" were the only schools at all, it was many centuries before "Comprehensive Schools" were created.

Since then in the UK generally the best schools from an education perspective were of a Christian denomination and still are in a lot of areas of the country. My brother (an Atheist) is hoping to send his children to his local Catholic school just for the better education that it offers, his children wont suddenly turn religious because there is almost no-one in those children's families who are religious, there isn't even a bible proudly on display and I don't remember seeing a crucifix anywhere, so I am not concerned at all ATM.



I fully agree with your sentiment, although on the plus side there are "Atheist Free-Schools" as well, but sadly in very limited numbers because Atheists are well known for NOT being a group of persons tied together by dogma it becomes that much more difficult for Atheists to get together to create a "Free School".

My main problems with "Free Schools" are that they do NOT have to use qualified teachers, they do NOT have to follow the "national curriculum" and they can ignore a number or rules and regulations that the rest of the schools in the UK cannot ignore, including other religious schools that are not "free schools".

I objected to the idea of "free schools" as soon as I read about these details, it is perfectly acceptable for children who go to "free schools" in the UK to spend all day reading religious texts rather than learning, its a totally shit idea and "free schools" should have the same rules and regs forced upon them so that the children going to these schools are given a decent education and are not brainwashed with religious dogma for the entire school day.


Andy

Nowhere in the Quran does it actually say anything about women having to cover up. If anything it's pretty much the same as Christianity: both men and women should dress modestly. I state men as well and in fact in some arab countries it is illegal for men to wear shorts in public. In early Christianity it was also quite common for women to cover up and why do you think nuns dress as they do? So, hijabs and biqabs are not an Islamic belief, they are actually pre-Islam and can be seen as a misinterpretation of religion in the same way that the Christian right in the US managed to get alcohol made illegal. Another similar thing in Christianity is that it says nowhere in the Bible that Christians must wear a crucifix, yet many do. Religious texts are all pretty inconclusive.

That doesn't sound like any catholic school I know. I went to one for sixth form as it was the best school locally for the subjects I wanted to study and every classroom had a crucifix and every lesson started with a prayer. Most catholic diocese who support schools will do there own inspections to check that the catholic message is getting through.

Religion and race are different but many people are misunderstanding this and putting the two together, in particular far right groups throughout Europe. It doesn't help the situation as a hardline on both sides will become increasingly hardline.

Exactly.

The Quran says that people (women only.? not sure on the exactness TBH) should dress "modestly". What does modest even mean in the context of "dress", does it mean modestly from a cost perspective, maybe it does, maybe its to "hide modesty" e.g. not having genitalia on display, I don't really know for sure, but what I do know is that women are finding themselves locked inside a garment that is little more than a personal prison. If Muslim men also wore the same clothing, then I would have less to complain about the "traditional" Muslim attire..... traditional I hear you say, but traditional from where, the Arabian peninsula is where the "Wahabi" dress-code for women includes the "Niqab" which as far as I know is where it originated.



To clear up the confusion I will edit my post, there are no crucifixes in my brothers house and probably not a single room without one at their local Catholic school.



I agree on both points. What also doesn't help anything at all is the idiotic left-wing BBC that routinely trots out shit on the matter including the frequent use of the non-word "Islamophobia". "Islamophobia" does not exist and cannot exist within the brain of anyone who uses theirs. A "Phobia" is an "irrational fear", there is nothing at all irrational about most of the fears that people have about Islam, therefore Islamophobia is a bullshit word. "Islamofascist" on the other hand makes perfect sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism


Andy

Race is a social construct. And any group of people that you can choose to join or to leave - cannot be considered a race. The fellow Jason Richwine who wrote in his "PhD" paper that Jews are more intelligent is essentially saying that if we convert to Judaism, we would all increase our IQ.

A religion is not a race, and a race is essentially meaningless, anyway.

Keep this civil, folks!

As Marx said, history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.

Electoral poster from 1964.


Another one said "If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour", perhaps before the political-correct "fascists" complained.

http://ourhistory-hayes.blogspot.com.au ... -1964.html

Lambeth, south London, 1964.

Racism is thankfully not tolerated as it was in the past, but that very same message is still being widely used today without any racist language or connotations because the same problem of unneeded mass immigration is still continuing, and at a pace that people would never have believed in 1964.

FYI, London as a whole (not just Lambeth) has a "White British" population of 45% and (England and Wales) have a population of 56.1 million people, of which 7.5 million were born outside of the UK (13%). Probably the most shocking figure of all is that 25% of schoolchildren were born to immigrant parents, this is what the future brings, England will not be English in a few decades

Do I find these numbers utterly shocking, yes I do. Will I ever vote for the political parties that allowed this totally over the top immigration to happen, never again (that BTW includes the "Tories").

Info.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/ ... index.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20680565

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20672090


Andy

And for people who supposedly "live in peace" I find your tolerance of extremists that have subverted your beliefs equally bizarre, if not more so.
Actually some of the most religious westerners were those that aided and abetted pedophile priests. That's the nature of extremism.

Pot meet kettle. That's western for "You are a hypocrite."

Really Neil, when was the last time religion and civility were used at the same time in this century?

We're headed for the Dark Ages again. Except for Neil, who's relying on solar power.

Hey Mr Peaceful Religion, could you not find a link to make your point that was not designed to incite fear and hatred? You made my point, hypocrite, which means you are in no position to throw stones when others use the same tactics.

Doesn't it offend you to quote infidels, or is that OK when it suits your agenda?

Consider this post deleted. I totally got the wrong end of the tree (let alone the stick).


Andy

All I'm saying is:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
― Edmund Burke

And that other stuff
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

There's a loty of irony here, and too bad Native Americans didn't do to the Tory what the Tory want done to those they view as immigrants.

I emailed the coward and asked him why hasn't answered the questions of yours truly fellow infidel.

Should I start checking for bombs under my car now or what?

A few years ago a group of Greek senior citizens went to Egypt to see the pyramids, Sphinx, etc. Dressed in street clothes and minding their own business they were met with gunfire, and all these people in the 60's, 70's, perhaps even 80's died violent deaths. TV stations carried the story, and sometime after that there was an unofficial apology from the terrorists:



As if that would have made such a despicable and cowardly act justifiable.

A small piece of advice there Mettyx, if you're going to hurl accusations (and perhaps even bombs) you may want to move out of that glass skyscraper you're currently living in, you miserable excuse for a rational thinking human being.

Have a nice day.
Aris

Islam isn't "barbaric". The conflicts with Islam are caused in part by mass immigration and in part by Israeli-Muslim conflicts, in which there simply is not a "good" side.

Islam has a rich history. If robbed of their heritage, what would guide and direct Muslims? I'm for leaving them alone, striving for a peaceful order. They're only radicalised from these conflicts. Often "terrorists" (for example Iraqis in Iraq as opposed to outside of Iraq) have been secular, just reacting against foreign occupation. In Syria, Assad is against the radical Muslims, but the US backs the radicals. I don't believe the US is a force for stability, and I doubt Europe would be either.

Richwine hasn't been proven wrong. It was a Harvard PhD right? I don't think his argument is converting makes one smarter, no. Jews dominate in the Ivy League. It doesn't surprise me that they have a higher IQ. So what? I'm sure there's a village in China that has a higher IQ than other villages. Who cares?

Richwine is hated, because he's the only one who used facts to argue against amnesty. Big business wanted amnesty for cheap labour. Richwine stood athwart it and got fired. No one else cared that amnesty would impoverish the average American. Supporters were either on the corporate payroll or dreaming of Latinos voting, as if it even matters what policies the government passes if we lack jobs.

I doubt the guy is even racist, btw. He's probably an elitist Ivy Leaguer, but that's not the same thing. We hate Richwine, because he dared to stand for the little man, couldn't be bought off. Perhaps it was some religion guiding him.

I disagree that Islam is not barbaric, most if not all religions contain barbaric behaviour depicted in their holy books, some of this behaviour is committed by God(s), some by individuals. The problem with all religious texts is that they describe themselves as "literal truths", it is then of no great surprise that some religious people follow the more brutal aspects.

Most people of most religions are obviously peaceful individuals, the problem is with a minority of people who have ignored all of the peaceful messages and accepted the "barbaric" messages and have then acted them out.

The messages that ask the believers to commit murder because they have read it in a book are simply following the books instructions. Most media outlets and politicians call these people "radicalised", I call them "the faithful".

In my opinion the various religious texts that call for acts of murder, rape, enslavement etc should be removed and the books re-printed and distributed, if this was done then over time religious people would not be able to follow the instructions to murder as they simply would not exist in their holy books.

As for the Israeli issue, various "faithful" Muslims have read their holy book and the parts that call for the murder or persons of other faiths (especially Jews). Such things simply do not exist in the Jewish holy book as it was written long before Islam came into existence so I simply cannot accept that the Israeli issue from a purely religious perspective is anything other than one-sided, the rest of the issue is nationalistic, militaristic and tit-for-tat violence with a great deal of history in the mix as well.

As for Islam's "rich history", that is undeniable, it is also hundreds of years old, and Islam is essentially still has a medieval mindset, this I believe to be primarily down to a lack of a reformation within Islam and the very simple fact that Islam's followers believe that "Mohammed" is not just "the best man that has ever existed, but the best man that will EVER exist".

Religiously motivated violence is an undeniable fact, so this can only be a good thing for the future of the human race as this would drastically reduce one of the many reasons for acts of violence, thankfully in my country (the UK) is becoming rapidly less religious (in terms of the native population), the immigrants are generally the ones boosting the religious numbers, and as such Islam is rapidly taking hold in many different ways that the majority of the people of the UK do not like very much.... but that's another story.


Andy