You know why white people are hesitant to say anything against a black person in public, even a black criminal?
Because they are afraid of being called a racist? No, more so it is because they are afraid of black people doing violence against them. Just like Europeans are afraid of saying things against Muslims, they know there are Muslims who will get quick violent against them if they say it.
So the violent thugs and their gangs are here, and have become so prevalent and taken over so much of our governance and institutions and social groups that we know it is the case that if we are to speak publicly against anyone who happens to be in those groups we will become targeted for personal violence against us. Thus ensuring the continued further takeover of these gangs and groups of thugs.
Europeans used to stand for something. Heads held high. Now all they do it hide cowering with their heads up their asses, hoping no one notices them.
Guess this is what happens when you disarm the populace. Because this phenomenon of self-effacing cowardice and fear to speak openly against particular groups happens to coincide in exact proportion to the degree that the population in question in that particular area has been disarmed of firearms and the right to carry them. Think about it. Europeans are mostly cucks who don’t have guns. Americans in big cities are mostly likewise. Whereas in the rural parts of America and the red states, people still have guns and still speak openly their true beliefs about gangs and thugs whether it be blacks, Muslims, Jews or any other groups.
Get it yet?
Give up your ability to defend yourself, hand this over to ‘the state’ or society at large or your neighbors or police or whoever else you want, and you are not far off from losing your right and even ability to speak your honest feelings and beliefs when it comes to what threatens you. Become the slave you were meant to be, abandon self-defense and the 2nd Amendment, give up your guns and be free to lose not only your ability to speak the truth but even the ability to see or care about the truth, let alone your own life in the worse case.
And back on topic here, not a single leftist in the entire world has any idea what I am talking about. You could read these posts to a leftist and they will actually be confused, angry, dismissive. They are mentally unable to parse any of this. So no… they are indeed not conscious of their dishonesty.
I’ve never had problems criticising Muslims, but it is a question of how you do it. As an employer, I had many Muslim employees who knew that I cared about them, and when they did something or others did something I criticised, they knew that I wasn’t calling their existence into question.
I surprisingly had a guy come to the home I was running asking to finish his training with us, who had been thrown out of another place because he was part of a motorcycle gang and insisted on wearing his heavy boots on ward. I made it clear I wanted to help him finish his training, but he would have to compromise and behave appropriately. I spoke to him as though he was a soldier, and made it clear he would be out on his ear if I caught him misbehaving.
In both cases, no-one offered violence, or punctured my wheels, or scratched my car. The criticised employees shook my hand just as enthusiastically as the others when I left. My choice to approach people without bias, but also honestly always paid off, and I was awarded a prize by an organisation for best integration work.
The way some people act on this forum suggests that if they meet with violence with minorities or other ethical groups, they should ask how these people have been treated and how their own behaviour has been a factor.
.
Will this be across the [religio/ethnic-board though? …because it should be!
Judge Dredd/Minority Report, anyone., anyone?
the recommendation of film on YouTube was very timely before taking up this answer to question about motives of the Left , whether they are honest dishonest or a good admixture of both . Actually this question was answered long back by George Orwell in his works 1984 and Animal Farm . Animal Farm was quite graphic in its description of IQ from very high, as in case of Napoleon and to very low as symbolized in Molly . The dishonesty in left is very high in leaders with very high IQ and it’s diminished in workers with low IQ .
The left leaders may be are idealistic in their young ages, vying to do something good to the masses, as they gain experience, they start compromising with their ideals and towards the end of their journey in a bid of self preservation they turn fairly dishonest.
A self righteous write-up . These days things , conclusions are being taken to extreme ends based on individual’s experiences . The one described by @Bob , may catch you unguarded and other’s experiences you may never face . Undoubtedly situation is grim , in our dialect there is a saying “ you can’t have smoke without fire somewhere “ . There is lots of fire, we should keep our machines ready .
This should be the spirit!
As an Englishman in Germany working in a profession where respect is an integral part of communication, I found the formalisation of the language very helpful. It allowed for a formalisation of relationships that brought expectations no longer common in English-speaking countries.
To be told in English that my comments about respect in dealing with other people were self-righteous confirms my feeling that respect is far from being expected in dealing with others. Even the meaning of respect has been lost to the extent that people are no longer aware that they are causing their own problems.
In my opinion, all international conflicts have the same root cause: lack of respect. But this is part of a larger problem, namely the artificial identification of the individual with a particular group, rather than seeing oneself as part of the largest collective, humanity. Group identities are arbitrary constructs, whereas being human affects everyone. I would even argue that some use their group identity to distance themselves from being human.
Conflict is then inevitable, and the first step to overcoming it is to develop and expand respect with the aim of inspiring others to do the same.
Wow ! What a profound thinking, so nicely goes deep down to root of the issues . Thanks God I read you , @Bob , I express my respect and regards to you, sorry if you ha found it lacking in my previous reply .
.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has come under fire for nearly £83,780 in donations and hospitality he received, largely while leader of the opposition.
While planning his election triumph in July, Sir Keir welcomed with open arms large amounts of gifts and hospitality, including Taylor Swift tickets, designer clothes and glasses and tickets to several football matches.
.
…and who is tipped to replace him, and when:
.
I bet he does…
Refugee or economic migrant? I’ll go with the latter, so not seeking refuge from anything, so here illegally.
He’s literally showing off his residence permit. The fact that he is there legally is just about the only thing you know about this man.
.
He isn’t from an unsafe country, so not a refugee…
[post edited @Flannel_Jesus]
That was very considerate of you. To let me know, I mean, not to edit it. Thanks. <3
Let me google that for you.
The UK’s guidance for evaluating asylum seekers from Yemen acknowledges that Yemen is in a state of humanitarian crisis. That is from 2021, and cites this 2021 UN Humanitarian Needs Overview. Here is the 2024 Humanitarian Needs Overview for Yemen, which states at the outset that
Humanitarian needs will remain high for years to come. Yemen continues to face a complex protection crisis driving humanitarian needs in the country. The crisis characterised by civilian casualties, protracted large-scale displacement, marginalisation, and discriminatory norms continues to have a profound impact on the people across the country…
You may disagree with the law, but the man in your video is in the UK legally, as a refugee from a country in deep humanitarian crisis.
You’re falsely accusing a stranger of breaking the law when easily confirmed facts show otherwise. For shame.
.
Well… he came in a small boat across the channel, passing through countless safe-countries along the way, and not through the refugee relocation scheme… so yes, he came here illegally, and probably from a safe country that he had already been residing in, seeing that he didn’t arrive the legal way.
It happens a lot, but just ends up burdening some countries way more than others.
In response to facts you are changing your reasons instead of your conclusions.
.
Something you do all the time, plus… that’s my response to your’s, so what’s the problem?
.
He still came here illegally, so why? …because he was already residing in a safe country.
