It's the Muzzas, Stupid!
Thursday, December 4, 2008 at 09:33AM 
Yesterday I drove down to a small industrial estate in Bradford to pick up some electrical equipment I'd ordered. You'll be familiar with the design of these places. Each unit has a large warehouse area with a small customer reception room adjacent. As I approached the door to the reception a young Pakistani lad burst through, coat in hand, shouting to the man behind the desk:
'You just don't like me 'cause I'm a Paki. You never have. You're all a bunch of f***ing racist white c***ts.'
With that he jumped into his car (Japanese-made of course) and screeched off towards the main road. I was so surprised by this little drama that I didn't realise the impact of his insults and how angry they made me feel for several minutes.
"What on earth was all that about?" I said to the man behind the desk. "Dissatisfied customer was it?"
"You must be bloody joking!!" He replied in a typically blunt Bradford style (you have to know the place to understand what I mean).
"What then? If you don't mind me asking."
"That little sod was on a three-month trial." He then went into a rant about the person in question. Most ofit was not of significant importance - just general mutterings about his indolence. However, he then said: "D'ya know he even asked us at the interview if we could allow him to use the kitchen to pray during his break and we, silly buggers that we are, said yes."
'So why the racist outburst and the attitude?'
'Because when he was asked by our secretary to make tea, coffee and sandwiches for the rest of the lads, he told her that 'was women's work.' In his house 'women did all that kind of thing.' So when I invited him into the office to explain that he should do as he is told, he started shouting and then stormed off."
"So let me get this straight. Because he's got a 19th century attitude towards women and an obvious problem with instruction, you're all racist? Despite the fact that he's the one spouting the racist insults."
"Well, it's them, isn't it? They don't behave and think like the rest of us."
This last statement revealed a truism that so many non-Muslim Bradfordians rarely mention except when circumstances of possible or actual confrontation arise. I'm fully aware that ATW's regular band of Muslim-friendly apologists will tell me I didn't witness the entire situation or have prior knowledge of working arrangements. That said, of the two young lads who helped me load my purchases into my car, one of them came from Malawi and seemed perfectly happy in his job - joking and laughing with his colleague.
When all is said and done that manager was right. A great percentage of Muslims (not all by any means) DON'T think and behave like the rest of us. And when I say 'the rest of us' I don't just mean those classified as white British. I mean like the bulk of the rest of the world. Can you imagine someone of any other religion having the front to request a room for prayers in a small company with no precedent of such facilitation? Can you imagine any other religion where a significant and growing section of women are required to walk around like complete pillocks in a naked (irony at its best) demonstration of hatred and contempt for the customs of the country they choose to live in? Can you imagine any other religion being involved in so many conflicts around the world directly in the name of its creed? Can you imagine any other religion having such an impact on the lives of those who do not follow it - from the tight security and accompanying delays at airports to the Islamisation of city suburbs? The negatives could go on all day.
I have long argued that most Muslims should live only in Muslim countries since their obsession with their religion and many of its anachronistic trappings, their way of life, sociological beliefs, modes of dress, inter and intra-family networks, etc. are so out of kilter with almost everybody else's that a mass influx of Muslims into non-Islamic societies is equivalent to dribbling urine into a bucket of champagne: eventually it ceases to be a bucket of champagne and becomes of bucket of pee. Take it from me, as someone who has lived most of his life in the regional epicentre of Islamic extremism, it is the Muslims that have the monopoly on intolerance, prejudice, arrogant attitudes and dislike of their adopted country. Shame on them!!
Update: The Economist has an article detailing the degree of accommodation that has been made by various soft-headed people and groups in respect of Europe's Islamic population. If they bend over backwards to this degree when the total only stands at 4%, what the hell will they be doing when it reaches 14%?
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (130)
Well said. I come from a multiculti paradise also and agree with every word.
Pete
Have you ever thought about launching a campaign to ban the niqab on here? I wonder if David would be amenable.
Andrew.
I know it's a temptation, but when you relate a story such as you have just done, then go on to give your analysis and finally a conclusion, it leaves precious little room for anyone to make a comment.
It's a bit like a TV chef demonstrating how to prepare the ideal meal, then sitting down himself to consume it and declaring it excellent.
"Have you ever thought about launching a campaign to ban the niqab on here?"
Surely, in a free country, if a woman wants to wear a niqb, or a hijab, or any time of clothes, then she should be allowed?
Andrew McCann -
I haven't, but then ATW isn't my property and I'm conscious of not doing anything to jeopardise the site. You can easily bring attention to yourself by saying what our ancestors would have taken for granted. Doing so on your own property is one thing, but I'm a guest here. Then again, one can lend one's name to a campaign!
Bernard -
Here you go:
it is the Muslims that have the monopoly on intolerance, prejudice, arrogant attitudes and dislike of their adopted country. - discuss
"it is the Muslims that have the monopoly on intolerance, prejudice, arrogant attitudes and dislike of their adopted country"
You were just talking about banning the nijab and you are wondering if Muslims have a monopoly on intolerance, prejudice and arrogance.
Seamus
You're missing the point about the niqab. It's fair enough to use the 'in a free society' argument. On most issues I'd agree with that sentiment.
But, and this is the big 'but', the niqab represents an ultra-orthodox brand of Islam (Wahibism) that is primitive in its interpretation; that seeks dominance over non-Muslims; and is rooted in the Arabic culture.
In other words, wearing the niqab exposes an allegiance to a creed that is the very antithesis of a free and equal society. The rules of a free society should only apply to those who do not have the desire to ultimately destroy that same freedom, and who hypocritically use the offer of tolerance to further their own INtolerance.
That's why people in this country can openly say they disagree with mass immigration, but would rightly be arrested if they walked around in a Ku Klux Klan outfit.
It's exactly the same analogy.
Andrew,
how then do you feel about Jewish citizens who wear kippa/ yarmulka,long side-locks, long beards, and heavy black clothing. All symbols of their faith?
Pinky
Don't have a problem with Jews whatsoever. Their thumbprint on British society is not violent, not domineering, nor primitive.
That's a bit like comparing a nun's habit to the aforesaid Ku Klux Klan outfit.
By the way, I've seen one Jew in the kippa over the last two years. I saw twelve w**kers wearing niqabs in Bradford yesterday alone.
It's not the matter of 'faith' which determines the actions of individuals and groups adhering to a faith: it is the nature of the particular faith which does that. Islam's contribution to the UK is strongly negative on balance and that is why I would have them returned to the lands of their origins which are inhabited by their co-religionists. Note that I don't wish the same on Hindus and Sikhs. In India, which is where these two groups come from, they face the same existential threat as we do from islam.
Andrew,
All that reveals is intolerance toward one section on your part. We can argue about it all day, although I think you do make some valid points.
However, when we get on the slippery slope of banning religious symbols- we have to be ready to ban ALL.
it is what equality requires.
Pete -
...and dislike of their adopted country. - discuss.
That really is the nub of it. I don't care if they dress like Isambard UK Brunel with a frock coat and stove-pipe hat, but the truth is they hate us all and can barely conceal that fact.
I suppose people should be free to wear what they wish, but we can certainly recognize that the women who do may not be wearing such outfits freely. No doubt a version of Stockholm syndrome abounds among those who do, as some would likely claim to wear it quite willingly.
The youth that Andrew encountered was wearing something entirely different, a chip on his shoulder. Perhaps his work history was as his employer related, and perhaps it was not. Sending him home to his native land might simply result in his remaining in Bradford. Reducing actual discrimination without creating a society that feels it has to apologize for itself every five minutes is a tricky task.
In any event, glad to see you where out doing your Christmas shopping early Andrew, the present should make it to me here by the 25th.
Pinky - I don't agree. The Mayans (or maybe it was the Aztecs) beleived in human sacrifice. One can ban that religious practice (which is objectively barbaric) without banning all religious practices.
'All that reveals is intolerance toward one section on your part..'
I'm intolerant to those who are themselves intolerant in a far more dangerous way than I could ever be.
The difference between the niqab and all other religious symbols is its downright anti-social projection. In a country under the constant threat of Islamic terror, hiding faces is not for the public good.
Mahons
Christmas shopping is done. Took me ten minutes at Argos. Better luck next year.
Pinky - I don't agree. The Mayans (or maybe it was the Aztecs) beleived in human sacrifice. One can ban that religious practice (which is objectively barbaric) without banning all religious practices.
Mahons, human sacrifice is the taking of life. Wearing a symbol is hurting noone.
If we ban one, we must ban all. Equality demands it.
Andrew: I sympathise, I really do, because my natural habitat is pretty much one culture. Maybe it is easier to see from there, when there is not so much tension involved in every day life? Not sure, but it could be a factor.
Intolerance met with intolerance leads to more intolerance......
and so on.
Andrew, I have not even started Xmas shopping, except for a few things I bought on the internet. If my life was as simple as a visit to Argos- that would be heaven. Lucky you.
That cartoon reminds me of those awful images of the Jews that circulated in 1930s Europe. The consequences of that were quite devastating.
Christmas shopping is done. Took me ten minutes at Argos
Suppose it's cheaper and easier when you have no woman in your life.
"That cartoon reminds me of those awful images of the Jews that circulated in 1930s Europe. The consequences of that were quite devastating."
The dead of Bombay are barely cold yet here is a muslim mouth-piece asking us not to see what we see.
Tell me, Petr. Do you support cruelty and barbarism towards animals?
Pinky - Actually, it subjugates women, and that is its symbol. The full body covering uniform favored by the Taliban is frankly as ridiculous as human sacrifice, but not as deadly I'll grant you. As grownups (well most of us) we can impose reasonable limited restrictions on certain practices without seriously imposing on any one particular religion. If they wish to wear such outfits in their homes or in public fine. if they want to wear one while employed as a bus driver ...not so good.
Petr - what is possibly the point of that 7:27?
Is a non-sequitur the best you can offer?
Tarasov -
Don't think about starting that crap again. If you want to get personal with someone go somewhere else.
Re. 07:27PM
Just an observation.
Sorry Pete... I'll retire for the evening!
Pinky -
However, when we get on the slippery slope of banning religious symbols- we have to be ready to ban ALL.
No we don't. Our civilisation is a Chrisitian civilisation. Our morals, our laws and our institutions are extensions of our Christian identity and heritage.
It is absolutely right and proper that Christianity is pre-eminent above all relisions in the United Kingdom. Our Constitution is a Protestant Constitution. Our Monarch is the Head of the Church of England, the Defender of the Faith.
Christianity simply cannot be disentangled from the very core of what and who we are.
Every other religion is irrelevent in this Kingdom.
Petr - well it is pointless unless you simply want to provoke and turn this into a pissing contest.
The veiling of women is not actually an islamic innovation. It was adopted from a Byzantine christian custom. Also many see women who dress with little (thinking mini skirts/ hot pants) as not being very virtuous. Other religions expect women to cover up, Mormon women dress very conservatively as well don't they. Not to the same extent admittedly. Women wearing the niqab doesn't impinge on my freedom, nor does it annoy me.
Mahons I take it you were joking using ancient human sacrifice as an excuse for banning an item of clothing !!!!!!
"In a country under the constant threat of Islamic terror, hiding faces is not for the public good."
Why? Are they going to strap a suicide belt to their face?
As regards the thread...sure i had a bad encounter with a protestant once, may i view all protestants similarly tainted?
Pete Moore
No we don't. Our civilisation is a Chrisitian civilisation. Our morals, our laws and our institutions are extensions of our Christian identity and heritage
Hasn't always been, won't always be such is the truth of civilizations. they either fluctuate or die
Pinky - Actually, it subjugates women, and that is its symbol.
Mahons how do you know that?
To feel subjugated it is the subject that needs to feel that- not the rest of us telling the women they are subjugatd.
Christianity simply cannot be disentangled from the very core of what and who we are.
Every other religion is irrelevent in this Kingdom.
So expel all Muslims, Jews and all other non-Christian?
What about African/Asian/other Christians who do not share your cultural values?
Petr makes a good point regarding the sickening image used by AmcCann. Not a million miles form the images the nazis used against another religion.
I have refrained to this point from making any comment here, because I too dislike this image. I thought for a time that no one would make a comment,the image is that ugly.
But it is noted that the Jews of the decade before WW2 were not attacking their non-Jewish fellow citizens, nor were their rabbis preaching hate in the synagogues.
So, lets not play the victim too much here. The links between this image and the antisemitic images featured in Der Stürmer are very tenuous indeed.
'But it is noted that the Jews of the decade before WW2 were not attacking their non-Jewish fellow citizens, nor were their rabbis preaching hate in the synagogues.'
Tell me what percentage of muslims are taking part in violence which excuses such an image Phantom?
Pinky -
If we ever again find the backbone to assert our culture, to get up from our kneews and proclaim again proudly our heritage and culture, you'll find plenty of undesirables (i.e. your more hardcore islamist) slinging their hooks.
It's no coincidence that Britain has suffered such a heavy influx of the followers of imperialist islam while abasing itself before them. For the islamists, taking Britain into the ummah is to push at a door that opens slowly anyway.
If we can rediscover our heritage and assert again who we are, be true to our heritage, the United Kingdom will naturally become a less attractive place to be for those who are hostile to our way of life.
You see, Sean up there says:
Hasn't always been, won't always be such is the truth of civilizations. they either fluctuate or die
He couldn't be more wrong. Civilisations don't die, they commit suicide when they forget what they are, what their foundational values are, where they come from, the glue that binds people together.
Within living memory we were stoics who put two fingers up to the Lufwaffe while it bombed our cities day and night. The core of that, the wellspring from which that stoicism came wasn't a law, it wasn;t a command, it wasn't even the stirring words of Churchill. Those words merely tapped what Churchill knew existed.
That stoicism came about only because the British people knew they were each other. They were British in the genuine sense of the word, not because a birth certificate or passport said so. They were the same people with the same values living on the same land as their ancestors.
Of course, the cheek of it is that the Left (you didn't think I'd leave them out, did you?) detroyed that glue. It deliberately brought about mass immigration to destroy British civilisation by promoting a hostile multiculturalism at the expense, explicitly, of the British and their heritage.
The Left then has the chutzpah to accuse others (conservatives, the Right, patriots, individualists) of not caring for society - oh please Lefties, just shoot yourselves in the head.
"Taking part in violence"- a small percentage
But a lot bigger than the relevant percentage of our Hebrew bretheren in Germany back in the day. There were no suicide rabbinical students to my knowledge
And there are lots of imams preaching hatred in England and Germany and especially Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and in all kinds of places around the world that stokes the fire of hatred, and large groups that listen to these hate preachers and presumably agree. This is the water in which the bombers swim, and they too are culpable.
Phantom you seem to miss the point about the nature of that anti-semitic imagery. It wasn't pertaining to violence, but rather they were depicted with reference made to monetary terms and greed.
Wouldn't that reinforce my statement that the links between the images are tenuous? The image we see here is repulsive, but it is based on very real things - Muslim violence in many lands on all inhabited continents, with a climate of hate in many mosques and other places that supports the killers.
Pete,
I have no doubt you firmly believe all that very passionately, and it was a well written response.
But it didn't answer my questions of you specifically.
pinky - Apparently for you it matters not that they are subjugated, but who does the subjugation. If it is politically convenient you seem to allow for it, which is silly.
'pinky - Apparently for you it matters not that they are subjugated, but who does the subjugation. If it is politically convenient you seem to allow for it, which is silly.'
Mahons, didn't you respond very negatively to a similar type of post by Patty, last night
Mahons,
Who are we to say anyone is subjugated, if they do mot feel they are?
My position is that I would never allow any man or law to dictate such stupid laws to me, and I would do all in my power to dissaude any woman from such 'subjugation.'
But if they don't feel they are subjugated- what are we to do, subjugate them in other ways so as to free them from subjugation!!!!
"Wouldn't that reinforce my statement that the links between the images are tenuous? The image we see here is repulsive, but it is based on very real things - Muslim violence in many lands on all inhabited continents, with a climate of hate in many mosques and other places that supports the killers."
No Phantom, it wouldn't. Again you seem to miss the point. What the Nazis attempted to do was portray the traits of a small minority of Jews (wealthy/greedy/clannish) as being representative of the religion as a whole (which you'll agree is nonsense) Andrew McCann seeks to do likewise with his image.
Pinky,
"But if they don't feel they are subjugated- what are we to do, subjugate them in other ways so as to free them from subjugation!!!!"
Right. Clearly what is missing from these women's lives is yet more people to tell them what to wear under threat of violence.
Pete,
" Our morals, our laws and our institutions are extensions of our Christian identity and heritage."
Oh well - then they can be freely ignored since the state clearly has no business in such private decisions of personal conscience.
Of course if you need some fancy hatted official to push you down on your knees to help you to pretend to believe, that's your affair. You can contract for that privately. It's a free country, after all.
RS
the traits of a small minority of Jews (wealthy/greedy/clannish)
You appear to say that there was a germ of truth in this Nazi propaganda.
>>You appear to say that there was a germ of truth in this Nazi propaganda.<<
Phantom, you appear to say that there were no "wealthy/greedy/clannish" Jews in Germany, i.e. that they were radically different from the rest of humanity!
Pinky - I prefer not to carry over from other threads but my beef with Ms. Patty was completely unrelated to this particular topic.
As for this topic, I haven't said they can't wear them, if they feel they must. But I won't pretend that those outfits are mere symbols.
There was no truth in it. To potray all jews as such is a complete falsehood. You seem unable to grasp the point.
Noel
Please don't try to rescue RS from his own words. Let him speak for himself
Ah, so now RS says there was no truth while Noel might be saying that there was a germ of truth to the Hitlerian propaganda, but that this germ exists in all groups.
Got it.
'Pinky - I prefer not to carry over from other threads but my beef with Ms. Patty was completely unrelated to this particular topic.'
I did not carry over the topic, just the behaviour.
But that is a convenient out for you.