Are the British white the weakest male race?

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

It is not good to become "personal" during the discussion. 

it is goal-post shifting. 

I ask for evidence that poor health is caused by diet and you engage in fertility rates, when the discussion is about physical health.

 

And as i quoted and you ignored, science decisively proves your fad diet to be dangerous and nonsense and most responsible governments warn against such dangerous diets.

[Muloghonto]

4 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

It may be due to the use of "Fish" which is known as food for brain power. 

 

Brain Health and Fish

There may be other factors too i.e. how the cook their fish. 

And if they use mustard oil for cooking, then it has also different qualities than the normal canola oil. 

we rarely cook fish in mustard oil. Its more of a speciality than norm. 

You love to speculate nonsense about your fad-diet religion into everything. Maybe Bongs are percieved as smart is because we overwhelmingly prioritize education and consider educational accomplishment as the pinnacle, leading to our best and brightest always sticking to academic fields.

 

[Alam_dar]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

we rarely cook fish in mustard oil. Its more of a speciality than norm. 

You love to speculate nonsense about your fad-diet religion into everything. Maybe Bongs are percieved as smart is because we overwhelmingly prioritize education and consider educational accomplishment as the pinnacle, leading to our best and brightest always sticking to academic fields.

I am fully open to all opinions. Agree on prioritization of education could also be factor. 

Nevertheless, when you say only emphasis on education is a factor, while usage of fish is not a factor, then I don't consider your opinion to be correct. 

 

And yes, I view diet plays a role in mental health and smartness. If you deny it, then it is your own personal opinion with which I disagree. 

[Muloghonto]

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I am fully open to all opinions.

Except, what i have presented re: dangers of raw meat and raw milk are not opinions, they are scientifically determined facts.

And just like religious people pooh-poohs science when their religion is challenged, you pooh-poohed it as ' you are exgaggerating, its minimal' etc etc.

 

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

 Agree on prioritization of education could also be factor. 

Nevertheless, when you say only emphasis on education is a factor, while usage of fish is not a factor, then I don't consider your opinion to be correct. 

Thats because you are a fad-food religious nutter who likes to link anything and everything to food. Goans eat fish too. So do Oryas. So do Malayalis. Yet, amongst Indians, its only the Bongs and Tamils who have a general mentality of 'rather have my son/daughter be an engineer/doctor than a millionaire businessman'. And no surprise, its usually the Bongs and the Tamils who end up dominating the higher education elite levels. So there goes your food ideology into the gutter. Again.

11 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

And yes, I view diet plays a role in mental health and smartness. If you deny it, then it is your own personal opinion with which I disagree. 

Show evidence for your religious view on the topic. Show us evidence that precisely the same demographic people with same social conditions have varying level of smartness due to the food they eat and not the genetics they inherit.

 

We here have no time for food-religion, those who seek to deny medical science and our evolutionary history of eating cooked food to support their religion of raw meat and fad-diets, exposing children to dangerous contagions due to some misplaced view on 'nutritional quality'.

 

[Alam_dar]

20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Except, what i have presented re: dangers of raw meat and raw milk are not opinions, they are scientifically determined facts.

And just like religious people pooh-poohs science when their religion is challenged, you pooh-poohed it as ' you are exgaggerating, its minimal' etc etc.

I pondered upon all the evidences, analysed them, and come to the conclusion which is my opinion.

I am afraid that problem lies in your attitude where you are unable to discuss things without making things personal, calling other people names, blaming them, and imposing your opinion at every cost. 

I deny to go to this level. 

 

20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Thats because you are a fad-food religious nutter who likes to link anything and everything to food. Goans eat fish too. So do Oryas. So do Malayalis. Yet, amongst Indians, its only the Bongs and Tamils who have a general mentality of 'rather have my son/daughter be an engineer/doctor than a millionaire businessman'. And no surprise, its usually the Bongs and the Tamils who end up dominating the higher education elite levels. So there goes your food ideology into the gutter. Again.

Yes, I firmly believe that diet does play a role in mental health as well as physical health. If you have a problem with it, then keep it to yourself and don't impose it upon others. 

 

It is proven fact that fish is a Brain Diet. If you insist that diet plays no role, then I don't agree with you. 

 

I don't know exactly why other fish eating races are not as competent in the education as Bengalis are. Yes, it may be due to the reason that emphasis on education is more in Bengal.

 

But if you want to deny the role of Brain-Diet, then still you are wrong in my opinion. 

 

20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Show evidence for your religious view on the topic. Show us evidence that precisely the same demographic people with same social conditions have varying level of smartness due to the food they eat and not the genetics they inherit.

I already showed one above. 

 

Here one more, but I am afraid one could not accept any study when one become personal during discussions. 

 

// https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805706/

 

Brain foods: the effects of nutrients on brain function

research over the past 5 years has provided exciting evidence for the influence of dietary factors on specific molecular systems and mechanisms that maintain mental function. For instance, a diet that is rich in omega-3 fatty acids is garnering appreciation for supporting cognitive processes in humans and upregulating genes that are important for maintaining synaptic function and plasticity in rodents. In turn, diets that are high in saturated fat are becoming notorious for reducing molecular substrates that support cognitive processing and increasing the risk of neurological dysfunction in both humans and animals. //

 

Are you going to accept it after the scientific paper proves it?

I am afraid not.

You seems to be unable to accept your mistakes. You will change the topic, you will come up with any other excuse, but in no way you are going to accept that others could be right too. 

This is the disease of stubbornness, which has no cure. 

 

20 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

We here have no time for food-religion, those who seek to deny medical science and our evolutionary history of eating cooked food to support their religion of raw meat and fad-diets, exposing children to dangerous contagions due to some misplaced view on 'nutritional quality'.

Yes, I still firmly stand on my opinion that raw food diet is far superior to your so called healthy modern sausage and chemical preservatives diet, which is causing all types cancers, and millions of deaths every year. 

 

I don't impose my opinion upon any one. My duty is to express with my arguments what I considers best for the humanity. If any one agrees with me, then it good. And if someone disagree with me, still it is also good. But if some one want to become personal, and start calling names, and try to impose his opinion, then this attitude is madness. 

[Muloghonto]

39 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I pondered upon all the evidences, analysed them, and come to the conclusion which is my opinion.

Then you are a narcissitic fool pandering to his religion, like most narcissitic religious fools. you are not qualified to come to an independent opinion on the matter. if you were, you'd be an expert on the subject. I am not making my own mind up on the matter, i am going by expert claims.

39 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I am afraid that problem lies in your attitude where you are unable to discuss things without making things personal, calling other people names, blaming them, and imposing your opinion at every cost. 

When people show religious zealotry against expert opinion, i resort to the same tactic as you do against conventional religion. Your religion is absurd fad-diets. We've already established that.

 

39 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I deny to go to this level. 

 

Yes, I firmly believe that diet does play a role in mental health as well as physical health. If you have a problem with it, then keep it to yourself and don't impose it upon others. 

I don't care about your belief, just like you don't care about a muslim or a hindu or a christian's belief. you claim something- prove it. Else stop trying to spread your unsubstantiated crap belief to others. if its true for christians or muslims or hindus, its also for fad-diet religious people as well.

 

39 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

It is proven fact that fish is a Brain Diet. If you insist that diet plays no role, then I don't agree with you. 

Prove to us then, that its the consumption of fish that causes bengalis to be 'smart' in school. Also demonstrate why this is also true for Tamils who almost never eat fish, but not true for Goans,Oryas or Malayalis, who also eat fish.

 

39 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I don't know exactly why other fish eating races are not as competent in the education as Bengalis are. Yes, it may be due to the reason that emphasis on education is more in Bengal.

 

But if you want to deny the role of Brain-Diet, then still you are wrong in my opinion. 

 

I already showed one above. 

 

Here one more, but I am afraid one could not accept any study when one become personal during discussions. 

 

// https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805706/

 

 

Are you going to accept it after the scientific paper proves it?

That paper proves that omega-3 HELPS in brain function. It does not make the claim that omega-3 is DECISIVE in brain function development.

Otherwise explain to us why bengalis are matched by Tamils in this department, who almost never eat fish, but not by Goans, Malayalis or Oryas, who eat just as much fish.

39 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I am afraid not.

You seems to be unable to accept your mistakes. You will change the topic, you will come up with any other excuse, but in no way you are going to accept that others could be right too. 

This is the disease of stubbornness, which has no cure. 

Are you sure you are not talking about yourself ?

I have yet to see you accept the fact that expert biologists and doctors consider raw meat and milk/milk products to be unsafe for human consumption and i have presented peer reviewed articles to prove the case.

 

39 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Yes, I still firmly stand on my opinion that raw food diet is far superior to your so called healthy modern sausage and chemical preservatives diet, which is causing all types cancers, and millions of deaths every year. 

Red herring and incorrect.

You are yet to prove that any food directly causes cancer. You know what causes cancer if you ate it ? anything radioactive. So if you ate a grain of uranium, you'd get cancer DIRECTLY FROM EATING IT.
Certain foods raise the chances of you getting cancer. That does not mean you get cancer from eating those foods, either.
You are too ignorant in matters of basic science to grasp simple probability models and what are governing principles and what are not.

 

Also, i did not make an argument towards sausages and preservatives. I made an argument towards COOKED meat. I have presented scientific evidence that COOKED meat (which means curries, roasts, etc) are better for us, because they take away the risk of pathogens.
You ran away from this because it challenges your religion, simple.

 

39 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I don't impose my opinion upon any one. My duty is to express with my arguments what I considers best for the humanity. If any one agrees with me, then it good. And if someone disagree with me, still it is also good. But if some one want to become personal, and start calling names, and try to impose his opinion, then this attitude is madness. 

Just like a religious nutter thinks its his duty to represent his arguments about jesus or mohammed or krishna or whatever because he/she considers it best for humanity.

What is madness, is your religious zeal for the topic. I have proven you wrong by quoting expert evidence from peer reviewed papers presenting their data-set. You still refuse to accept it. That is religion. Pure and simple.

 

[Alam_dar]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Then you are a narcissitic fool pandering to his religion, like most narcissitic religious fools. you are not qualified to come to an independent opinion on the matter. if you were, you'd be an expert on the subject. I am not making my own mind up on the matter, i am going by expert claims.

Unfortunately you are parroting same things again and again, while I already answered them before in the thread and people were free to see the arguments of both side and to judge themselves. 

 

Experts opinion was not only this that raw milk may pose dangers, but their opinion was also this sanitization and other control measures make the raw milk much safer for consumption and thus governments allowed their sale on state level while there was Zero death and thus dangers became insignificant in numbers. But you turn blind eyes from this part of the expert opinions. Don't blame me for your own biased attitude. 

 

I have not asked the people to buy or sale the raw milk against the government regulations. But I am telling them only to buy the raw milk in the premises that governments have allowed (i.e. the licensed farms). I am only telling them to buy high quality milk from grass fed cows, which have high omega-3 ratio. So, what is your problem with it?

 

The proponents of the raw milk have already won the battle at the state level in many countries. And their numbers are increasing every passing day as more and more people are becoming aware of the health benefits of the raw milk and the health problems created by the pasteurized milk. 

 

Prime example of your stubbornness in case of "Raw Milk Cheese"

 

And then I suggested people/children who are suffering from allergies due to pasteurized milk, the safe route of consuming raw milk cheese, which is totally safe and the scientific study telling that raw milk cheese is as safe as any other pasteurized products. 

But what was your attitude?

You once again started parroting raw milk dangers and blames upon me, instead of uttering any word about the raw milk cheese.

 

Sale of raw milk cheese in the markets is not only allowed in all the European Union and US, but even in your own country Canada (link). 

 

 

Prime example of your stubbornness in case of dangers of Sausages due to chemical preservaties

 

Scientific study showed clearly that preservatives in the sausages are dangerous to health. 

But you denied the whole scientific study while making lame excuse that you don't accept it while it does not provide the data-set.

 

And when I showed other studies, including by WHO who sets the limit of 2 sausages per week causing dangers of cancer, then still you didn't accept it. This time your stubbornness made you neglect all the evidences and come up with personal attack where your wrote: " <pile of goal-post shifting nonsense>"

 

What kind of attitude is this? And who was shifting the goal post? First you ask the proof in form of scientific study. And when it is provided then you turn blind eye and come up with personal attack? 

 

 

Same attitude you showed while denying the scientific study about preservatives causing obesity. 

 

Same attitude you showed in many other studies which I showed in this this post and in this post. And then you still blame me for not answering your questions, although I already addressed them in details in the first thread of raw milk? 

 

 

Farmed Norwegian Salmon World’s Most Toxic Food

 

One of the reason is the the "preservatives" in the feed, which cause the cancers same way as the preservatives in sausages cause. 

 

Hopefully this video opens up your eyes and come out of your claim of farmed, hormones full, antibiotics full, preservatives full modern diet to be healthy. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

When people show religious zealotry against expert opinion, i resort to the same tactic as you do against conventional religion. Your religion is absurd fad-diets. We've already established that.

I only bring my arguments with proofs against the religions, but never become personal,  start abusing or calling names and making insults. 

While your attitude resolves around these things during discussion, which is not healthy. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

That paper proves that omega-3 HELPS in brain function. It does not make the claim that omega-3 is DECISIVE in brain function development.

Who claimed that "decisive" thing? 

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

I have always been saying it to "one" of the factor, and nothing more. But since you have to find faults due to your becoming personal attitude, therefore now you are even putting words in my mouth in order to fight with me. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

You are yet to prove that any food directly causes cancer. You know what causes cancer if you ate it ? anything radioactive. So if you ate a grain of uranium, you'd get cancer DIRECTLY FROM EATING IT.
Certain foods raise the chances of you getting cancer. That does not mean you get cancer from eating those foods, either.
You are too ignorant in matters of basic science to grasp simple probability models and what are governing principles and what are not.

I don't know what you are talking about. Do you yourself know what you are talking? 

Then according to your logic smoking is also not causing direct cancer. 

 

Please don't make us sick with your lame excuses.

 

WHO put the preservatives and chemicals in the sausages like processed meats equally harmful and cancer causing as smoking and alcohol. 

 

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Also, i did not make an argument towards sausages and preservatives.

Off course you made the argument about the sausages and the preservatives all the time and making all types of blames against me for telling that sausages and preservatives in them are one of the reason for bad health.

 

I just hope you come out of your claim of farmed, hormones full, antibiotics full, preservatives full modern diet to be healthy. 

 

I was totally right when I promoted the use of traditional Pemmican and traditional Jerky (without even salt) over your modern so called healthy diet including sausages. 

[Muloghonto]

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Unfortunately you are parroting same things again and again, while I already answered them before in the thread and people were free to see the arguments of both side and to judge themselves. 

Your religious opinion is irrelevant. I have presented scientific evidence that raw meat and animal products are dangerous. You have presented no scientific evidence that shows otherwise. Show us your peer-reviewed scientific research that shows raw milk & meat is just as safe from pathogens as cooked meat & pasteurized milk. 

 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Experts opinion was not only this that raw milk may pose dangers, but their opinion was also this sanitization and other control measures make the raw milk much safer for consumption and thus governments allowed their sale on state level while there was Zero death and thus dangers became insignificant in numbers. But you turn blind eyes from this part of the expert opinions. Don't blame me for your own biased attitude. 

I have already presented evidence that raw milk from sanitized locations caused illness. You ran away from it, so here it is again:

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/51/12/1418/316955

 

You can keep repeating your religious mantra, but the evidence speaks for itself. 

There are zero deaths due to modern medicine. Does not mean that the diseases itself are not deadly. 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I have not asked the people to buy or sale the raw milk against the government regulations. But I am telling them only to buy the raw milk in the premises that governments have allowed (i.e. the licensed farms). I am only telling them to buy high quality milk from grass fed cows, which have high omega-3 ratio. So, what is your problem with it?

Evidence provided that licensed government firms of raw milk still causes infections:

 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/51/12/1418/316955

 

Stop parroting your religious views in face of scientific evidence. 

 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

The proponents of the raw milk have already won the battle at the state level in many countries. And their numbers are increasing every passing day as more and more people are becoming aware of the health benefits of the raw milk and the health problems created by the pasteurized milk. 

As with any fad, it too will fade once the general masses wake up to how dangerous your nonsense is, as backed up by scientific evidence. 

 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Prime example of your stubbornness in case of "Raw Milk Cheese"

 

And then I suggested people/children who are suffering from allergies due to pasteurized milk, the safe route of consuming raw milk cheese, which is totally safe and the scientific study telling that raw milk cheese is as safe as any other pasteurized products. 

But what was your attitude?

Because i'd rather have a kid with allergies than have TB through raw milk and cheese.

Evidence that raw milk causes TB :

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/23/6/15-1603_article

 

 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

You once again started parroting raw milk dangers and blames upon me, instead of uttering any word about the raw milk cheese.

Raw milk cheese is made from raw milk, and if raw milk has pathogens, so does raw milk cheese. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Sale of raw milk cheese in the markets is not only allowed in all the European Union and US, but even in your own country Canada (link). 

 

So is sale of cancer causing drugs like cigarettes. What is allowed, is irrelevant to what is scientifically safe. 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Prime example of your stubbornness in case of dangers of Sausages due to chemical preservaties

 

Scientific study showed clearly that preservatives in the sausages are dangerous to health. 

But you denied the whole scientific study while making lame excuse that you don't accept it while it does not provide the data-set.

Because you have not shown how such preservatives are present in every brand of sausages. I myself buy sausages and find no mention of said preservatives in them. 

 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

And when I showed other studies, including by WHO who sets the limit of 2 sausages per week causing dangers of cancer, then still you didn't accept it. This time your stubbornness made you neglect all the evidences and come up with personal attack where your wrote: " <pile of goal-post shifting nonsense>"

Because we are talking about health & obesity, not fertility rate. Hence you shifted the goalpost to protect your religion. 

 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

What kind of attitude is this? And who was shifting the goal post? First you ask the proof in form of scientific study. And when it is provided then you turn blind eye and come up with personal attack? 

 

LOL. You provided no such proof. I asked for proof that shows evidence of cancer from foods. You presented evidence of some foods increasing risk of cancer. You are not educated enough in science to understand what the difference is. 

 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

Same attitude you showed while denying the scientific study about preservatives causing obesity. 

 

Same attitude you showed in many other studies which I showed in this this post and in this post. And then you still blame me for not answering your questions, although I already addressed them in details in the first thread of raw milk? 

You have not answered any such thing, because you have categorically failed to provide any evidence that raw milk is as safe for consumption as pasteurized milk. 

 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

One of the reason is the the "preservatives" in the feed, which cause the cancers same way as the preservatives in sausages cause. 

 

Hopefully this video opens up your eyes and come out of your claim of farmed, hormones full, antibiotics full, preservatives full modern diet to be healthy. 

 

Ofcourse it can be healthy, if the fish are fed healthy foods. 

 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I only bring my arguments with proofs against the religions, but never become personal,  start abusing or calling names and making insults. 

Ofcourse you do, You insult religious people for sticking to their religious beleifs despite science proving them wrong. I am doing the same to you, since i have presented scientific evidence that raw milk is less safe than pasteurized milk and you have presented your innane religious ramblings, not scientific evidence to the contrary. 

 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

 

Who claimed that "decisive" thing? 

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

I have always been saying it to "one" of the factor, and nothing more. But since you have to find faults due to your becoming personal attitude, therefore now you are even putting words in my mouth in order to fight with me. 

You have to prove that it is a factor even. Show us it is a factor. 

 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I don't know what you are talking about. Do you yourself know what you are talking? 

Then according to your logic smoking is also not causing direct cancer. 

you don't know what i am talking about is because you are science illiterate. Smoking is a direct cause of cancer. Preservatives slightly increase the risk of cancer. Very different things. 

 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Please don't make us sick with your lame excuses.

 

WHO put the preservatives and chemicals in the sausages like processed meats equally harmful and cancer causing as smoking and alcohol. 

 

S

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I just hope you come out of your claim of farmed, hormones full, antibiotics full, preservatives full modern diet to be healthy. 

 

It is MORE healthy than raw milk or raw meat that have deadly pathogens in them and the only reason people are not dying is due to modern medicine. You don't get to waste tax payer's money in unnecessary treatments due to stupid and dangerous food habits. Simple. 

7 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I was totally right when I promoted the use of traditional Pemmican and traditional Jerky (without even salt) over your modern so called healthy diet including sausages. 

False. I have already established that pemmican and jerky fall under treated food, not raw food as the lime in it is a chemical treatment process. You ran away from it.

 

More importantly, why dont you answer it in the thread YOU created, instead of polluting other threads with your religious nonsense ?

 

[mishra]

On 5/22/2018 at 10:43 AM, Ranvir said:

White British Males are far from being weak. They're probably some of the most aggressive in Europe.

 

Go to any hospital on a Friday and Saturday night and you will see people with black eyes, cut faces. Britain has a massive hooligan problem.

 

They have a reputation of going to other countries, getting drunk and destroying places. They were even worse in the 1970s - 1990s when football hooliganism was rife. Every 2 years the news would be full of reports of English football fans going to the World Cup or Euros and causing carnage. You should have seen the chaos that was caused by football hooligans in 1996 after England got knocked out of Euro 1996.

 

When I visited Prague I found that many nightclubs wouldn't allow British or Russian tourists in due to them causing fights.

 

Britain has the strongest military in Europe after Russia and many white brits have been world boxing champions, far more than any other whites in europe.

Yes. Its surprising how much they fight.

Assuming we forget history, on positive side, their medal tally in Olympics and performance in other Sports isnt bad considering a population of just 65 million

 

[Sachinism]

On 5/19/2018 at 9:09 PM, MechEng said:

Franco is not being completely wrong though, that's the price to pay for ultra political correctness. Otherwise, how do you explain passive police and rapid emergence of no go zones throughout that place?

What no-go zones?

 

[Tattieboy]

4 hours ago, Sachinism said:

What no-go zones?

 

Those Fox news no go zones , that they surprisingly admitted didn't exist 

[PBN]

On 5/19/2018 at 5:03 PM, Muloghonto said:

Thats why bengalis have more nobel prizes in science than entire nation of Pakistan put together. 

 

what is this overhype of bengalis in everything? 

Nobel prize winners?  How many and in which field? Can you please list them and enlighten us?

Edited May 24, 2018 by PBN

[MechEng]

8 hours ago, Sachinism said:

What no-go zones?

 

You'll find plenty of videos on youtube. Areas in UK dominated by Sharia, if a white woman wearing short clothes enters that area, she will be harassed. In fact there are no go zones dominated by Jamaicans too, anyone different from their race enters there is in danger. No go zones are by law illegal in that country, but the government and police fail to curb this because they don't want to be seen racist, typical political correctness. I believe if this goes unchecked, soon local people will have to live like strangers in their own country.

Edited May 24, 2018 by MechEng

[Alam_dar]

15 minutes ago, MechEng said:

You'll find plenty of videos on youtube. Areas in UK dominated by Sharia, if a white woman wearing short clothes enters that area, she will be harassed. In fact there are no go zones dominated by Jamaicans too, anyone different from their race enters there is in danger. No go zones are by law illegal in that country, but the government and police fail to curb this because they don't want to be seen racist, typical political correctness. I believe if this goes unchecked, soon local people will have to live like strangers in their own country.

I hoped that Englanders would have taught humanity and human rights to the others and make them civilized too.

But in the real world, I am afraid that the others are soon going to teach hatred and extremism to the Englanders.

Alas, things are going in the opposite direction. The dream of a civilized world is disappearing gradually. 

 

 

[Franco Vazquez]

You look at new England players or even their U19 players most of them look effeminate and gay (only white)

[Sachinism]

15 hours ago, MechEng said:

You'll find plenty of videos on youtube. Areas in UK dominated by Sharia, if a white woman wearing short clothes enters that area, she will be harassed. In fact there are no go zones dominated by Jamaicans too, anyone different from their race enters there is in danger. No go zones are by law illegal in that country, but the government and police fail to curb this because they don't want to be seen racist, typical political correctness. I believe if this goes unchecked, soon local people will have to live like strangers in their own country.

 

Where do you live BTW?

 

Please point me to these no-go Zone videos on youtube. 

There are no no-go zones, it was a BS myth perpetuated by Fox News and eaten up by it's moronic viewers.

They've been exposed on the matter, sadly you probably didn't watch that part because the no-go zone nonsense helps you push whatever nonsense agenda you're choosing to.

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Sachinism

[Tattieboy]

55 minutes ago, Franco Vazquez said:

You look at new England players or even their U19 players most of them look effeminate and gay (only white)

You seem to be an expert on what effeminate and gay looks like .....any reason for this ?

[Sachinism]

18 hours ago, Tattieboy said:

Those Fox news no go zones , that they surprisingly admitted didn't exist 

Oh I'm fully aware.

 

I'm trying to help MechEng realise he's bought into bigoted BS.

[MechEng]

33 minutes ago, Sachinism said:

 

Where do you live BTW?

 

Please point me to these no-go Zone videos on youtube. 

There are no no-go zones, it was a BS myth perpetuated by Fox News and eaten up by it's moronic viewers.

They've been exposed on the matter, sadly you probably didn't watch that part because the no-go zone nonsense helps you push whatever nonsense agenda you're choosing to.

 

Lol, Fox news is American, why would they care about no go zones in UK?

 

Do your own research on YouTube.

[Tattieboy]

15 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Lol, Fox news is American, why would they care about no go zones in UK?

 

Do your own research on YouTube.

Why???

Because they make it up to drive the Muslim ban in USA.

You said no go zones, where? How many? Name some