Alleged Hate/Racist ACT BY WEST MIDLANDS POLICE OFFICER

[MisterrSingh]

4 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

In the nicest way possible, yeah most of our people are just dumb. 

This wouldn't be a problem per se IF we realised we were unintelligent.

The problem is we THINK we are the total opposite of unintelligent. I don't think many of our people can distinguish between devious and cut-throat savvy and tempered desire not to fall victim to hostile shenanigans.

[dallysingh101]

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

This wouldn't be a problem per se IF we realised we were unintelligent.

The problem is we THINK we are the total opposite of unintelligent.

I think colonialism plays a big part in this mentality. It seems patently obvious that goray exalted dimwitted and pliable people from the panth as canon fodder, and filled their heads up with all manner of grandiose notions they never had before. And really it was (one of many strategies) to keep them useful and compliant. 

From what I've read from precolonial Sikh texts, apnay had NO PROBLEMS seeing themselves as they are, and realise that certain behaviours needed to be checked (a state I believe our Guru sahiban brought them too). 

Quote

I don't think many of our people can distinguish between devious and cut-throat savvy and tempered desire not to fall victim to hostile shenanigans.

 

Even this 'devious cut throat savvy' is mostly just used on each other. 

[MisterrSingh]

8 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think colonialism plays a big part in this mentality. It seems patently obvious that goray exalted dimwitted and pliable people from the panth as canon fodder, and filled their heads up with all manner of grandiose notions they never had before. And really it was (one of many strategies) to keep them useful and compliant. 

I think it's more nature than nurture. Sure, colonials may have exacerbated this behaviour for their own ends, but they were working with something that was already present and innate. I don't think goreh magicked this mentality and then watched its perpetuation over the generations as an exclusive creation of theirs. Maybe we should accept we have a very crappy approach to processing existence, and we're more likely to gravitate towards what's wrong than what's correct?

This wouldn't be a problem if this attitude or philosophy was limited to a quiet minority, but it's unfortunately the standard, and therefore tacitly promoted as the default way to be.

It's damaging because when we get to a stage where this mentality and behaviour marginalises the more thoughtful and centred individuals of a group (i.e. the people who aren't prone to histrionics and extremes; who should be dragging the demographic forwards either by example or by using their ideas as a guide), you will end up with a invaluable albeit very disillusioned minority cutting ties with the larger group, and either lending their talents to others, or simply falling through the cracks. That's a sure way to eventual self-implosion: a group that's represented by the absolute worst types of its own demographic.

Add religious conviction into the mix (compared to the above phenomena being limited to a purely socially secular sphere), and you're heading for absolute disaster. Why? Because these types of people erect religiosity as a shield to ward off criticism of their behaviour and ethos. If you criticize them, you're an apostate. They have the numbers to isolate and eject anyone who sees through the facade. That's usually enough to subdue anyone who may have had aspirations of "cleaning the swamp" lol. They say the cream always rises to the top? Not in our case!

[Jacfsing2]

5 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

I think it's more nature than nurture. Sure, colonials may have exacerbated this behaviour for their own ends, but they were working with something that was already present and innate. I don't think goreh magicked this mentality and then watched its perpetuation over the generations as an exclusive creation of theirs. Maybe we should accept we have a very crappy approach to processing existence, and we're more likely to gravitate towards what's wrong than what's correct?

This wouldn't be a problem if this attitude or philosophy was limited to a quiet minority, but it's unfortunately the standard, and therefore tacitly promoted as the default way to be.

It's damaging because when we get to a stage where this mentality and behaviour marginalises the more thoughtful and centred individuals of a group (i.e. the people who aren't prone to histrionics and extremes; who should be dragging the demographic forwards either by example or by using their ideas as a guide), you will end up with a invaluable albeit very disillusioned minority cutting ties with the larger group, and either lending their talents to others, or simply falling through the cracks. That's a sure way to eventual self-implosion: a group that's represented by the absolute worst types of its own demographic.

Add religious conviction into the mix (compared to the above phenomena being limited to a purely socially secular sphere), and you're heading for absolute disaster. Why? Because these types of people erect religiosity as a shield to ward off criticism of their behaviour and ethos. If you criticize them, you're an apostate. They have the numbers to isolate and eject anyone who sees through the facade. That's usually enough to subdue anyone who may have had aspirations of "cleaning the swamp" lol. They say the cream always rises to the top? Not in our case!

I don’t think it’s nature, as the Sikh Empire was one of the most highly educated societies in the world, even more educated than the Europeans. And we only started going towards Fudduness with the British and Indians. Even if we go back 100 years ago, Sikhs were more independent minded than they are now, (today far too many Sikhs have been absorbed by non-Sikh propaganda and we have some people believing “all religions are equal”). 

[Premi5]

There's just as much corruption here in the UK as in India, just they are more secretive about it and get away with it if well connected/wealthy

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10159133/Owen-Patersons-MP-allies-stage-11th-hour-plot-aid-Tory-whips-change-sleaze-policing.html

Senior Tory MPs last night launched a last-ditch attempt to spare Owen Paterson from a 30-day Commons suspension for an 'egregious' breach of lobbying rules. 

In an unprecedented move, allies of the ex-minister will today refuse to accept the findings of a report by the anti-sleaze watchdog and instead call for a reform of the system. 

Former business secretary Andrea Leadsom has tabled a parliamentary amendment that would see Mr Paterson's potential suspension paused pending a review. 

Tory whips will back the Leadsom amendment when it comes to the vote today. Last night, a Government source said the amendment would get the PM's backing if it is selected. 

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards last week found Mr Paterson guilty of an 'egregious case of paid advocacy' on behalf of two companies, Randox and Lynn's Country Foods, for which he was acting as a consultant. 

The plan being considered by the plotting MPs would ultimately be to disband the Commons committee on standards and replace it with a new body, and force the resignation of Commissioner Kathryn Stone, who some accuse of being biased against Tories and Brexiteers.

Reports suggest former Culture Secretary John Whittingdale is then being discussed as a potential chair for a new Government-nominated committee, set to redraw the rules on MPs' conduct.  

In a damning report, Commissioner Kathryn Stone recommended Mr Paterson should be suspended for 30 days, which could trigger a by-election in his North Shropshire constituency. 

Mr Paterson has maintained his innocence and claimed the 'biased' way the inquiry was carried out was a major factor in the suicide of his wife Rose last year.

His allies have since called for changes to be made to the system so politicians can appeal. 

The Leadsom amendment will only be put to a vote if selected by Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle. 

Last night, it was revealed that Government whips would tell Tory MPs to back the amendment that would effectively lead to the standards watchdog being disbanded. 

Standards Committee chairman Chris Bryant also defended the current process, writing in the Telegraph: 'Parliament has rightly banned MPs using their position to benefit those paying them in various forms ever since 1695. 

'Voting down the report, or watering down the sanction, for such a serious breach would do great damage to Parliament. Our report was agreed unanimously. It is thorough and comprehensive. We urge everyone to read it with a fair and open mind.'

Downing Street refused to be drawn on whether Boris Johnson viewed the report as flawed, as Mr Paterson and his allies have claimed. 

The Commissioner found that between November 2016 and November 2017 Mr Paterson made three approaches to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) relating to Randox and antibiotics in milk, in breach of the ban on paid advocacy. 

He was also found to have made four approaches to ministers at the Department for International Development relating to the company and blood testing technology between October 2016 and January 2017. 

And Mr Paterson was found to have made seven approaches to the FSA between November 2017 and July 2018 relating to Lynn's Country Foods. 

The Commissioner further found that he failed to declare his interest as a paid consultant to Lynn's Country Foods in four emails to FSA officials and that he used his parliamentary office for business meetings with his clients on 16 occasions between October 2016 and February 2020. 

He also sent two letters relating to his business interests on Commons headed notepaper – the only breach of the rules which he accepted.

[MisterrSingh]

1 hour ago, Jacfsing2 said:

I don’t think it’s nature, as the Sikh Empire was one of the most highly educated societies in the world, even more educated than the Europeans. And we only started going towards Fudduness with the British and Indians. Even if we go back 100 years ago, Sikhs were more independent minded than they are now, (today far too many Sikhs have been absorbed by non-Sikh propaganda and we have some people believing “all religions are equal”). 

It's possible to be a 5hitty, foolish human being AND be educated. You've ignored the distinction. And our conversations on this forum should be beyond these childish and one-dimensional perceptions of the way things are.  

It's not the remembrance of facts or things of that nature that determine the issues I'm referring to, but an inner sense of temperance, foresight, genorosity of spirit, an appreciation of what's gone and how the present can determine what's yet to come, etc. 

There's tonnes of contemporary PHD educated Sikhs in the West, yet they're ignorant of the nature of the world around them, parroting the prevalent talking points of whatever the social orthodoxy prescribes as the way to be, like any other group. So their education affords them the opportunity to ascend the ladder of materialism; that's all that may matter to them. Fair play. Beyond that, they are as blind as anyone else.

[Ranjeet01]

Interesting comment I found, I'll leave it here:

Are people really dumb enough to believe the average peasant toiling away to provide for his family was the beneficiary of colonialism and slavery due to the colour of his skin?

I'm sure all those shoe shine boys, farmers and chimney sweeps had tons of slaves and blood diamonds.

Poor men are poor men wherever you go, and make up the majority no matter their colour.

They're too poor to own slaves, and not intelligent enough to run global trade. Most of them simply exchange labour for a modest wage.

This majority are guilty of nothing. Their masters are.

[Jassu]

On 11/2/2021 at 11:10 AM, dallysingh101 said:

It might be really dumb, but how common is it! Very!!

Maybe most of our quom is just dumb? And those of us who don't think that way have the honour of beholding it all in a partial state of denial, exasperation and frustration?  lol!! 

No, they are not dumb. They are naive. Naivety can lead one to do dumb actions and get influenced by the so called materialist and consumerist culture you've already mentioned. I think a big component of Sikhs' naivety is how innocent and tolerant our religion is. Sikhs basically believe that everyone is kind and receptive in foresight, Muslims grow up believing that no one can be trusted and that it's them against the world. 

Of course Muslims are more cunning, they even twist their holy book's words to suit their narrative and pretend certain things don't exist in order to portray a certain image, lol. 

[Jacfsing2]

21 minutes ago, Jassu said:Of course Muslims are more cunning, they even twist their holy book's words to suit their narrative and pretend certain things don't exist in order to portray a certain image, lol. 

If you have to lie for your religion, do you actually believe in it or is that a lie as well?

[Jassu]

16 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

If you have to lie for your religion, do you actually believe in it or is that a lie as well?

A lot of Muslims whitewash their religion and lie; although this can be rooted from insecurities as well. Some might be in denial about their faith though. It's true that a lot of Muslims are not even fully aware of what the Koran teaches.

Google taqiyya. Islam has and will always be mainly a political tool under the guise of a peaceful religion.

Quote

Quote from Volume 5, Book 59, Number 369: http://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/84

Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Ka`b). "The Prophet said, "You may say it."

 

Watch this video in Afghanistan supposedly the most 'religiously Muslim' place: they don't know ANYTHING! lol