Pangus

"Imagine the amount of propaganda it took to convince people this was oppressive."

How men look at you when you tell him to block his rapist buddy male friend

Blue raspberry lemonade Kool-Aid pineapples with the berry blast waffles & Hot Cheeto wings 😤

If I might explain why people aren't receptive to this message: You're appealing for moral consideration to be extended to Sikhs because of your personal good relationships with Sikhs. Likewise, I've met some nice Sikhs. Nothing against those individuals. However, many people will have seen the clannish behaviour of the Digwa family — common on the Indian Subcontinent, regardless of religion — and conclude there are irreconcilable cultural and ethnic differences there, which led to a young man's murder. Others will have seen Indians celebrating Henry's death, just as they celebrated the Sikh trucker killing a family with an illegal U-turn on a Florida highway, when they thought that family was white. They will have seen the special pleading and ethnic lobbying accompanying that celebration: people saying the trucker didn't mean it, it was a mistake, to preserve a system (H-1b visas) which privileges Indians. The same with Digwa and Henry Nowak. People see the pleading not to blame Sikhs, but notice some Sikh representatives sticking by their own. The Sikh Press Association that put out a statement from Digwa's family, to garner sympathy for them. The Sikh representatives who said Digwa "didn't intend" to kill Nowak, which is something they couldn't possibly know, but are just saying to deflect blame from their "community" and preserve their status of legal privileges over natives in our country. The Sikh politicians making everything about "the far right". They will see a system which permits and encourages their clannishness, their ethnic chauvanism, but tells us don't look back in anger when our children are killed. And yes, Sikhs may be a small population relative to Muslims and Hindus. But the majority of Sikhs would side against the British people if they decided to ban all immigration from India to halt and reverse demographic change. Because they would see it is a disadvantage to their ethnic and religious group. Therefore, they are counted by many among the undifferentiated mass of migrants that are robbing us of a claim to our country. This makes the question, "Who is Britain for?", a zero sum competition for possession of the country: between the natives, and minorities with a shared interest in preserving a system of laws which privileges them over us. The individual good character of given Sikhs is beside the point. What people want is for that system of laws to be abolished; for ownership of Britain to be restored to us; for our fate as demographic minorities to be prevented. And most people think, with good reason, based on the pattern above, that most Sikhs will side against the measures that restore that balance of power, to the British people away from the liberal minorities-first system. And so any defence of a "community" codes as a commitment to preserving that system, even if that isn't your intention, Tommy.

Tommy Robinson is beginning to realise that the discourse is stepping over him now and the nice little faux nationalist cul-de-sac containment he has created, which conveniently lines his pockets of course. just because Tommy likes some Sikh's does not mean we have to give our homeland to them.