Well, a modest 4/10 this week, though still more than John Rentoul’s 2/10. I knew the answers to questions 4, 5, 8, and 9. Rather hit the post, as people say, on question 1. Had never heard of it, and guessed —wrongly— Red Leicester.
[“NEW POST. “Why should I fight for Britain? Anonymous Zoomer on how our hapless political elites have created a two-tier society, plagued by mass immigration and broken borders, which hates young men like him.”— Matt Goodwin]
It is not even a question of young men (and, in these days, in theory, women) “fighting for Britain“. More accurately, fighting for the New World Order (NWO) and Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG) cabals. Not for Britain. Not the British people. Not the future of the British people.
[“Russia’s Battlegroup Center made Ukraine lose up to 600 troops in the past day, battlegroup spokesman Alexander Savchuk said: https://vk.cc/cJsIvX“— TASS]
[“Poland will be seeking to gain access to nuclear and other non-conventional weapons, including through participation in the French nuclear umbrella initiative, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said: https://vk.cc/cJrSHF“— TASS]
Mad.
A halal slaughter is a horrifically cruel and painful way for an animal to die – that brutal suffering is simply not justified.
Animal welfare must overrule halal slaughter.
In my view, as a farmer, animals must be slaughtered as humanely as possible, without unnecessary pain.
[“A halal slaughter is a horrifically cruel and painful way for an animal to die – that brutal suffering is simply not justified. Animal welfare must overrule halal slaughter. In my view, as a farmer, animals must be slaughtered as humanely as possible, without unnecessary pain.”— Rupert Lowe MP]
Don’t forget the similar, and similarly cruel, Jewish kosher slaughter.
Greece just banned barbaric Halal meat butchering, ruling that religious slaughter doesn’t override animal welfare laws. The UK should follow suit ASAP. Shame on us all that the UK is still allowing this brutality of animals.
[“Why not provide a full breakdown on nationality/immigration status for criminals? It would highlight the uncomfortable truth we all already know. Uncontrolled mass immigration has made Britain a FAR more dangerous place.“— Rupert Lowe MP]
[“This International Women’s Day, #MI6 pledges to ensure that our brilliant female staff of now and the future can thrive with us. No one gets a job in MI6 except on merit. But we men, as allies, can help our female colleagues achieve the success their talent deserves. We have yet to have a woman as Chief so there’s still a glass ceiling to shatter. #AccelerateAction“— Richard Moore, Chief of SIS/MI6]
“I was a sniper..I know WAR… what's going on in P٨L€STINE is not a war ,its a G€N0CIDE…this is wrong…the US taxpayer is paying for this… This needs to stop”
Pretty horrible. So are the usually mechanized “Western” slaughterhouses, but at least “we” (our society and its people) do not take sadistic pleasure in the pain and suffering of the animals; if sadists are caught doing bad things as employees in abattoirs, they are usually both dismissed and prosecuted (albeit that the penalties are far too light).
People who are cruel to animals are untermenschen (stand up, “prince” Andrew!).
Not all Muslims —Middle Easterners, Arabs, even North Africans— are cruel to animals, and many Turks (especially) are kind to cats and other animals, but far too many Muslims generally are cruel or at least callous (often downright cruel) to our animal friends. It’s ingrained.
[an honourable exception: a Syrian who stayed behind in a ruined city in order to care for abandoned and distressed cats]
Then we have the Jews; they, like the Muslims, use a cruel form of slaughter in which the animal is not stunned before being killed. Halal slaughter by Muslims, Kosher (kashrut) slaughter by Jews. Both peoples are of course Semitic or at least partly Semitic in origin.
I suppose that one has to note that some Jews, like some Muslims, are also animal-lovers.
Both Jews and Muslims claim that their methods of slaughter are humane, or at least no less humane than those currently employed by non-Jews and non-Muslims.
The claims against Western non-Jews and non-Muslims are not entirely without force. There is too much cruelty and callousness towards animals in the “West” and even in the UK (which has, arguably, the best record of any country).
However, at least we non-Jews and non-Muslims recognize the problem and try to lessen the pain and suffering of animals. Our European and European-origined peoples are, at least in part, still evolving in terms of consciousness. The Jews, Arabs and other peoples are generally, as ethnic groups, not evolving in that way, but are at best static and at worst regressing.
The UK laws which ban cruelty to animals and which regulate the slaughter of animals should be extended to Jews and Muslims. We would not countenance most other cruelties just because some ancient religious practice mandates it, so why this? [though UK law still permits male genital mutilation, aka “circumcision”, at present, and quite wrongly]
[personal note: I am not, these days, an eater of meat. I last ate meat (red meat, lamb, pork etc) when I was 21 (63 as of now). Before that, I did eat meat, and had even eaten stuff like biltong (when in Rhodesia: antelope and beef). I did consume, though not daily, maybe weekly or monthly, chicken as well as game such as grouse and teal, until I was about 50; and especially when at places such as (and particularly) Ruleshttps://rules.co.uk/ when I lived in London or later visited the capital. I am now a “pescatarian/vegetarian” hybrid, though I do not claim any moral superiority on that basis].
Our European society must evolve beyond the cruelties and backwardness of the past, whatever it takes to achieve such a quantum leap forward.
The #Corona elite and #FakeNewsMedia are working overtime to divide the public on age, ethnic or geographical lines. If we're busy fearing and sneering at each other, they hope we won't notice their (UN climate change hoax) dismantling of normality.https://t.co/83AN2jJGd9
Rare outbursts of commonsense over a 'crisis' that no-one would even know existed if it weren't for the MSM & political elite weaponising it to reset our economy & society. https://t.co/VDHGt1Edui
I’m ahead of the ( flattened) curve again l. Now that Dr Anthony Fauci is calling for goggles as well as muzzles, this could be normal wear pretty soon. How I * wish* I had a sense of humour, in these times. pic.twitter.com/aB3DQNhYJu
What can stop this madness? A mass awakening? A mass uprising of British and other (so far) “rabbits”? A large-enough meteorite hitting the Earth? A third world war (most likely)? A wave of “lone wolves”?
Once again, the double-standard: for white people (you know, the people “formerly known as” British), imprisonment for singing a song (Alison Chabloz), for making a speech (Jez Turner) or, in effect, for having Swastika cushion covers and cookie-cutters (the young people recently tried in a kangaroo court for belonging to a “banned” group).
For blacks, it is very different: wear a political uniform (contra the Public Order Act 1936 et seq.), march in paramilitary formation down London streets, tear down British statues etc etc, and nothing happens. (((What))) is really behind all this? #WhiteGenocide
Government propaganda poster at London bus stop: 'LET'S GET BACK TO THE THINGS WE LOVE. LET'S GET TESTED'. Who thinks up this tripe. I personally ahve no great nostalgic longing to have a swab stuck up my nostril. Or do they mean something else. In which case, what?
The CAA goblins write (incorrectly) about Alison Chabloz’s recent appeal victory: “Ms Chabloz was then charged with having breached the conditions of her suspended sentence and was found guilty. The trial followed contact between Campaign Against Antisemitism’s lawyers and the National Probation Service. Ms Chabloz is appealing the decision, and the appeal has been delayed for logistical reasons, including owing to the pandemic.”
In fact, that had nothing at all with “the virus” or anything “logistical”, but was because the defence had demanded (and the presiding judge ordered) disclosure of documentation, so that the judge could be sure that Alison’s prosecution for breach was not the result of political pressure on David Gauke (the then-MP, expenses freeloader and, at the time, if ludicrously, “Minister of Justice”), the CPS and the —at the time— privatized probation carpetbaggers.
The CPS were unable or unwilling to comply with the above, and so decided (with much weaselling) not to offer any evidence against Alison Chabloz. She won; the CAA troublemakers lost.
(((Typical))) lies…
As for the new contrived prosecution of Alison Chabloz, she is currently on police bail, purportedly until January 2021, with conditions attached. One condition purports to bar her from posting on the Internet. Until January 2021! The toytown police state and/or poundland KGB in action…
I have not been a practising barrister for 12 years now (2008), and (thanks to “UK Lawyers for Israel”, a group largely identical with the “CAA” in Venn diagram terms) have been disbarred since October 2016. In addition, I was never really a criminal barrister (though I did quite a number of criminal cases both in Crown Court and “the mags” in the early 1990s), so I always hesitate to pronounce on the criminal law or criminal procedure. Having said that, I find this prosecution, and the police bail aspect, puzzling.
For one thing, I cannot see that anything allegedly said by Alison Chabloz (as quoted by the “CAA”) could possibly be “grossly offensive” in the first place.
It is very strange that the CPS have brought this prosecution. Does it have anything to do with the fact that the CPS and CAA have just been knocked down in relation to the recent appeal victory?
Is the prosecution properly within time limitation(s)? I wonder…
Secondly, the purported Internet ban, laid down by the police, not by any court, is surely unlawful in the circumstances. Contra human rights both in itself and in terms of its duration. Perhaps Alison Chabloz will have that removed by application to a court.
Thirdly, looking at what the “CAA” (i.e. or mainly the proven social media troll, Stephen Silverman) has published, it strikes me that, Alison Chabloz having now been charged, the CAA publication contains assertions in clear contempt of court.
It seems transparently obvious to me that the CAA has made these malicious complaints both to gag Alison via the police bail conditions, and also out of revenge for having been cheated of their prey recently. Vultures.
The company says that it is closing “because of Covid-19” though of course the shutdown (“lockdown”) is the direct and most proximate reason.
We are not told how many smaller enterprises are now failing. Probably too many to report upon.
The ludicrously-misnamed “SAGE” ivory tower types advising the clowns now in government seem to be ignoring the wider consequences of their advice and the consequent executive decisions. The economy is now all but collapsing, though some parts of it are affected, so far, worse than others.
The spiral is fast and not controlled by anyone, least of all by Boris-idiot. The result will be more long-term decline for the UK. Economic decline, falling standards in all areas, mass immigration and migration-invasion.
“Keen to avoid another national lockdown and derail the economic recovery, a ‘flexible’ strategy to target areas with high infection rates are being hammered out in Whitehall.” [Daily Mail]
Well, I am willing to presume that the Government is not really “keen to…derail the economic recovery” (what “recovery”, anyway?). I am presuming that that sentence is either a publishing error or the kind of semi-literate “journalism” which is today ubiquitous. All the same, “many a true word”…
That little pissant, Robert Jenrick, he of the several houses, wants to destroy the current planning regime for development. A bonanza for shoddy builders and (((speculators))) of various kinds. Oh, what a surprise! He is married to a Jewish woman who just happens to be a commercial property lawyer (and several of their “close friends”, he said recently, are Jewish speculators and developers). All co-incidental, no doubt…
This country needs a real national revolution now.
[Also, note that that Mail piece, written by Jemma Carr and Jonathan Bucks, presumably “journalists” (scribblers, dogsbodies), contains the words “...put developers off all together...”. Jesus H. Christ! The Mail on Sunday is scarcely a work of high literature, but “all together” for “altogether”? Also, “...put developers off“? The latter phrasing not “incorrect”, arguably, but very colloquial. Too colloquial.]
Standards in journalism have dropped through the floor in recent years.
The main problem the UK faces in terms of environment is too many people, and that oversupply has been caused by mass immigration and migration-invasion over the past decades. Much of it was driven and encouraged by Jews in the Cabinet of Tony Blair. 10 million or more in the past 20 or so years. Immigration, and also births to immigrants.
Oh, and don’t forget the 3-4 MILLION Hong Kong Chinese that Boris-idiot and his bunch of clowns have just invited to flood into the UK.
“And none dare call it treason”…
The UK is rapidly becoming a toytown police state with a mixed-race population, a collapsing economy, and a despoiled environment. Also, very little free speech…
Mainly the fault of this incredibly shambolic government (and the Spanish government which has also panicked), rather than “the virus” itself. Now the UK government is hunting for completely asymptomatic infectees! So that they can “find” completely OK people, who have few if any symptoms and will soon be clear! They are desperate to keep the panic going…
Just saw a tweet from someone who works in a supermarket and has done so throughout the “lockdown”/shutdown. Apparently 600+ people work there, in all, and not one has (knowingly) had “the virus”.
This whole thing is madness, and is being used (perhaps was even planned) for sinister purposes.
CAA snooper on YouTube
Saw a brief clip of Stephen Silverman, “Head of Investigations and Enforcement” at the malicious Zionist fake charity, “Campaign Against Antisemitism”, or “CAA”, being (obsequiously) interviewed by one Ian Collins, on a radio station to which I have never listened, called TalkRadio.
The Collins person (or should that be “doormat”) even mentioned “the terrible recent history of the Jews…I mean the 1930s…”. “Recent”?! That was 80-90 years ago! Will “they” be playing the same tune in another 90 years?
The Ian Collins person is in the wrong job. He would be better as a butler or maitre-d than as a radio interviewer. Not one even slightly challenging question. Perhaps he is unaware that Silverman and his friends were proven in open court (in 2017 and 2018) to have sadistically trolled several women on Twitter, using pseudonyms at that!
The above photo shows a police officer, I think a “Special” (volunteer part-time “officer”), looking at her hat, with its chequered line. Presumably a lesbian. Now, there are several points about that photo: first and perhaps most important, who in authority, or should I say “leading beyond authority”?…
…allowed police officers to take part in what, in the broad sense, is a political, meaning socio-political, or cultural-political, march or demonstration?
Common Purpose
This, below, is the very dangerous woman who is or has been the figurehead for much of such socio-political tendency in the past three decades:
Reverting to the photo at top, can the public have trust in such partisan police personnel? I think not.
This goes beyond the personal proclivities of the individuals. It is a question of the police, both institutionally, and as individual officers, espousing, publicly, controversial socio-political positions. Also, the police operating in a biased manner.
Many of those on the social-national side of UK radical politics have, in recent years, been subjected to the results of this kind of one-way-street policing, policing which is in other words biased, politically biased. I myself have had a couple of instructive encounters of the sort.
Zionist pressure groups
In early 2017, the Jew-Zionist fanatic Stephen Silverman, who styles himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement” at the small but (((well-connected))) “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [“CAA”] pressure group, complained about me (on behalf of that group or cabal), to the police at Grays, in estuarial South Essex, and not far from where he lives.
[below, Grays Police Station, surely one of the ugliest buildings in England].
My experience there was the subject of a blog post a couple of years ago:
Silverman himself was unwittingly exposed as a serial troll by the CAA’s own lawyer in a preliminary hearing of the Alison Chabloz case. It turned out that Silverman had been trolling people on social media —mostly women— for years, using a number of pseudonymous Twitter and other social media accounts. “Gloating sadism” was his overall persona. He and a group of other Jews, together with a couple of part-Jew doormats, all in or connected with the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” [CAA] pressure group, joined in that campaign of online and offline bullying.
That group loved to make malicious and false accusations to Twitter, Facebook etc, as well as to the police and to professional organizations. Their posts frequently predicted (((with typical sadism))), that numerous anti-Zionist people would be arrested, charged, convicted, imprisoned. The bullying campaign started around 2012 and built up to a crescendo, though as they were one by one identified, they (((typically))) backpedalled and tried to play the “victim”…
Meanwhile, now-disgraced Jew-Zionist solicitor Mark Lewis gave an interview to the Jewish Press in which he openly admitted that his intention was to “take homes away from” those he called “Nazis”, by means of “lawfare” (abuse of the laws of England for Zionist political purposes).
One person, David Carter, of Cardiff, a former executive with decades of experience working for transnational companies, and an unblemished record (i.e. no police record) was actually arrested and his home searched by duped or colluding police. He was later released “on police bail” (where he stayed for months, which was still lawful then though not now, the law on “police bail” having since been changed); his computers, used for consultancy work, were not returned for further months. He never was charged with anything.
Others were subjected to “voluntary” interviews, which in fact are scarcely voluntary at all (belatedly, and in fact fairly recently, Silverman himself was eventually asked to submit to such an interview, and agreed, but at very short notice got CAA lawyers to write to Essex Police declining; seems that he got away with it, so far).
A lady called Jo Stowell, a professional photographer from Clifton, Bristol, was not only trolled online by the same group of Jews, but was sent unwanted goods etc from sale or return operations, and was subjected to other offline bullying. She too was “asked” to attend a “voluntary” interview with the police by reason of malicious complaint(s). She agreed, attending with her solicitor. No charge was ever made. The Jewish-Zionists did manage to ruin her previously successful photography business though.
Jo Stowell
The experiences of Alison Chabloz, persecuted singer-songwriter and satirist, have been well-documented both in these blog pages and elsewhere, indeed in the national and international Press (and on TV and radio). I commend her own blog:
My own 2017 experience with the Essex Police is linked above, near top; I was also bothered, though much later, in 2018, by telephone calls from a P.C. Plod (his real name was something else…I think!) from the police of one of the most (((occupied))) parts of London. It appears that I was “accused” of having reposted, in fact completely lawfully, on the GAB social media site responses also completely lawful in themselves, posted by the owner of GAB, Andrew Torba, to a malicious Jewish woman “activist” in North London.
That Jewish woman had, laughably, attempted to intimidate Torba, a U.S. citizen whose GAB site operates from the USA and Eastern Caribbean, by threatening Torba, who is resident in the USA, with Scotland Yard! Torba’s responses started off polite and then went downhill as the woman persisted (((typically))), culminating with Torba’s suggestion that she “fuck off” or some such. She did (she had no choice!), but then tried to find scapegoats in the UK from those many who had reposted Torba’s posts (finding them funny; the tweets also rather well illustrated Hitler’s obiter dicta about the Jews being, despite what they and others often say, a very stupid people).
P.C. Plod had obviously been “got at” in some way. In fact, after having been harassed by him, I had to write to his own Borough Commander and to Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, detailing both why nothing that I had done constituted anything unlawful under English law, and as to why the complainant herself was (in relation to me) certainly wasting police time (quite deliberately); a crime, albeit minor, and possibly coming close at times (in her complaints against others) to attempting to pervert the course of justice, a far more serious crime.
Even after that, Plod still had the cheek to email me (again)! Eventually, I gave him a face-saving way out, which he took. The experience was however unsettling beyond my personal inconvenience and anger. It showed that the police in the UK now have little understanding of either the boundaries of their powers or the limits to the authorized discretion customarily granted to the police. It showed that a UK citizen not doing anything unlawful could nonetheless have his private life and rights of expression interfered with by the police— the police at the lowest level of rank, at that.
The police equation for idiots seems to go something like: “Racism” is bad, so anything we are told is “racist” should not be allowed, so alleged “racism” is to be at once treated as “hate crime” or “hate speech”, so use of the word “Jew” is probably wrong or unlawful (if used by a non-Jew or someone who is anti-Zionist), so the police should assume that any online post (by someone not Jewish) and using the word “Jew” is both racist and unlawful, so the police should immediately take action of behalf of a complainant (if Jewish) against the alleged “racist” (if not Jewish) and this gives the police the right and power to censor anything they like, whether actually lawful or not…It’s mad.
More than that. The said Plod was unwilling to accept that I (a practising barrister at one time) knew more about the relevant law than he did (I did) but I still had to detail it in my letter to his superiors in case even they were unwilling to accept that the law is what it is and is not a “leading beyond authority” instrument of flexible socio-political repression, “useful” for repressing the entirely lawful views of those whom the police institutionally, or the personal acquaintances of police individually, may wish to hit out at. I might add that P.C. Plod’s manner was impertinent and smug, as well as rather aggressive.
This tendency, of the police to go well beyond their actual powers as authorized by or under law, has started to spread in recent years. In 2013, a police sergeant in Hampshire actually tried to strongarm a local newspaper after it printed material critical of a councillor!
“Padraig Reidy, of the freedom of speech campaign group Index on Censorship, said: ‘It’s not the sort of thing that should happen in any democratic country. It’s political policing.’ Mr Satchwell added: ‘Hopefully, before it’s too late, people at the top of politics and policing will wake up to what is happening in what is supposed to be one of the most revered democratic countries in the world.’” [Daily Mail]
In respect of the malice of the Zionist CAA cabal, relatively unknown people such as me have been attacked, but so have those far better known, such as Al-Jazeera TV, Gilad Atzmon (the Jewish but anti-Zionist jazz musician) and David Icke (who scarcely needs introduction, at least in the UK).
However, as far as I know, they have not been harassed by the police. I suppose that it would backfire on the police themselves to harass those who are too famous.
The Blair-Brown governments were those that brought in the obsessive “anti-racism” which is now so pervasive. It is why we now have incidents such as the schoolgirl disqualified from an exam by an exam board because she wrote a few things about cruel “halal” slaughter of animals, which comments might be thought critical of Islam or Muslims!
and note that OCR (the exam board) weaselled thus:
“OCR said in a statement: “OCR takes all incidence of suspected offensive material against a religious group in exams very seriously and must apply rules which are set out for all exam boards in such cases.
“We accept that initially we did not reach the right conclusion and were too harsh.“
In other words, there is no freedom to say what you wish against any religion (or ethnic group) now, no matter what its adherents or members might do or how they might behave, but “we were too harsh” (in the way in which censorship of students was actually carried out…). Even the girl’s mother, while angry at what happened, blamed “an over-zealous, over-righteous examiner“, rather than the prevailing miasma of politically-correct and grey-area semi-legal repression.
We should remind ourselves that many of the greatest minds, saints and heroes of Western Civilization would probably have their words censored now in the UK. They would probably have some policeman improperly telephoning them and annoying them!
It is the web of bad law that has been the acid corroding our liberty in the UK. The Communications Act 2003, s.127 has been the facilitator for much of the repression online. It has strengthened the petty denouncers, the complainers to the police, those for whom Twitter is their little world, to be patrolled and “monitored” and from which any dissenting voices (particularly the defenders of European race and culture, and freedom) are to be removed. You can now add to Twitter the other main platforms: Facebook, YouTube etc.
When the police are not impartial arbiters, to whom can we turn? Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?
In the United States, it is often said that the bedrock of civil liberty is the famous Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the “right of the people to keep and bear arms”, alongside the First Amendment (freedom of religion, Press, speech, expression, assembly).
I have always been sceptical of the quasi-holy U.S. Constitution, that is, the way in which this man-made document, cobbled together in a tavern by a bunch of freemasons nearly 250 years ago, is regarded as Holy Writ by the Americans of today. Its “rights” have always seemed to me more apparent than real. For example, you (an American in the USA) have the right to free speech. Very true. So try exercizing it…
If you try to say something negative in the USA about the lobby of the Jews, or about their hugely disproportionate power or influence in the USA or the wider world, or about the “holocaust” hoaxes and fakery, you will almost certainly not face (direct) action from the local or state police, or from the FBI. In that respect, the USA is better than the UK and much of Europe. You may well, however, lose your job, face professional difficulties and, consequent upon those, even lose your home by reason of financial problems as the Jews and doormats thereof gang up against you, so your “freedom” is, in real terms, very constrained indeed. America, “land of freedom”?…
Likewise, yes, a United States citizen or resident may, with variations depending on what state or city he/she lives in (eg New York City as compared with most of the rest of New York state) “keep and bear [some] arms”, but your pistol or revolver, shotgun or rifle, though it may protect you against (some) criminals (ordinary or political) in your home or car (always assuming that you can both handle the weapon and deploy it in time), will certainly not protect you against the state (meaning here not the individual state but mainly the Federal Government).
If the Federal Government of the United States wants to move against an individual or a group, that person or group has no chance. SWAT squads, helicopters, even armoured cars! And that is before the main US military machine is even involved! Your pistol will not help you much under those circumstances. That is why I have only limited faith in weapons.
Past history
When the NSDAP started to gain a little local (in Munich) traction in 1920 and 1921, its meetings were routinely broken up with great violence by “Red Front” (Communist/pro-Communist) thugs, the sort that (though in rather farcical reincarnation) might be called “antifa” today. That is when the nascent NSDAP formed the SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Detachment), though at first informally:
“The precursor to the Sturmabteilung had acted informally and on an ad hoc basis for some time before this. Hitler, with an eye always to helping the party to grow through propaganda, convinced the leadership committee to invest in an advertisement in the Münchener Beobachter (later renamed the Völkischer Beobachter) for a mass meeting in the Hofbräuhaus, to be held on 16 October 1919. Some 70 people attended, and a second such meeting was advertised for 13 November in the Eberl-Bräu beer hall. About 130 people attended; there were hecklers, but Hitler’s military friends promptly ejected them by force, and the agitators “flew down the stairs with gashed heads”. The next year, on 24 February, he announced the party’s Twenty-Five Point program at a mass meeting of some 2,000 people at the Hofbräuhaus. Protesters tried to shout Hitler down, but his former army companions, armed with rubber truncheons, ejected the dissenters. The basis for the SA had been formed.” [Wikipedia, though note the (((influence))) in Wikipedia: Communist thugs are “hecklers”! The same is true of most of what you now read or hear about Mosley’s BUF rallies of the 1930s].
Also, note that Hitler’s first attempt at a “mass meeting” attracted an audience of only 70! When I gave a talk to the London Forum in 2017, there were about 100 or so there. Maybe there is hope…
“A permanent group of party members who would serve as the Saalschutzabteilung (meeting hall protection detachment) for the DAP gathered around Emil Maurice after the February 1920 incident at the Hofbräuhaus. There was little organization or structure to this group.” [Wikipedia]
“The future SA developed by organizing and formalizing the groups of ex-soldiers and beer hall brawlers who were to protect gatherings of the Nazi Party from disruptions from Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD) and to disrupt meetings of the other political parties. By September 1921 the name Sturmabteilung (SA) was being used informally for the group.” [Wikipedia]
Interesting too that even Wikipedia recognizes that the purpose of the SA was the protection of meetings, and not the breaking-up of the meetings of opponents.
“The Nazi Party held a large public meeting in the Munich Hofbräuhaus on 4 November 1921, which also attracted many Communists and other enemies of the Nazis. After Hitler had spoken for some time, the meeting erupted into a mêlée in which a small company of SA thrashed the opposition. The Nazis called this event the Saalschlacht (“meeting hall battle”), and it assumed legendary proportions in SA lore with the passage of time. Thereafter, the group was officially known as the Sturmabteilung.” [Wikipedia]
The SS [Schutzstaffel, or Protection Squad] was formed in 1925, with a similar defensive or protective function:
“In 1925, Hitler ordered Schreck to organize a new bodyguard unit, the Schutzkommando (Protection Command).[1] It was tasked with providing personal protection for Hitler at NSDAP functions and events. That same year, the Schutzkommando was expanded to a national organization and renamed successively the Sturmstaffel (Storm Squadron), and finally the Schutzstaffel (Protection Squad; SS).[10] Officially, the SS marked its foundation on 9 November 1925 (the second anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch).[11] The new SS was to provide protection for NSDAP leaders throughout Germany.” [Wikipedia]
One can well imagine that any such bodies as the SA or SS formed in the Britain of 2019, even if not uniformed, would soon be banned and their members subject to show trials.
Contemporary happenings
In fact, we have seen the like, in the past couple of years, especially in relation to “a certain group of young people” the name of which I do not think that I shall use here, which young people have been put on trial for allegedly belonging to such a group. Oh yes, teenagers and other young people put on trial, and not in the local magistrates’ courts but at the Old Bailey and elsewhere! The “evidence” of their supposed organization, or at least political allegiance? Such items as cookie-cutters shaped like Swastikas, pillowcases with slogans on them etc, even the Christian name given by the parents to a baby! It seems that the ethos of Matthew Hopkins, Witchfinder-General in the 17th Century, is not dead and indeed has found a home in the British police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)!
Thankfully, the (usually) good sense of the British jury has meant that most such defendants have been acquitted so far; perhaps that is why some politicians, notably Rosie Cooper MP [Lab., West Lancashire] have called for the use of “Diplock courts” (i.e. trials without juries) in political cases. If that happened, that type of court would be the first such court authorized in England itself in hundreds of years (though the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a typical piece of Tony Blair repressive legislation, does open the door to such trials). A Star Chamber for our times…
Conclusion
In a situation where self-defence, whether organized or individual, is criminalized by a hostile and partisan state, the only solution for social-national people is to cluster in “safe zones”, as I have blogged in the past: see https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/category/safe-zones/
In the UK, where even personal self-defence weaponry is generally unavailable, and where the police are rapidly becoming the strong-arm section of the multikulti “diverse” (non-white non-diverse) society, the formation of a germinal ethnostate is the only way forward.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplock_court “[Lord Gardiner‘s Minority Report as part of the Parker Report in March 1972 found “no evidence of [intimidation] or of perversity in juries”.[7] The report marked the beginning of the policy of “criminalisation”,[8] whereby the State removed legal distinctions between political violence and normal crime, with political prisoners treated as common criminals. The report provided the basis for the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, which, although later amended (with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 and subsequent renewals), continued as the basis for counter-terrorist legislation in the UK.” [Wikipedia]
As I write, persecuted singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz is once again in court, being sentenced after a notorious Jewess supported by the “Campaign Against Antisemitism” (yet again…) made a malicious allegation against her, using (as noted above) the “bad law” known as Communications Act 2003, s.127.
I myself quite recently had to chase off the Jew nuisance who calls himself “Head of Investigations and Enforcement” for the “CAA”; a ludicrously grand title for someone who is one of only a handful of Jews posing as an important organization. The whole pack really consists of only a few dozen (if that many) fanatical Jew-Zionists.
One of the pillars of a future “Threefold Social Order” society will be religious freedom. Such freedom is also said to be a pillar of our existing “Western” model of society.
“We” supposedly all agree with that ideal, meaning of course “we” white Northern Europeans. Of course, once one gets away from Northern Europe and its wider offshoots in North America, Australasia etc, that consensus ends. In the Middle East, much of Africa, South Asia etc, freedom of religion either does not exist, or exists only as a fragile plant.
In Europe, we see that the migration-invasion, and the societal takeover via a high birth rate of, in particular, Muslims, is threatening our fond belief that we have and always will have religious freedom. The pendulum is swinging. Whereas in the Middle Ages, Roman Catholic Christians repressed other religious communities and launched crusades to conquer Muslim lands (a simplification, of course, but let’s leave that aside), today the Muslims are invading Europe, not as armies (as happened several times in the past) but as migrant-invaders (immigrants, “refugees”, “asylum-seekers”, and as babies born in Europe…). If this continues unabated, we can expect to see more attempts to shut down religious freedom for non-Muslims, as shown in this cartoon:
This process can be seen in the UK. There have in fact been Muslims in the UK for a long time, at least in small numbers. An Islamic centre and cemetery was established on the edge of Woking, Surrey, in the 19thC (it can be seen just before trains enter Woking Station, on the Southern or lefthand side as the train travels from London). However, the political or societal strength has grown in more recent years, along with the numbers.
In the 1970s, the Muslim element rarely displayed itself politically. I myself recall that posters on the Underground in 1976 or 1977, advertizing the Libyan-funded film “Mohammed, Messenger of God” were often defaced, always with the same words: “Islam forbids representations”. That vandalism, along with “community” representation to the UK authorities and the film distributors, resulted in the film being renamed “The Message”.
Now, 40 or so years later, times have moved on. Despite the Muslim population of the UK only being between 5% and 6% (officially), there has been a gradual infiltration (I do not say that it has been particularly organized) into mainstream political parties, in areas where Muslim numbers are significant: parts of the North of England, the Midlands, smaller areas within London and elsewhere. The influence of Sharia law and courts has grown; the Church of England has shown itself craven (as indeed it is when confronted by the aggressive Jewish-Zionist element). In some cases, Christians wishing to display their faith, e.g. by wearing crosses etc, have been given the choice of not doing so or being dismissed.
I repeat, officially the Muslim population of the UK stands at little more than 5% (about 5.1%) so far, but a high birth rate may propel that to 10% in the short term and later to…who knows? What will then be its influence and power?
As to the Jews, in numbers they are small, somewhere between 250,000 to 280,000, though there are also very large numbers of part-Jews, many of whom have little or no day to day connection with Jewish religious practices. Their influence and power comes not from crude numbers, but from concentration in and control of key strategic areas: finance, law, politics, mainstream media and, now, large Internet organizations.
Christians and Muslims accept persons of any race into their communities, at least in principle. Both Christians and Muslims have traditionally accepted it as an article of faith that persons of other religions should be “converted”, whereas Jews do not seek converts (though some modern branches do accept small numbers, e.g. after marriage to Jews). Judaism, therefore, has never launched “crusades” or the like. The Jews do not aim to make the world Jewish, only to be the major influencing, controlling and profiting element in or over the world.
The modern Christian world of the post-Enlightenment has, in principle, accepted that people can be Christian, Muslim or Jew (or whatever else) freely. That is easy enough when it comes to beliefs, ideas, even public worship in particular buildings, though (as mentioned above) it took Europe a long time even to accept those aspects. Much of the world does not go that far.
Where things become more difficult is when the religious practice of a community contravenes the law or morality of the society as a whole. Halal slaughter, kosher slaughter, which revolt the sensibilities of thinking non-Muslims and non-Jews. Male and female genital mutilation by Muslims and Jews. The cries (now electrically amplified) of the muezzin from the minaret of the mosque. These are cases where, in my view, the demands of the society to prevent cruelty, the wish of Europeans not to hear constant mosque noise in their neighbourhood must prevail over the practices of both the Jews and the Muslims.
To take an extreme case: there were societies in the past, Aztecs, Incas, even Europeans of ancient Europe, who engaged in ritual sacrifice of humans. Would we accept such practices today just because “it is part of their religion”? I think not.
There have been problems in the recent past in relation to other religions: the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with their unwillingness to save the lives of their children via blood transfusion; the mental and sometimes physical cruelty to children of some small “Christian” sects such as the Plymouth Brethren; the contrived scam that is Scientology (the British government of the 1960s fought a long battle to suppress Scientology, because of its perceived cultic and controlling behaviour). There could be other examples given.
It might be said that even mainstream Christian religions have done very evil things, e.g. the sex scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, though those involved acts not sanctioned or encouraged by the religion as such.
In the end, society, meaning the political element, must draw the line between the zone where religion holds sway and the zone where group or community religious practice must give way before the general secular law which should protect people and animals.
Ian Robert Millard 