Tag Archives: halal

Diary Blog, 22 December 2020

News from Germany

I wonder how true that is. If it is basically correct, then those social-national-sympathizing police should not be wasting their time issuing puerile death threats against stray nuisances, and making online comments, but should be keeping their powder dry, recruiting more people, and organizing quietly and secretly for when the right time may come.

Tweets seen this morning

Yes. My (small, pleasant) nearest hospital (semi-rural coastal Hampshire) had, at one time three (yes, 3) patients with “the virus” and, more recently, about two weeks ago, seven (7). That’s out of a total district council area population of 180,000 spread over 291 square miles. 95% of the population is “white British” (and nearly 3% “white Other”). As against that, the age demographic is quite high.

True, there are other, larger, hospitals not very far away (Bournemouth and Southampton, both within 25 miles distance) but even so it is clear that few people in the wider area are infected or at least symptomatic to the extent that they need hospitalization.

Much of the Western world has gone crazy and I do not believe that the public health issue is the main reason for that. Think “Great Reset”. Think 2022, and the 33-year cycle.

I interpret that as I have been suggesting for some time: the Conservative Party is winning, just about, by default. The Jewish mass media have stopped attacking Labour (because the Zionists achieved their objective of recapturing Labour and dumping Corbyn), but that alone is not enough to put Labour into the lead.

In a sense, remarkable, when you look at the sleaze and incompetence of the Boris-idiot government of fools.

Labour is not really being an Opposition. All it is doing is saying “we want stricter lockdown, more facemask nonsense, blah blah”.

There is no legitimate Government, and no real Opposition.

I first encountered “Happy Holidays” when I first lived in the USA, in the winter of 1989-1990. Basically a Jewish idea, i.e. to give “Hannukka” the same billing as Christmas on the public stage. Also thrown in as makeweight was the ludicrous invented “celebration” called Kwanza [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwanzaa].

When logic and fact meet fear and a brainwashed mind, logic and factual reality have no chance…

Don’t agree that the Western world should cease to exist or function because 1 out of 1,500 or 2,000 people are dying with “the virus”? Then you are callous, stupid, ignorant, and/or even a murderer. Or something…

Speaking of reality v. unreality, I heard a truly absurd piece on the BBC World Service a few days ago. Some black preacher expressing the view that Jesus Christ was a black African or at least “black”, whose parents came to Palestine “as refugees from North Africa“! As said on many previous occasions, the whole UK msm, and especially the BBC, needs a real cultural purge.

More tweets

Here (below) is a supposedly Welsh tweeter, tweeting under the name “Sion Gruffudd”, and who seems to be a complete doormat for the Jewish lobby (or maybe is a Jew, tweeting under “Welsh” cover; I don’t know):

If you said that you wanted to feed Jews to the dogs, or any named Jew, the police would probably be at your door, and/or you might end up on trial (like Alison Chabloz) under the notorious Communications Act 2003, s.127. Will that happen to “Sion Gruffudd”? I doubt it…

Virtually all the tweets of “Sion Gruffudd” are about Jews and Israel. No need to bother more with it…

Meanwhile…

Still wanting their pound of flesh…

6% of Britain is non-white at this time“?! How long ago was that filmed?! The figure now is about 13% in Britain as a whole [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#Ethnic_groups; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England#Demography ], and in England as a whole, about 17%. The point, though, is the direction of travel. About a third of primary school pupils are now non-white…

https://www.patrioticalternative.org.uk/university_challenge

“.…Professor of History Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) of Harvard, Princeton and Georgetown Universities in America…wrote a book entitled The Tragedy and Hope (1966) which discloses an international bankers’ plan to control the world from behind the political and financial scenes. Quigley claimed that the planning by billionaires to establish a dictatorship of the super-rich disguised as workers and socially concerned democracies was already well-advanced even by the middle 1960s. Something that would be dismissed today as a “conspiracy theory” by the university departments sponsored by the likes of Facebook, Google, YouTube and Soros; beholden as they are to an elitist cadre of alumni who fund their research, and who are monitored by the Stasi-like Equality & Diversity units who enforce ‘right-think’ with an enthusiasm that matches Mao’s Red Guard during the Cultural Revolution in China.”

This is a situation that can no longer go unchallenged by those who truly advocate for diversity of thought and intellectual rigour based on the right to open and unrestricted debate within our education system.”

Alternatively, the Spanish authorities can, though not immediately, build up the ports of Bilbao and Santander. At present (or until recently) there was only one ro-ro ferry per week from Santander to Plymouth. I believe one per week Bilbao-Portsmouth too. If that were changed to 5 per day from each port, France could be sidelined. It takes longer to get to the UK from Spain, naturally, but taking the road trip Spain-Channel ports into account, not much longer.

Of course, were cruel kosher/kashrut and halal slaughter to be banned in the UK, quite a few Muslims and Jews might feel impelled to leave the UK. “Oh dear, what a pity, never mind”…

https://razib.substack.com/p/applying-iq-to-iq

At least MPs who happen to be barristers can no longer get “QC” letters patent on the nod, as they could until fairly recently (which is why barristers such as John Mortimer were “QC”).

It is bad enough that Lammy, among other unworthy persons, is now a Bencher of my old Inn of Court, Lincoln’s Inn, whereas I was expelled a few years ago by reason of my —politically-instigated— disbarment [https://ianrobertmillard.org/2017/07/09/the-slide-of-the-english-bar-and-uk-society-continues-and-accelerates/].

Cold comfort

I see that “the virus” has even made its way to Antarctica (a Chilean base there). Hopefully the one person who (last year, I think) accessed my blog from Antarctica will not be hit by it (I am presuming that he —or she?— is an English speaker, but could still be Chilean, of course).

Late tweets

Frankly, I think that Hitchens is too kind to “Boris”. Don Corleone at least had a sense of strategy, a sense of loyalty and, in his own way, a sense of honour. I see none of that in the unpleasant clown posing presently as Prime Minister.

Still this “angels on a pinhead” “Right” and “Left” stuff…Who is “Right” or “far Right”, and who is “Left”? What a dull exercise! Concentrate on policy and intention. Leave that fruitless exercise and deal with realities.

That girl always tweets and retweets stuff worth reading: https://twitter.com/Amy_amorie

Followed by the 2030s…

Late music

To Whom Do We Turn?

To whom do the people turn in time of trouble?

Worrying background…

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”?…

https://commonpurpose.org/knowledge-hub-archive/all-articles/leading-beyond-authority/

https://www.cpexposed.com/documents/cp-leading-beyond-authority-briefing-sheet

…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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Middleton

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].

grayspolice

My experience there was the subject of a blog post a couple of years ago:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/when-i-was-a-victim-of-a-malicious-zionist-complaint/

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).

https://www.timesofisrael.com/uks-foremost-libel-lawyer-sets-his-sights-on-israels-enemies/

https://mondoweiss.net/2019/03/lawyers-relationship-government/

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
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:

https://alisonchabloz.com/

alison

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.

CjYVvfDVAAAie3Q

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!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2309106/Policeman-tried-censor-local-paper-criticising-councillor-Officer-phoned-newsroom-visited-editor-article-controversial-figure.html

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).

https://www.davidicke.com/

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!

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gcse-student-disqualified-after-examiner-18958743

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/17/gcse-student-disqualified-zealous-examiner-mistook-vegetarianism/

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.

CZpdYWeW0AQXGc_

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.

Notes

https://www.redressonline.com/2019/01/spotlight-on-uk-zionist-bullyboy-steve-silverman/

https://alisonchabloz.com/tag/stephen-silverman/

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49824.htm

https://debatingculture.wordpress.com/category/stephen-silverman/

https://gilad.online/writings/2017/12/12/say-no-to-neocons-and-support-the-campaign-against-antisemitism

https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=315252

http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2017/02/campaign-against-anti-semitism-tries-to.html

https://www.derbyshire-pcc.gov.uk/Document-Library/Transparency/Public-Information/Freedom-of-Information/Response-FOI-20-Web-Version.pdf

https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2018/06/22/the-trial-of-alison-chabloz/

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/jonathan-hoffman-damon-lanszner-convicted-public-order-act-israel-palestine-puma-protest-1.485573

https://www.davidicke.com/article/550421/prince-andrew-walls-closing-david-icke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

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]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/03/mp-rosie-cooper-targeted-by-neo-nazi-calls-for-trials-without-juries-for-terrorism

Where Are The Limits Of Religious Freedom?

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:

CX9ZsZOWEAAky2e

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.