Monday, April 28, 2014

Arrested for quoting Winston Churchill


Paul Weston is the Chairman of the Liberty GB Party and a candidate in the forthcoming Elections to the European Parliament. His party has a mission:
Liberty GB will address all the political issues Great Britain currently faces, something the three main parties (along with UKIP) so conspicuously fail to do.

The Liberal Democrats, Labour and Conservatives manifestly refuse to discuss the most important issues of our time, namely mass immigration from the Third World, the steady rise of fundamentalist Islam and the hijacking of traditional British culture and institutions by well-organised left-wing 'progressives'.

There is no guarantee at such a late stage that Britain can be saved, but Liberty GB will endeavour to put a stop to our rapidly accelerating descent into economic, educational, moral, cultural and social ruin. Britain could be a wonderful country again, but it will take politics bordering on the revolutionary to achieve this vision.
It also has an ideology, which demands: i) The British People's Ownership of Britain; ii) Indigenous British in Perpetual Majority; iii) Principle of National Preference; iv) Primacy of National Culture; v) Christian Ethics and Morality; and vi) Upholding Western Civilisation:
There are many precepts, values and achievements of Western civilization which are worth protecting and fighting for, especially now that they are threatened by the progress of Islamic fundamentalism. They include popular democracy, equality of value of all human beings, the rights of women and minorities, freedom of speech and religion, animal welfare, science, logic and rational thought. The civilization of the West, which was founded on the Greco-Roman world and Christianity, would cease to exist if it renounced these, its most fundamental roots.
Paul Weston is a self-declared (or, rather, politico-media-designated) "racist" and "Islamophobe":



He clearly has a certain defensive and robust view of Islam, which is apparently not so different from that of Nick Griffin and the BNP.

But his view is also shared by the eminent Richard Dawkins, who has referred severally to "Islamic barbarians", Islam's "backwardness" and its "appalling attitude to women and various other moral points".

For some, this constitutes "racism"; for others it is simply religio-political truth.

It seems that Mr Weston's euro campaign hasn't been going so well, so he engineered a bit of free publicity. He decided to stand on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, megaphone in hand, and proclaim:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."
The quotation is from Churchill's youthful biographical account of the late-nineteenth-century Mahdist conflict in Sudan, called The River War, written when he was just 25. Apparently, a woman came out of the Guildhall, enquired of Mr Weston if he had any authorisation to make his speech, and when he responded that he had no such permission, she told him: "It's disgusting!" and proceeded to call the police.

We are then told that "six or seven officers arrived. They talked with the people standing nearby, asking questions about what had happened. The police had a long discussion with Mr Weston, lasting about 40 minutes. At about 3pm he was arrested. They searched him, put him in a police van and took him away."


Poor Mr Weston.

Or perhaps not, since his campaign publicity stunt appears to be working.

The curious thing is that it isn't at all clear what crime he has committed.

While Richard Dawkins frequently rails quite unpleasantly against Muslims (he rarely distinguishes between extremists and moderates), Paul Weston quoted Churchill's criticism of "Mohammedanism", "Mohammedan law", "the faith of Islam" and "the influence of the religion".

You may object to the derogatory use of the term "Mohammedanism" to describe "Islam", but Muslims are Mohammedans in much the same way as followers of Jesus are Christians. Of course, Muslims would never say that they worship Mohammed - the focus of their adoration is Allah alone. But by exalting him as the Seal of the Prophets, the fulfilment of divine revelation and the pre-eminent exemplar for all mankind, he is venerated and honoured above all men - and some would argue idolised in his seventh-century Arabian primitiveness and barbarism.

Whether you believe this view of Islam or not ought to be of no legal consequence: no one has the right not to be insulted or offended, especially since the reform of Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which His Grace supported. It is important to protect freedom of speech, and this fundamental liberty must override any subjective cry of hurt feelings or professed politically-correct disgust.

And yet, with the arrest of Paul Weston, the police appear to have arrived at an interpretation of Section 5 reform which now permits a teenager to refer to Scientology a "cult", but does not allow anyone to criticise Mohammed or assert that Islam may be in any sense economically deficient,  intellectually backward, spiritually fanatical, socially dangerous, fearfully fatalistic, legally misogynist or morally degraded.

Unless, of course, you happen to be an eminent academic safely ensconced at Oxford and able to shroud your 'Islamophobia' beneath the respectable veneer of enlightened atheism.

103 Comments:

Blogger Elizabeth said...

I deduce from reading this that we are not allowed to criticise Islam,yet several times a day I hear the name of Jesus Christ being
used as an expletive.
One rule for one.........

28 April 2014 09:20  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The art of self publicity is no new phenomena but it appears that under the fast moving landscape a Muslim may call non Muslim dogs/cattle with impunity or a renowned atheist may quote Muslims as barbaric misogynists and yet authority turns a blind eye and cocks a deaf un.

However let someone outside this protected species state similar and its collar felt and off to the nick with the miscreant.

As Ernst has learnt from the educating and correcting comments of an atheist on another thread here, When an atheist says something without foundation or proof and even when they do and it goes against the grain of equality and discrimination defined by law, its only "Well that's just Richard sounding off..Or Colin".

Let another state an opinion and even provide details of evidence, you are a swivel eyed loon for daring to question the 'given' mantra!

This secularist and/or preferred religion from fear domination will only increase as Christians defer the middle ground to some supposed received wisdom from their ilk.

There will be a revolution as people are accused of racism for wanting a status quo that ensures a peaceful co existence for the majority.

Ask the majority for a famous teaching by Jesus and they will most likely quote 'Love thy neighbour as thy self' or a famous parable will probably quote 'The Good Samaritan' despite their never having gone into church regularly during the year.

Yet we are not allowed to claim any enduring christian heritage even from this sparse knowledge of Christ from a poorly educated nation regarding important moral values. I haven't heard anyone quoting a famous saying of Darwin or moral or life enriching teaching from any atheist.

They only reassure of the negativity of life and have nothing to offer except reassurance that nothing really matters, anyone can see, so do it if you can get away with it!

Imagine South Africa stating it's refusal to allow unconditional immigration from western caucasian nations then being called a racist nation?

It is now one rule for one and one for another and god help you if you are on the wrong side of the newly defined, myopic argument.

Where is the equality or balance is the moral argument that confounds.

E S Blofeld

28 April 2014 09:44  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

The only modern reference to Gordon of Khartoum I have come across in the last twenty years is that he 'went loopy' (Daily Telegraph). All those who have been considered British/English heroes in the past are gradually being written off as lunatics (or extremist Christians) and no doubt Churchill will now be added to the list of proscribed authors whose name will be gradually eradicated from the school history text books. Meanwhile, the lessons on Islamic Civilisations ('School's History Project' scheme of work - used in all secondary schools I am acquainted with)will become ever more frequent and untruthful.

28 April 2014 09:48  
Blogger Roy said...

Shouldn't the police officers involved in this case be arrested for breaking the equalities law? Surely the police force in Winchester must be institutionally racist for not allowing everyone an equal right to be offended by anything?

28 April 2014 09:52  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I think the offence will have little to do with freedom of speech and expression but more specifically for the unauthorised use of a public building as a performance platform.

If this opportunist Weston had really wanted to strike a note of discord against Islamism or to praise the incisiveness of Churchill, he could just as easily made his pronouncements from the approaches to the Regent's Park Mosque - there he would have no doubt been happy to have the police in attendance.

Bit of an unworthy cheap-shot from Cranmer to drag Dawkins or anyone else in to it.

28 April 2014 10:14  
Blogger Ivan said...



To begin with Mohamedanism does not define a race. It is a religion and thus should be fair game even under current rules. Quote Churchill when he warns about appeasement and Munich 1938 or Rhineland 1936 against V Putin and one is sure to feted as an astounding seer. On Mohamet though the same parties would rather not know.

Secondly Mohamedanism is an accurate description of the umwelt of the Muslims. Sure they are the few who claim to worship only the Supreme Being. In the main though, the religion functions to protect the reputation of Mohamed as the greatest prophet, exemplar, teacher etc. The Muslims have a problem and it is reflected in their daily prayers to Allah to grant Mohamed the highest position in heaven. Now that murderer-rapist has been dead 1,400 years, and if Allah can't be arsed to grant him that position all these years, he sure is not about to do so now.

28 April 2014 10:27  
Blogger T.A.Howell said...

Just because Dawkins says something we can agree with, suddenly he is "eminent". Bit of inconsistency here. I don't think he's "eminet" qat all; I just think he's right sometimes in the way that very few people are always right or always wrong.

28 April 2014 10:32  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Whilst we know the police seem incapable of exercising any common sense in these instances ("hate" crimes are a nice little statistic booster), why are the complainants in these cases never prosecuted for wasting police time?

Who was the thin-skinned, stasi-informant who came out of the guild hall and made the complaint to the police. She should be named, shamed and prosecuted. That the only way this spiral of petty, malicious complainant is ever going to be stopped.

28 April 2014 10:34  
Blogger Integrity said...

Cranmer said;
"It is important to protect freedom of speech, and this fundamental liberty must override any subjective cry of hurt feelings or professed politically-correct disgust".


28 April 2014 10:35  
Blogger IanCad said...

Silly Me!

And I always thought that ours was a land of liberty.

So; the police are now arbiters of speech? Good Lord!

I've been away too long, and am having a hard time adjusting to this fearful, risk averse land of the snitch that the UK has become.

28 April 2014 10:45  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

If Churchill was 'youthful'at 25 - the implication being that his River Of War is somehow unworthy - then 16 and 17 year old voters in a Scottish referendum are mere babies.

28 April 2014 10:51  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Protecting freedom of speech is absolutely vital, but I not convinced that this is the right and effective way to achieve that.

28 April 2014 11:15  
Blogger John Robert Moore said...

In all the books I have published before about the sixties, the word Mohamedan is used to describe the religion. The words Islam and Muslim seem to have aquired common usage later.

28 April 2014 11:24  
Blogger IanCad said...

David Hussell @ 11:15

If not this way then; How?
If not now; When?
If not him; Who?
If not you; Me!!??
No, I'm completely LMF, as are most in this land.

Bravo That Man!!

28 April 2014 11:37  
Blogger Gareth said...

Go to speaker's corner and you will be able to hear people criticise the 'prophet' any day of the week without fear of arrest.

This man was acting in a disruptive and anti-social way given his location, and I am convinced he will be released without charge.

28 April 2014 11:41  
Blogger IanCad said...

So, Gareth, are you saying that in only half an acre of this realm it is OK to speak without fear?

Watch what you say elsewhere!!??

This land is lost.

28 April 2014 11:50  
Blogger John Wrake said...

Gareth,

Are you saying that freedom to express an opinion is limited to Speakers' Corner, and does not apply elsewhere? That is a freedom not worth having.

Standing on the Guildhall steps does not constitute breaking the law, or if it does, why did it take 40 minutes questioning to establish that the law had been broken.

This event is yet another example of a Police (Force) Service unable or unwilling to uphold the Queen's Peace, which is their warrant and which was not threatened, but rather to enforce frivolous complaint by someone with an axe to grind.

She should be asked to pay for the attendance of 6 officers of one sort or another, taken off more important duties.

Whoever authorised the arrest should be disciplined for his/her lack of knowledge of the law or ineptitude in administering it.

John Wrake.

28 April 2014 12:16  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Incidentally, I ran a medical conference at Winchester Guildhall last October. The service was quite poor (no water with lunch, flat battery in speaker microphone) and they charged me for 100 lunches although I had phoned a week earlier to say I only wanted 60. When I objected they asked if I had a record of the phone call, they clearly hadn't logged my call. I paid up rather than go to court, they never acknowledged my complaint or sent a receipt. Never using them again.

Evidently poor consumer service and strong PC views go together.

Having said that, it sounds like this was a publicity stunt by a not particularly nice person. It will be interesting to see if he is charged and if so with what. A cleverer strategy if he wanted to get filmed being arrested for 'free speech' would to have read the war verses from the Koran. Now that would have been 'disgusting'

28 April 2014 12:44  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

Rambling Steve Appleseed @ 12.44

I have tended to agree with your comments on this blog in the past - I am curious to know what Paul Weston has said/done that makes you think he is "not a particularly nice person"?

28 April 2014 12:53  
Blogger Gareth said...

John Wrake and IanCad:

Are you guys suggesting that freedom of speech means I should have the right to say whatever I want, wherever I want!?

Perhaps I could stand outside your window and yell insults in Ancient Greek!!!!?!!?!

Or go to a St Paul's Cathedral and do some Tantric Buddhist chanting in the Whispering Gallery!!!!?!?!?!

WHAT IS THIS COUNTRY COMING TO??????????

(See, I can do reducto ad absurdum too)

28 April 2014 13:00  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Busy Mum. A hasty off the cuff judgment on my part I must admit.

28 April 2014 13:13  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

Rambling Steve - phew, I thought maybe I had missed an obvious clue! On the other hand, I think maybe when people get desperate, they do stop being nice and we have to face up to the fact that lots of very nice people - like me:) - are getting very desperate - weeping for myself and for my children....

28 April 2014 13:21  
Blogger non mouse said...

Yes, Your Grace: Clearly this was a publicity stunt.

But then - what's wrong with publicising
i) the islamic invasion of our once wonderful, oasis of a country
ii) the euro invasion that has turned our once exemplary police force into a common or garden arm of authoritarianism ???

More people should do it.

Furthermore, I thought a guildhall was the home of a guild - in Britain, that was an organisation for the furtherance of mutual or common aid ... according to Chambers "providing mutual support and protection, and masses for the dead" (s.v).

Ah ... but them's mediaeval ideas, innit.

28 April 2014 13:23  
Blogger non mouse said...

PS: Content aside - what a pleasure it is to read Mr. Weston's prose! He actually knows how to use English - clearly and simply.

More people ought to stand in the fresh air and do that, too.

28 April 2014 13:26  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Must check tonight's local evening news to see if the event is covered.

The steps of Winchester Guildhall are in frequent use. Its a busy venue-weddings, ceremonies, tourist (some great civic jewelry and paintings on display) people going to pay their taxes etc.

I would have thought that anyone standing on said steps sounding off through a megaphone on whatever subject would be asked to move on and the rozzers called if he refused.

Again, would love to hear details especially any charges.

I am very concerned at the threat of Islamification and the steady loss of free speech in my country. I try to adress this by blogging and by supporting UKIP not by making a public nuisance of myself.

28 April 2014 13:27  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Thanks Busy Mum.

I too am not a particularly 'nice' person although I try to be charitable.

Why, I was once described as a lying, foaming, one-eyed science denialist!...

28 April 2014 13:30  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Before declaring Paul Weston a 'saint' do have a read of his blog. Interesting material.

As for the Police, it seems they issued a 'dispersal order', Mr Weston refused to comply and was arrested.

Was this a hasty and unjustified use of such a power? The following criteria must be satisfied:

"Only if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the use of those powers in the locality during that period may be necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of —
(a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or
(b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder.

And:

In deciding whether to give such an authorisation an officer must have particular regard to the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly set out in articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

28 April 2014 13:41  
Blogger IanCad said...

Gareth, @13:00

In both scenarios the content of the speech should be secondary to the nuisance caused by such talk.

Disturbance of the peace, incitements to violence and, maybe, trespass, are all prosecutable offences and should in no way be used as reason to deny anyone the right to voice their opinions.

28 April 2014 13:52  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

'Hydrophobia' is of course the old word for rabies, so Churchill was comparing Mohammedanism with a virulent mind-warping virus. In doing so, he anticipated Dawkins by 70 years.

28 April 2014 13:57  
Blogger Shadrach said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 April 2014 14:03  
Blogger Shadrach said...

Does this mean that we can't read 'Merchant of Venice' in public any more? It might offend our O.T. Bretherin.

28 April 2014 14:04  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

In his first interview Mr Weston tells an American Journalist

He was arrested under section 27 but after about 5hrs in the cell that was dropped and he was rearrested under the incitement of racial hatred act under section 4 of the public order act. They are turning him quoting Churchill into a racially agrivated crime for which he could go to jail for 2 years.

http://vladtepesblog.com/2014/04/27/this-is-the-first-interview-paul-weston-gave-after-his-release-from-jail-on-a-uk-speech-crime/

28 April 2014 15:19  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Shadrach,, well that depends on whether an officer of the law considers such a reading likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress, or provoke a disorder. These are all subjective feelings and so the context of location and audience becomes important. Of course, he would also have to take your right of freedom of expression into account.

It seems to Jack that if the reading is unauthorised and on private property, to say nothing of the use of a megaphone, and someone 'complains', then it is likely you would be asked to desist and move along. Failing that, a 'dispersal order' could be issued and ignoring this is an arrestable offence.

28 April 2014 15:22  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Marie

They are turning him quoting Churchill into a racially agrivated crime for which he could go to jail for 2 years.

Two years, wasn't that the prison term that the Pussy Riot ladies were sentenced to?

So does that mean Paul Weston is Britain's answer to Pussy Riot?

28 April 2014 15:40  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

If I had turned up at the big event in St Peter's Square at the weekend and shouted through a megaphone about the errors of Rome, Albigensian Crusade, martyrdom of Saint William Tyndale etc I would have expected to be first told to shut up and if I refused, arrested

I won't be jumping on this laddies bandwagon just yet.

28 April 2014 15:45  
Blogger Martin said...

Of course, in view of a recent case where a preacher was arrested & awarded damages for wrongful arrest, he may have been seeking to raise funds as well as publicity.

One wonders if the police will ever learn.

28 April 2014 15:51  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Uncle Brian

NO.

28 April 2014 15:58  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Rambling Steve, so that was you! Bad man. Jack thought it may have been Len.

*chuckle*

28 April 2014 16:15  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

The Daily Mail has had the courage to quote the passage in full http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2614834/Arrested-quoting-Winston-Churchill-European-election-candidate-accused-religious-racial-harassment-repeats-wartime-prime-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html

Be interesting to see whether the thought-police prosecute the reporter and editor of the Mail.

28 April 2014 16:24  
Blogger Robert said...

A British politician is arrested for quoting Churchill.

A British politician is arrested for quoting Churchill.

A British politician is arrested for quoting Churchill.

A British politician is arrested for quoting Churchill.



Any one in Britain aware of what this means or looks like to foreign observers?

28 April 2014 17:48  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

A couple of points -

I. The man in question may or may not have generally un-politically correct views or views which many don't like, but in a vibrant and strong liberal democracy, we should not feel threatened by these, but be willing to take them on with our wit, wisdom and intellectual abilities; making political martyrs doesn't take away the problems, issues or arguments, but merely sweeps them under the carpet for another day.

II. The police didn't have to do anything and could have simply let the matter be; but re-arresting someone for a racially motivated crime here seems ridiculous as it is clear to anyone with half a brain cell that Islam is not a race. It is true that most followers of Islam in this country are Arabs or Asian, but I know white Muslims. I also know a Christian of Pakistani descent and an Indian-African Jew (my wife).

III. I really can't see how this will be prosecuted given the above. It if does go to court, it will end up being a less dramatic version of the Geert Wilders trial in the Netherlands, a couple of years ago. I can't see the CPS wanting to take this any further given the above.

IV. In respect of the general matter of freedom of speech, I'd say that using a megaphone on a highstreet seems more like an abuse of freedom of speech, this seems like a publicity stunt for his party, rather than a specific targeting of an individual or a group & frankly the authorities could have handled this better. No I do not believe that people have a 'right' to stand outside of people's doors & shout racial or political views, but then that would be a case of targeting a specific individual, family or group; we have existing laws to deal with that kind of nonsense [besides which using megaphones and abusive language or street demos makes these people look in themselves to be 'foreign' themselves; as British people are world renown for not complaining to someone's face & being polite, but moaning about it after the fact to themselves].

This incident is, however, slightly different to a public conversation on a street or in a coffee shop/pub. If we ever got to a situation where 'secret police' or 'informants' accused people in these situations, then we wouldn't be in Great Britain anymore, but North Korea or East Germany.

V. Shadrach, I'm not in the least bit offended by the Merchant of Venice (we call our scriptures the Hebrew Bible or The Tanakh not Old Testament, though). I'm steeped in such literature as Shakespeare & Chaucer as much as I am Torah, The Talmud, Moses Maimonides & Yosef Caro. I enjoy British food such as curry and a pint, alongside traditional Jewish foods such as Fish N' Chips & a glass of Israeli wine.

28 April 2014 19:00  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

It seems presumptuous to be discussing this case without even knowing why he was arrested, has he been charged, if so on what basis?

There have been some very high-profile recent cases of free sppech denial. Mozilla and the Brendan Eich affair, the arrest of several street preachers, the nursery worker fired for "hatefulness" because she told a gay colleague that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. These are all worthy of note and should leave us very disturbed about what is happening to us.

To most people, "freedom of speech" and "freedom of conscience" is more likely to mean keeping your job without being forced to believe in homosexual "marriage". It is likely to mean sending your children to school without the fear they will be taught that all kinds of sexual perversion are "normal". It means the right to teach your own children what is right and what is wrong, without interference from the state. Mr or Mrs Average is less likely to be concerned about their right to stand outside the Guildhsall and quote from Churchill.

28 April 2014 19:32  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

David K, Section 4 of the Act now covers religion and an amendment, soon to be enacted, is will cover 'sexual orientation'.

28 April 2014 19:36  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I don't think the police would actually have needed any special powers - disturbance of the peace would probably be sufficient in this instance.

The general point I fully agree with - and like some of the other comments here, I'm very much in favour of scrapping or completely overhauling diversity legislation, but that's essentially a civil issue. The Public Order 1986 Act as amended 2005 isn't usually to blame for the worst cases of free speech abuse, since it requires the proof of intent to promote hatred or violence: much of the employment legislation requires only offense to be taken for an offence to have occurred.

In this instance, a bloke with a megaphone was prevented from broadcasting an unambiguously provocative quotation. In principle I'm with you, but less so on the detail.

28 April 2014 19:41  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

I wonder how many years Paul Weston would have got if he’d quoted Churchill’s favourite slogan, ‘Keep England White’.

28 April 2014 20:37  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Having looked at this gent's web site, it does seem rather hard edged and arguably racist.

Anything that splits the anti EU vote at this particular moment in time in, IMHO, bad news.

PS re 'quoting Churchill' I presume that people are aware that the man said some rather things which it is perhaps kinder to his memory to forget? Peter Hitchens has written some thoughtful stuff about what he calls 'the cult of Churchill and the Good War'.

28 April 2014 20:38  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Happy Jack,

Oy Vey, What a tangled web the elite liberal do gooders have weaved !

I believe that this man has been charged under racially motivated 'crimes', not religious ones...

On the general point you raise, I do wonder who will 'win' in this contradictory struggle to get to the top of the 'rights' tree, where everyone or other claims rights to this that and the other with no'live and let live' or common sense, in which rights cannot be reconciled and which becomes a 'zero sum' game, e.g.:

*Animal rights verses religious slaughter (or religious rights)

*Religion verses religion and who can say what to people not of their faith

*Gays verses religion (and as a sub title gay religious verses gays)

*Human rights verses male circumcision

And what happens when a gay Muslim wants to get married in a Mosque?

Although I am pretty much convinced that the targets will be the less militant religions of Judaism and Christianity, I can only think that in times of great persecution Jews have remained steadfast and refused to convert to something else, we are quite stubborn like that and today is Yom HaShoah, so we are aware of the price to be paid for being of a particular 'demographic'; although of course 70 years later we are being branded as 'barbaric' , 'bigoted' and 'child abusers' for wanting to uphold that very essence that Hitler & his Nazi goons tried to snuff out all of those years ago.

28 April 2014 21:45  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Ah yes. The love of one’s country. Not that popular in these EU times, what !

Anyway, on the subject of a love whose name cannot be spoken of, there was a movement that way inclined. That would be the love business, that is. One wonders how successful they’ve been to date. One recalls they were up against it, but never say die !

Toodle Pip !

28 April 2014 22:38  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

I have spend half an hour on the Liberty GB site. It is revealing.

Paul Weston wrote

"In the 2010 general election I stood as a UKIP candidate, but subsequently resigned due to UKIP's failure to confront the Islamic issue."

So there we have it.

I often remember a sub-Spinal Tap spoof TV 'rockumentary' by the 'Comic Strip' crew when they used to be funny, about a band called 'Bad News'. In an interview with the lead guitarist 'Vim' (who reminded me of my once best friend *** who was also an arrogant selfish so and so) was asked why he broke up the band.

His reply was eloquent. He (Aidan Edmonson as I recall)told the interviewer (Jennifer Saunders)

'I wasn't getting my own way enough of the time.'

I also note that Mr Weston's second in command is an animal rights fanatic whose principal objection to Islam appears to be its attitude towards dogs.

The site also appears sympathetic towards the sometimes violent and thuggish EDL.

They don't deserve a single anti EU/pro free speech/worried about PC and Islam vote. Our Nige is othe only show in town.

At best therefore I would say that Weston is a t*$*-r. He may even be a deep Tory mole or paid third party agent (*) working against the UKIP vote. I have been predicting for a year or more that we can expect some extraordinarily dirty pre-election tricks skilfully timed to scupper the UKUP vote.

as one of Douglas Adams' characters said 'Who can tell?'

(*) I'm sure as an advocate of free speech he won't sue me for suggesting that theoretical possibility, for which of course I have not a shred of evidence, exactly as you would expect in the event of a skilful conspiracy....



28 April 2014 22:57  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ David Kavanagh (21:45)—the price to be paid for being of a particular ‘demographic’

The price wasn’t paid simply for being that particular demographic, though, was it? It was exacted, for example, because ‘Jewish religious law delineates a double standard that condemns exploitation and defrauding of Jews but allows these activities in dealings with non-Jews except in cases where it may tarnish the reputation of the Jewish community.’ The Holocaust didn’t spring out of thin air but out of centuries of accumulated resentment. As one has to make clear on these occasions, I think the Holocaust was a terrible crime. As one is not expected to say, I think the Jews are not the totally innocent victims they would have us believe.

The quote is from page xxxvi of Kevin MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone.

28 April 2014 23:43  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Johnny

Nuh-uh, sorry old chap: it's the juxtaposition of the final two sentences before your fig-leaf of a quote.

You're contrasting a crime - something which, by definition, perpetrates unjustly an act on someone who does not deserve to be the subject of that act (or in the Queen's English: a victim) - with the abstract notion of innocence.

For the comparison to work logically in the way you intend, the initial use of "crime" must be disingenuous. You've essentially argued for its justification by some perceived failing in the victim. But that wouldn't make the Holocaust a crime, it would make it a semi-retributive act: oh we can be coy and dip into legalese and talk about how a state does not have the authority to enact such "measures", but that too would basically say, all those dead come down to a point of constitutional law.

No, you can't hide the corpses Johnny. You want to talk about Jews not being "totally innocent victims"?

Do you imagine for a moment that anyone doesn't suppose that there were thieves, liars and adulterers in the gas ovens of Auschwitz. Of course there were, as there were grandmothers, and children, and men and women whose sole reason for being brutally murdered by a state was their ethnicity. Were they totally innocent, all of them? Almost certainly not - but they were every one of them victims and to think otherwise is to fail to grasp the despicable nature of the crime that was committed against them.

29 April 2014 00:08  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 April 2014 00:58  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Johnny Rottenborough,

Thankfully for you, I have mellowed somewhat over the years when it comes to reacting to the strange festering worldview of the far right. Although I do struggle sometimes in thinking how any eejit can hold to such views.But there you go. Life is a learning process.

Quite why you think a Psychology Professor, who clearly has a specific agenda and was rebuked by his own university for his arguments, is now an expert in all things Jewish, including Jewish law, is beyond me. As it stands that quote is utter bullshit. There is no other way to describe it, or rationalise it or explain it.

I think that your problem is that as with most people of the far right, you like to portray all non- white people as inferior, parasites & scrounges dependent on welfare on the host country. The problem is that is generally rubbish and in particular the argument utterly falls apart when it comes to Jews. In fact the opposite is the case. Jews, when treated relatively freely, are world leaders in businesses, academia, law, government, which continues to this day in Britain, Israel, America,Canada and many other places.. I believe that half of modern day physics wouldn't be around if it hadn't been for a former patent clerk come university professor ,who escaped Germany at the right time.

In other words Jews are a successful contribution to society (more than yours at any rate). It isn't our fault we refuse to fit into your narrative and are generally hard workers, studious & productive, but because we don't you have to invent reasons as to why we are successful and therefore create this narrative, not of a community obtaining success due to merit, but due to a community being successful via being duplicitous or cheating or dishonesty (the propaganda of the Nazi party of Germany, btw).

As to the rest of your statements -

'As one has to make clear on these occasions'

Yes what an absolute chore for you.

'The holocaust didn't spring out of thin air'....'Out of centuries of accumulated resentment'

It seems you'd rather see history via the eyes of the films 'Jud Süß' & 'the eternal Jew', but please tell me what kind of man are you who thinks it is morally right or to put a gloss on the mass murder of millions,with the implication of 'well they had it coming'?!?

'The price wasn't paid for being that particular demographic wasn't it?'

Actually yes it was, a person was destined for the ovens if they were a Jew, going as far back to grand parental linage, you were shipped off to camps, persecuted and treated as Untermensch . Last time we discussed this topic, you bemoaned at the lack of 'integration', except that I pointed out ,as I will now, the Nazis made no distinction between Haredi [Ultra Orthodox] Jews and secular Jews. All were destined to the same fate because they were Jews; men, women, children, young, old, observant, secular, half Jew, full Jew, it didn't matter to them. Ergo the holocaust was indeed a price for being a particular demographic, a collective treatment of a particular group, not a selective or specific one.

29 April 2014 00:59  
Blogger Ivan said...


Oh no, once again it is the cause of the People who can do no wrong. The only People to have suffered in all of history. Fortunately, in the interest of balance and the historical record Steve Sailer has a new article out.

http://takimag.com/article/mythos_and_blood_steve_sailer#axzz30FOxuJ4w

29 April 2014 06:05  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Well written David Kavanagh.
Poor show Johhny.

Ivan, I do not see how David K or Anon in B call Jews ' the people who can do no wrong' . I think you'll find that's Irish Republicans and human rights lawyers.

This thread was about free speech and Islam. Have you read the Quran and what it teaches about Jews? Of course Jews aren't perfect but they have made disproportionate contibutions to science and culture and have been disproportionately hated by many.

Which, interestingly, fits with and tends to validate biblical prophecy. But that's a very long discussion which I won't develop here or now.

29 April 2014 07:28  
Blogger Mike Stallard said...

OK
But if you want people to stand up and talk like this, it must be the same for everyone.
Angry Hindus, for instance, loathe (with good reason) Muslims.
Angry Israelis, too, have excellent reasons to loathe Islam.
EDL loathes Muslims.

Muslims are stupid when they take this line of being utterly unpleasant and rude. At the moment Muslims are a tiny, very vulnerable minority living in self chosen ghettoes. Their mosques are easily torched. They deliberately wear clothes that are very conspicuous. They go against all sort of our taboos - animal slaughter, women, Christmas, education, gay marriage...
All they need is a sign on their backs saying "Please do not kick me".

29 April 2014 07:41  
Blogger Len said...

Now what sort of Muslims are we talking about here the 'right sort' or the' wrong sort'?.
We now have Political Correctness to guide as how to respond to our neighbour,and that means if our neighbour is of a minority group(no matter how fast growing then we cannot speak anything which might be perceived as an offence by them.Except if they are Christians when you can say anything you like blaspheme their God etc because we have free speech don`t we?.)
This is the secular Humanist view and we don`t need people like Churchill expressing their views and 'upsetting the applecart' of our nicely ordered liberalism...


29 April 2014 08:18  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Mike Stallard @ 07:41

I suppose the fear people have about the "tiny minority" is the speed at which it seems to be losing its tininess.

They compare the numbers in, say, 1980 with the projected numbers in, say, 2040.

29 April 2014 08:54  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Greetings Mr Belfast,

I didn't get your earlier post, as google was 'refreshing' itself. Thanks for that erudite contribution. And Rambling Steve, thanks for your vote of confidence. I did read the other day your website about Darwin; a most interesting read I have to say.

Allons Y!

29 April 2014 11:22  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Ivan,

If you re-read my posts above, you will see I never made a claim of Jewish Infallibility or never doing anything wrong. We can safely leave that to the Bishop of Rome on his ex-cathedra seat, who does actually make such a claim.

As for the article you linked.

*shock horror* Jews in the south supported the Confederacy in the American civil war. So what is the point being made here? That Jews are somehow evil because they were living in an area which supported slavery? That because American Jewry is today on the centre left of the political spectrum they are all somehow *guilty* of supporting the Confederacy of the 1860s? Does this mean that because Disraeli made Queen Victoria Empress of India, all Anglo-Jews today are wicked Imperialists? Were Anglo-Jews wrong to support Britain in World War One? Were German Jews wrong to support their home country? Does not this not rather disprove the 'international Jewish conspiracy'of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Nazi propaganda & the general thrust of Jew hate, conspiracy theory loons & other sad individuals who clearly don't know any history?

Of history, I'm sure that you are aware that the bulk of the South's white population, let alone Jews did not actually own slaves. I believe that General Robert E Lee himself an aristocrat southern gentlemen detested slavery and freed his slaves well before the civil war. That he, as rich aristocrat and his poorer countryman fought in a civil war was nothing to do with supporting slavery, but to do with defending what they considered to be their homeland and their families +incidentally the North, at the beginning of the war, had no intention of abolishing slavery, this only came later. Furthermore, what the article fails to note is that during the course of the civil war, as hyper inflation took its toll on the South, Jews were often scapegoated in the press & in popular imagination, for the inflation and shortages of commodities.

29 April 2014 11:58  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ AnonymousInBelfast (00:08)—I used ‘crime’ in its sense of ‘an action or activity considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong’. In that sense, the word is an accurate description of the Holocaust, and I would also describe as a crime the Jewish practice of exploiting and defrauding people based on their ethnicity.

@ David Kavanagh (00:59)—Wading through the tiresome abuse, I see you fail to address the argument that Jews (exactly like Muslims, oddly enough) apply different standards of behaviour to in-group and out-group.

29 April 2014 14:14  
Blogger Ivan said...



Appleseed and David, it may not interest you, but until just a few years ago I was a 110% philosemite, the type who would stay awake listening with bated breath for news from Israel. I still retain a the major part of my sympathy for Israel, as I know what they are up against from the Muslim Arabs. Further Israel has managed to maintain civil society in the face of serious threats, which makes it one of the most admirable countries in the world.
It is a certainty that no other country could have done as well.
(But this has more to do with its British Jewish heritage than anything else)

And further I do not believe contrary to Kevin MacDonald that is a genetic predisposition among Jews to harm Gentiles, due to some genetic rigmarole. This is an absolutely ridiculous notion as one has to then identify a gene for tribal solidarity and show its relative preponderance. I am an Indian and I can point to numberless instances where the numerous tribes play out their hostilities along the same lines. The competition between races is is more a function of the competition for limited resources of food, fame, shelter and influence. It is as V Jabotinsky wrote "the antisemitism of things", an aspect of the struggle for survival, "the desperate karma of the human race."

Anyway thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear things up. I like to play the contrarian, and this will be my last post on this subject.

29 April 2014 14:25  
Blogger Ivan said...

that there is a genetic predisposition ...

29 April 2014 14:30  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Ivan,

"I like to play the contrarian"... you don't say, I'm never picked that up before! Well I always feel I give as good I get with these jousts. I'm married to a girl of Indian (via Africa, courtesy of the British Empire)/Welsh heritage, so it is not like I'm not used to, ahem, passionate, robust, debate.

29 April 2014 14:36  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

JR wrote

I would also describe as a crime the Jewish practice of exploiting and defrauding people based on their ethnicity.

Have you ever noticed how Jews get accused of doing things because they are ...well...Jews? Not because of character. Not because of any other possible influence, but because they are Jews. In fact it doesn't seem to be about individual guilt at all, but rather some collective defect of the race. Except it isn't a race per se. And it seems that the collective guilt of past generations must be born by this current generation. It's all very confusing. Perhaps Lysenko could help us with this conundrum?

In the meantime I shall bask in the glory of my northern European ancestry. Except for the Jews, would never have known about "the Jewish practice of exploiting and defrauding people based on their ethnicity."

carl

29 April 2014 14:43  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

JR:

"I would also describe as a crime the Jewish practice of exploiting and defrauding people based on their ethnicity."

And what exactly are you doing by linking that statement with the Holocaust: you're implying the Jews' partial complicity in their own persecution. You made that absolutely clear last night:

"The Holocaust didn’t spring out of thin air but out of centuries of accumulated resentment."

Well, Johnny, I agree in one sense: the Holocaust certainly didn't spring out of thin air, and it certainly emerged as the demonic conclusion to a centuries-old story of "resentment", but that has nothing to do with the character (genetic or otherwise) of the Jews.

Whether you want to turn the mechanism you ascribe to Jewishness onto (nominally-Christian) Europeans and say it's down to some kind of anti-semitic group genetic response, is really up to you - the whole premise reads pretty crassly to me. I'd say old fashioned hatred of people who are different would account for a lot of it, allied by a European narrative of antisemitism that has its roots in medieval Christianity, its trunk in the Northern European Reformation, and its branches in the many various anti-semitic movements today.

29 April 2014 15:14  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 April 2014 15:32  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Johnny,

I'm sad for you that you have such a twisted view of Jewish people. It really makes me upset (or angry ,depending on my mood) that you can have been taken in by such lies, distortions and untruths. I cannot stop you from holding these and I think you wouldn't be prepared to take on any counter view. Ordinary I'd be as happy as Larry to give people a view of Jewish law,on loving kindness, loving the stranger and the neighbour, our ethics in respect to business, our role as a light unto the nations. Except a one way conversation isn't productive & I believe the was a Jewish Rabbi of the 1st Century(I forget his name now, began with a Y) who said 'don't cast your pearls before swine'. So for once in my life, I shall do as that Rabbi said. Gooday to you.

29 April 2014 15:33  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

One really must protest in the strongest possible manner that with all that threatens the West at home, the far right can still take time off to criticise our friends the Jews. The contribution these people have made to our shared culture is beyond calculation. Yes, you read that right, OUR shared culture. The Judeo-Christian one we are so fortunate to enjoy through our combined racial robustness, here at home in the West.

One simply would not have it any other way. And if the truth be known, neither would the more enlightened of the detractors.

{SNORT}

29 April 2014 18:46  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (14:43)—Any group that exhibits a particular pattern of behaviour over the centuries cannot really complain if it is judged by that behaviour. Jews have evolved a survival strategy that places the highest emphasis on loyalty to the in-group and a, should we say, flexible morality towards the out-group. The survival strategy in Europe depended on Jewish co-operation with the élites. But Jews didn’t bargain for élites turning against them. When they did, the Jews paid the ultimate price for their flexible morality. I can’t help thinking the English did it better. Having described the Polish experience of Jewish success preventing the emergence of an indigenous middle class, Kevin MacDonald writes:

‘Whatever one might suppose would have been the fortunes and character of England with predominantly Jewish artisans, merchants, and manufacturers, it seems reasonable to suppose that the Christian taxpayers of England made a good investment in their own future when they agreed to pay King Edward I a massive tax of £116,346 in return for expelling 2000 Jews in 1290.’

@ AnonymousInBelfast (15:14)—The blameless Jew and the evil European? Congratulations on avoiding the charge of anti-Semitism.

@ David Kavanagh (15:33)—As Kevin MacDonald observes, Judaism is presented as morally superior to European civilization. Knows a thing or two, our Kevin.

29 April 2014 19:25  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Inspector,

Well said.I have fished out a fine malt to drink for your, Belfast & Carl. Plus Avi, but he's not about at present. I have to admit dealing with Jew hate is an utter pain in the arse, but has to be done.

29 April 2014 21:16  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Johnny,

Well,how awful that Jews in 13th century England were "artisans, merchants, and manufacturers". I would have thought this would be a positive thing. But not, of course, to you & your addle brained version of the world, in which "the Jew" is out to get you. A Jew could think up a cure for cancer and you'd probably see it is a bad thing.

I look forward to more exclusive "revelations" about Jews seeing themselves as being "superior" to western civilisation. So superior, in fact, that we have actually contributed to said civilisation, but don't let facts prevent you from your moment of glory.

Jews were a part of preventing a Polish middle class eh? I think you'll find that Russia,Germany and Austria -Hungary (wow, all European states) actually conquered and divided this country between themselves. Perhaps being under the imperial thumb of 3 states might have something to do with the stunting of the Polish economy & civil society.

Now if you'll excuse me I've got more important things to do, such as pulling the strings of international bankers and politicians for the worldwide Jewish agenda.

Well, that and putting the dishwasher on, following by some prayer & Bible study. Oh and making sure my younger kids are OK.

Toddle pip for now.

29 April 2014 21:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David

Avi, but he's not about at present

Well, you know those Jews. (Of course you do. You are one.) I bet Avi is out there right now deliberately engine-braking in the middle of gentile communities that prohibit it. At two o'clock in the morning. And all the while laughing with an evil maniacal laugh.

Bet he grinds his gears as well. His poor clutch.

carl

29 April 2014 22:52  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ David Kavanagh (21:27)—By expelling the Jews, English Christians ensured those professions for themselves. It was their survival strategy, if you like.

MacDonald ‘does’ Poland extensively in chapter 5 but, as a one-finger typist, the best I can offer is the condensed version from his addendum, Diaspora Peoples:

‘Similarly in Poland when Jews won the economic competition in early modern Poland, the result was that the vast majority of Poles had been reduced to the status of agricultural laborer supervised by Jewish estate managers in an economy where virtually all of the trade, manufacturing and artisanry were controlled by Jews.’

29 April 2014 23:08  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Johnny:

Nope - I said I find the principle of that kind of genetic profiling to be crass - I simply pointed out, that if one wishes to make that sort of case against the Jews there is a far clearer, more convincing case to be made against the European.

As to the stuff on the expulsion of the Jews in England, I've not read MacDonald, but if that is seriously a quote, I have no intention of doing so: that kind of assertion is frankly beneath scholarship. The problem with people such as yourself is that you will instantly read that non-engagement as evidence of a conspiracy of silence, just as you entirely misread my earlier post as somehow endorsing an inversion of your own twisted logic.

In practice, it is no different from refusing to engage with the scholarship of a notorious plagiarist or known fabricator of evidence, because what we would be getting would not be an attempt to grapple with history but a polemic designed from its foundations to assail a particular group of people on the basis of their ethnicity. Nothing more than a continuation of the very thing that is supposedly under consideration.

For your reference, Johnny, Jews in medieval England were subject to extra levies and taxes (bit like that jizya thing I suppose - can we assume you'd be a fan of that too, providing it's levied on Jews, of course?) long before they were expelled. They were subjected to laws that prevented them owning property, receiving inheritance, as well as arbitrary taxation that - believe it or not - under a tax-and-spend Crown, succeeded only in ramping up the rate of interest being charged. They were the subject of conspiracies so outrageous that had they been true even in only a fraction, the Jews that were their victims would have been abominations by their own Laws. And then they were hounded out and murdered in key locations around the country.

If out of all of this, MacDonald is capable only of observing that, in effect, it couldn't have come soon enough, he is an utter disgrace.

30 April 2014 03:09  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Johnny,

Yeah 2,000 Jews out of a population of at least 1-2 million was a series threat to English artisans? What about the fact England's Jews 0.25% of the population accounted for 10% of the revenues of the Crown? The expulsion of Jews had nothing to do with the fact that Edward I spent too much and needed cash and cut a deal with his barons for a new tax in exchange for expelling Jews (which gave him the added benefit as Jewish wealth reverted to the crown- including debts peopled owed to Jews). Jew hatred via pogroms, blood libels and other forms of intimidation were never whipped up, by the same Lords who owed a debt to Jews and found this a convenient way of getting out of them?

Of course you need to say all of this because you wish to justify your initial remarks about how European Jews in the holocaust were not innocent victims of an evil ideology, but because of the actions of the alleged wicked deeds of their forefathers centuries prior. Although you are wasting your time in doing so, as has already been discussed no amount of real (or in actual fact semi-fictional, exaggerated or otherwise made up) transgressions of long dead Jews could provide a rationale for mass murder.

30 April 2014 11:11  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Carl,

True. Or perhaps our Avi has been forced to sit through another rendition of waiting for godot and is thus recovering? Or perhaps he had too much Matzo soup over passover? Hmmm, I do trust that he is OK, all the same.

30 April 2014 11:18  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ AnonymousInBelfast (03:09)—MacDonald describes the effect a flourishing Jewish population had on the indigenous Poles and notes that the English, by expelling the Jews, spared themselves a similar fate. I am at a loss to understand how that is ‘beneath scholarship’.

Your previous post reads: ‘I’d say old fashioned hatred of people who are different would account for a lot of it, allied by a European narrative of antisemitism that has its roots in medieval Christianity, its trunk in the Northern European Reformation, and its branches in the many various anti-semitic movements today’, which clearly has the meaning I gave it: ‘The blameless Jew and the evil European’.

Jews who didn’t like paying English taxes were free to leave, for goodness’ sake. As for ‘extra levies and taxes’, expelling the Jews cost the English taxpayer over a hundred grand.

@ David Kavanagh (11:11)—Judging by the Polish experience, one can only marvel at the farsightedness of the English. The Jews had brains the size of bungalows. All the English had was common sense but it served them well. Our favourite author writes: ‘for Jews, any manifestation of anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior is to be met with an all out effort at eradication’. You haven’t eradicated me so far but keep trying. You never know your luck.

30 April 2014 14:44  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 April 2014 16:07  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Johnny,

Most of what you've given us on this thread has had little, if any, relationship to reality. Which is why some of us are challenging the arguments being presented by yourself. This isn't something new, because I see you got a bit upset with Albert on another thread when he simply pointed out the fact that st george wasn't actually English(I understand he was middle eastern - I've probably got more of st george's blood in me than you, but I digress).

I'll grant you will probably feel a bit better after these exchanges & might want to gloat for me not 'destroying you' [argument?] but then it is very difficult to come back at fictional rationales masquerading as something approaching 'academic' respectability with any kind of fact.

I guess you need some form of humouring. So if Jews are two faced/manipulative this doesn't quite fit into a characteristic of a brain the size of a bungalow & certainly not of a group who would find itself expelled by the king ,via his elite of barons & to a lesser extent the church- you must recall that England was a feudal monarchy- 'the people' had bugger all say in the running of the country, so you can't turn this into some kind of 'people's choice'. The English elites were not some 'farsighted visionaries', but where after a bit of money and into getting some of the debts of their outrageous lifestyles cleared (or so they hoped).

Besides which Jews were 'back in' by 1658- that's 356 years of tolerance, where we have practiced our faith freely, in which no-one has had their jobs stolen by Jews and in which Jews have contributed enormously (you can have a list of if you like)- is this what drives your phobia ? does that upset you? That the myths about Jews you come up with are blown away by these easy to see and understand facts?

30 April 2014 16:09  
Blogger Hannah said...

Hi Carl/Conks/Belfast,

Why bother with discussing 'facts' about Jews with the silver surfer and this book he is quoting from? He's not worth the time or effort. And his historical grasp of Judaism sucks. Oh and anyone who thinks the Shoah equals 'good European' (or Nazi) and 'bad Jew', needs to go see a psychiatrist, but I guess not a Jewish one.

30 April 2014 18:45  
Blogger IanCad said...

Carl, @ 22:52

You should know. That noisy compression brake that Avi deafens us lesser mortals with is a "Jake" brake.

After a certain Mr. Jacobs who invented it.

Ian

30 April 2014 20:00  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ David Kavanagh (16:09)—I have known about St George most of my life. You’re more than welcome to his blood.

Most of what you’ve given us on this thread has had little, if any, relationship to reality

Most of what I have contributed has been historical fact. Much of what you have contributed has been hysterical outburst but I expect we have different ideas about what constitutes rational argument.

is this what drives your phobia?

I have no fear of Jews. Hugh Montefiore’s revelation that Jews regard Christians as their enemy has quite naturally made me reassess my attitude to Jews but it has induced no phobia in me. I did suffer a little nausea when I read your description of Jews as ‘loving the stranger and the neighbour’ and I reflected that Jews denied love to Montefiore from his conversion to his last breath, but no phobia.

@ Hannah (18:45)—Tut tut. You’re supposed to love the stranger and the neighbour, remember, or at least pretend to. Some ‘light unto the nations’ you are.

30 April 2014 21:59  
Blogger Hannah said...

Hi Johnny,

Of course I love you as does God. Although that doesn't mean one becomes an asswipe for the far right.

Hugs and love to you and a prayer to G-d that you'll stop supporting a bigoted racist antisemite viewpoint and start putting your talents for better use. If you are a Christian you claim to worship a Jewish God, his son (who was apparently Jewish) and his spirit, so stop being so pissed with us Jews and justifying genocide of European Jewry and seeing all historical stuff through the spectacles of us verses them and white verses every other race. You're the one with anger, bitterness and victimhood complex in his heart and head, not me...

In love and kindness, with hugs and kisses

xxxxxx

30 April 2014 23:25  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I'm going to juxtapose this statement:

"Most of what I have contributed has been historical fact."

with this one:

"Jews who didn’t like paying English taxes were free to leave, for goodness’ sake. As for ‘extra levies and taxes’, expelling the Jews cost the English taxpayer over a hundred grand."

It seems to me you've been rather easily duped Johnny, because it's not actually true that the Jews were entirely "free to leave" (a rather 20th Century concept possible only in a world that experience hitherto unknown levels of migration); there were actually official deputations asking for permission to leave, but they weren't granted because, not to put to fine a point on it, the bankrupt Crown had too strong a vested interest in the Jewish community staying.

Which is where the "expulsion tax" myth creeps in: it amounted to the Crown exchanging its debtors. But let's just keep that in a real context, because you've more or less chosen to ignore the historic facts regarding the jizya-like levies on Jews for being Jewish, the pogroms, and the murders, to focus instead on the "cost" to the medieval taxpayer. Imagine for one moment that the English really had exchanged the lot of the Jews for their own buy "purchasing" their expulsion. At the risk of tediously repeating myself, they would have no rights of ownership, no rights to distribute their belongings as inheritance, would be subject to punitive and arbitrary levies without legal recourse for relief. Dear goodness Johnny, Peasants' Revolts were started over less.

Haven't we heard you championing the brave Wat Tylers of this world who rise up to defy such State intrusions into free life? Haven't you expressed your revulsion at Islamic States that create and use religious justifications to do so?

The problem here is really quite simple: there is no virtue that you find in a "European" that you will not see as a vice in a Jew. Likewise, what you cite as Jewish vice, you apologise for as the virtue of the common (White) man. You're not critiquing morality, you're presenting no consistent ethic: you're just profiling on the basis of race. It is as breathtakingly banal as that.

Hannah

You quite rightly ask why bother with such arguments: I bother with them up to a point because to dismiss them as swiftly as they deserve only serves to fuel the conviction that they are witnessing some vast conspiracy or shared wilful delusion.

It's essential to point out that if there is any element of truth in the oft-made assertions that "Jews regard Christians as their enemy" the historic record suggests that they have plenty of reasons to do so. I know full well that's not what you or David actually believe: but it's important that the history of antisemitism is dealt with in the clear light of day, especially with its modern adherents. Otherwise it may never occur to them to see that enmity or tension as anything other than one sided.

1 May 2014 02:38  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Hannah,

I think the answer to you has been given by Mr Belfast. Nice comeback to Johnny, btw.

1 May 2014 10:58  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Johnny,

I've been suffering nausea for the bulk of this thread, due to your ability to twist facts to your far right worldview, which isn't 'rational debate' and 'historical facts'.

The problem you are making for yourself with the Hugh Montifore quote, aside from the fact it is 1 quote in a whole book which isn't discussed any further by the author, is to equate Christianity with being a white Anglo-Saxon and leap on the fact that Judaism (being a separate religion) is inevitably going to disagree with Christianity and then lo and below this discussion is one between competing religions but of races. That is a big flaw.

Christianity is a global faith of many different races and cultures so cannot be confused with being a white European culture or faith.

Christianity is also an absolute faith-in other words you need to be a Christian to be 'saved' and it is the most ethical and correct way of life one can follow- there are no other true religions other than Christianity. Jesus himself 'I am the way, truth life'. I can accept that this is the Christian view, but that does not mean that I cannot associate with Christians or that I hate them.I can and do have interesting conversations with Christians about their faith.But that does not mean I would ever want to convert.

But I digress,if you take a look at the Christian faith from a Jewish perspective it automatically means that Judaism should not exist, because Christianity ultimately fulfills our Torah ('old testament'- another complication is that we share in part holy scripture, but interpret this differently- a bit like Mormons do with mainstream Christianity). I think if you see things this way and also look at the historical record - the true historical record- it can hardly be deemed that Jews had 'the whip hand' over Christians in Europe.If you look at how Jews were treated, then you might actually see, as Belfast notes, the problems or hostility the Jewish community might have in either discussing Christianity let alone reacting favourably to Christian conversion (to wit, I'd ask an open question here- how many Christians would react favourably to Christians converting ,say, to Islam).

Turing now to the acts of loving kindness and Jewish love, I'd humbly point out to you that if you look at the 'saint' thread below there is yet another discussion on Protestant verses Catholic. These are parts of the same religion, in a heated conversation as to who holds the keys to the truth of Christianity. I cannot say, though , that none of the contributors on either side lack the capacity to engage in any form of love or kindness. All they are doing is defending their religion & worldviews robustly and confidently. I am doing no different here, so please don't try and suggest that I am somehow not being loving or kind to you, by giving you a robust reply.

1 May 2014 11:17  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ AnonymousInBelfast (02:38)—Whereas you concern yourself with the minutiæ of the Jewish expulsion—who asked what of whom and who paid what to whom—I focus on the expulsion’s immense benefit to England. It occurs to me that you may think England would have benefitted more if the Jews had remained, taken over the economy and left the English with no choice but to work on the land, as with the Poles. If so, our positions are too far apart to continue.

It is a fundamental human instinct to profile ‘on the basis of race’; call it a banal instinct if it makes you feel superior. Oxytocin is believed to play a part in human ethnocentrism, fuelling ‘prejudice, xenophobia, and intergroup violence’ but also ‘within-group trust, cooperation, and coordination’. My ‘consistent ethic’ is that as humans are saddled, however regrettably, with an empathy for their own race and something less than empathy for other races, a country formed of one race has the best chance of success, a view endorsed by Binyamin Netanyahu in connexion with a threat to the ‘identity of the Jewish state’.

I interrupt your love-in with Hannah only to ask: Which came first, anti-Semitism or the Jew?

1 May 2014 15:39  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Johnny,

A question for you. Given that you believe that expelling Jews in England in 1290 was 'the right thing to do', are you going to argue that this should be done in England in 2014? If no, they what has changed to make Jews more acceptable to you?

1 May 2014 16:46  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Hannah (23:25)—I’m a sort of non-believing Christian. Nothing justifies the Holocaust. Love to you too.

@ David Kavanagh (11:17)—First, I have never equated Christianity with being white; it would be a ludicrous stance. Please do not attribute to me thoughts that have not even passed through my head. Second, this discussion is purely about religion. Why do you and AIB insist on dragging race into it? This discussion is about the interaction between Jews and Christians, or Jews and non-Jews if you prefer. Jew may be a distinct race but that does not concern me here.

This is what you said on the 29th April: ‘loving kindness, loving the stranger and the neighbour’. And this is the full quote from the review of Montefiore’s book:

After his abrupt conversion, Hugh Montefiore was cut off from the Jewish Community, an event which he regards as natural because, ‘For a Jew to become a Christian is to go over to the enemy,’ and because ‘it is to identify himself with a religion whose adherents have for centuries and centuries conceived an implacable hatred or dislike of their race, and for which they have never apologised.’

Who is telling the truth, you or Montefiore? If, as you claim, Jewish love is extended to all, Montefiore is lying when he talks about Jews seeing Christians as the enemy and he is lying about being ostracized by the Jewish community. On the other hand, if Montefiore is telling the truth, if Jews do harbour hatred for Christians and he was ostracized, you are lying.

And then there’s this blog by Damian Thompson: ‘Jewish hostility to Christians: the prejudice no one ever writes about’. Surprise us all, David, write about it. Or would an admission of hostility adversely affect the Jewish claim to victimhood?

@ DK (16:46)—No. The Jewish community is small and poses no threat.

1 May 2014 23:38  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Johnny as to which came first between antisemitism and "the Jew", you've answered that yourself without realising with that pious and pseudo-scientific defence of the virtues of racism.

The answer is the antisemite.

2 May 2014 12:48  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ AnonymousInBelfast (12:48)—Oh dear. You’ve just called Israel racist. I do believe that makes you anti-Semitic.

2 May 2014 14:15  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 May 2014 15:00  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Johnny

PART I

Very well, I accept that you do not conflate Christianity and race, that this has never entered your head and I apologise.

If you contention on Judaism is not about race, then why are you happily quoting from a Professor whose main contention is to see Jews via alleged group characteristics ?Why did you not focus on Judaism's scripture, traditions, festivals and practise? When I research Christianity that is what I do.

I do not go looking for group character traits within that religion; indeed when the inevitable Catholic-Protestant discussions start here you will note references to the Bible etc, but not on each group's apparent character traits (whatever they would be, I dunno, the dour Calvinist or the gin drinking Anglo-Catholic).

As for Montefiore, think of it this way, anyone who converts from one religion to another is going to have a huge difficulty with the community he or she has left behind; in Judaism the focus is the Synagogue & the home, so any Jew who wishes to renounce their community and faith, automatically cuts themselves off from as there is no need for a Jewish home and no need to attend the Synagogue. Like it or note practically all religions are absolute in their belief of a claim to be 'right'. This is true of Judaism and true of Christianity.

Ask yourself, in fact I challenge any Christian reader on this blog on this point, how would you feel if your son or daughter or brother or sister, decided to convert freely to Islam or Judaism or any other faith that is not Christian? Would you accept this or wish to counter this possible conversion? Would you be joyful at the news? Or be worried and upset? Are not the emotions stirred up by these born out of love?

How are you defining love? In the latest thread above, there is already the contention of Christianity and homosexuality, the extent to which Christians can be loving toward gay people; some will say that it is unloving to condemn gay relationships,other than this condemnation comes out of love to stop someone sinning.

If Christians grapple and struggle with this concept of love, I cannot see a contradiction between a Jew undertaking acts of loving kindness, but also being wary of Jews converting to another faith.

Secondly, this is presumably no more contradictory than your contention of 'keeping Britain white', but also maintaining a semi -Christian belief system, which as you know includes 'love' and some Christians would see a slogan such as keeping Britain white to be, well, not very Christian or loving. I'm sure you've got an answer (I don't need to hear it, as it simply there to make a point).

2 May 2014 15:02  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Johnny

PART II

In respect of Damian Thompson's article. I was fully aware of this and waiting for you to bring it into bat. I do not have a victim hood mentality nor do I harbour hatred toward Christians. That some in the Jewish community may do is hardly surprising as we are all fallible human beings, no one is perfect.In instances where I have felt Jews have been in error, I have personally confronted this and will continue to confront this to the end of my life (although it isn't as common as his article maintains.

Regarding the finishing paragraph of requesting a book on 'Jewish hostility to Christianity', he answers that himself; there are too many far right anti-semitic loons around who'd twist whatever was said for their own agenda.

As I said above, Christianity and Judaism are different faiths, despite sharing some scripture. That this puts us into contention with each other is inevitable (in the same way that Mormons share the Christian Bible, but non-Mormon Christians are loath to call Mormons 'Christian').

That Christians and Jews can have discussions in a pleasant non-threatening atmosphere is a good turn of events and indeed if you'd have read some of the exchanges we've had on here about Messianic Judaism, you will see that Christians are quite confident in Evangelising Jews and Jews are quite confident in returning the intellectual favour, by disputing the Christian message.

I am happy to engage with Christians when they ask me about my faith and I am happy to explain, why I am a Jew and why I am not a Christian (this is not the thread for such a discussion nor an invite to turn this thread into one). I think you said once you've got a copy of the Koran. I have a copy as well, but also a copy of the Christian Bible (as well as the books of Mormon Canon- well these missionaries gave me it and it was free!).

I am not adverse to learning about another's faith, but these other religions for me have to be viewed by the 'grid' of Jewish tradition and reason, but ultimately via our Written and Oral scripture, the Hebrew Bible. I believe that this quote sums up nicely-

" I am the L-rd your G-d who rescued you from the land of Egypt... gods besides Me you should not know, and there is no Saviour but Me" (Exodus 20: 2 & Hosea 13: 4)

Rgds DK

2 May 2014 15:05  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

PS- excuse the spelling mistakes. In a rush and the pad likes to think up the words before I finish typing them!

2 May 2014 15:07  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Johnny, you've lost me there I'm afraid. I assume there will be some convoluted and tortured reasoning as to why my observation that hatred of the other may be inherent to the person doing the hating rather than anything the other does ipso facto* necessarily implies I have fallen into a bear trap and unwittingly found myself hating Israel.

(*Something which you demonstrate over and over again whenever the same action you lambast in Muslims or Jews is something you are happy to let pass, or even defend, when it is carried out by members of your own "cultural ethnicity" or whatever term of evasion you have decided to employ now).

2 May 2014 15:14  
Blogger Ivan said...


David, why don't you just stick to the point, instead of jumbling matters up? Your scattershot way of replying is the reason why nothing can be resolved. It is alright for you to insinuate unchallenged that all Europeans stood by while Jews were trundled off, but heaven forbid if anyone suggests that Jews were less than stellar in their dealings with others. Here Johnny Rotten brings up, one article out of literally hundreds, of Jewish sharp dealing and instead of just agreeing that Jews too can be shits, you them go off on another tangent in order to bore the fellow to death.

2 May 2014 22:53  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Ivan

Jews can be s***s, Christians can be s***s, we can all be s***s, but if you want to permanently look at things through the lens of "group history", and always take the broad-strokes approach to ethnicity, it's only fair to keep a sense of proportion.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but s***ty though some Jews may or may not have been to Simon Montefiore, the world has yet to see Gentile death camps.

By all means feel free to comment on individual behaviour, but if you want to extrapolate from that to a larger group (whatever that group is - Jews, Roma, gays, whoever) then it seems to me that the white European has a far greater collective inheritance of murder, tyranny and the wilful insinuation and destruction of "native" cultures to face up to.

Consistency. That's all.

3 May 2014 01:58  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ David Kavanagh (15:02)—Thank you for addressing the question of Montefiore’s ostracism/self-exclusion; as an outsider, the best I can manage is that after his conversion, Montefiore, knowing he would be ostracized, shrugged his shoulders and excluded himself to save Jews the bother. I continue to maintain it’s an odd way to demonstrate love of neighbour but perhaps there are special rules for apostates, bearing in mind the importance of group solidarity.

But such issues are of secondary importance to me. The bombshell I am still struggling to come to terms with is that, according to Montefiore, Jews see Christians as an enemy, one that maintains ‘an implacable hatred or dislike’ of them. On the principle of an eye for an eye, it seems reasonable to assume that Jews return the favour. As it is the favour no one writes about, we have to rely for evidence on scraps of hearsay à la Thompson and once-in-a-blue-moon revelations from ex-Jews who become bishops, a fairly select club. The wall of silence only reinforces suspicion that Jews have something to hide. Not all Jews, of course, as you make clear.

Such hostility as there is will these days manifest itself at a personal level but one has to wonder whether the concerted takeover of the Polish economy was motivated, if only partly, by feelings of hostility towards the indigenous Christians. For myself, I shall never be able to see Jews in quite the same light again, something I regret. I feel no hostility to Jews. Even if I did, it would be tempered by the knowledge that British and European Jewry is likely to suffer disproportionately as the Muslim population grows and that Israel will be lucky to survive the century.

The ‘alleged group characteristics’ Kevin MacDonald attributes to Jews may pleasantly surprise you:

● Judaism is a self-imposed, non-coerced evolutionary strategy, although at times anti-Semitic actions have had effects that dovetailed with Judaism as an evolutionary strategy
● Judaism is a fairly closed group strategy in which much effort has been devoted to resisting genetic assimilation with surrounding populations, and, moreover, this effort has been substantially successful
● Jews have typically engaged in resource and reproductive competition with gentile societies, often successfully
● There is a significant (but limited) degree of within-group altruism, traditionally reinforced by powerful social controls and always enshrined in religious ideology
● There is a significant degree of role specialization, specifically specialization for a role in society above the level of primary producer characterized by cultural and eugenic practices [centred] around intelligence, the personality trait of conscientiousness, high-investment parenting and group allegiance

Not a bad CV. If it’s any comfort, MacDonald also dissects the group strategies of Gypsies, Amish, Hutterites, Calvinists, Puritans, and Overseas Chinese. If he lives long enough, he will doubtless subject the English to the same analysis when they become a minority. Perhaps it was the very success of Jews that proved their Achilles heel. Their success and their closed group strategy alienated the man in the street and when governments turned against them as well…

I wish you had told me about the Damian Thompson blog. It would have saved me the trouble of Googling it. This is the last major contribution I shall make to this thread.

3 May 2014 20:20  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Johnny,

As you've said you will not make any further major contribution to this thread, I won't respond to this post and allow the discussion to rest 'as is'. We shall doubtless clash on other threads. Until then.

DK

3 May 2014 21:51  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Ivan,

Thought you weren't saying anything further on this thread?

Oh well, I'm probably boring you to death. I assume this is because you are unable to grasp an argument unless it comes in bite sized pieces the size of half a golf ball. Your beef. Not mine.

I've given comprehensive responses to Johnny here. The 'scatter gun approach' is not mine. Johnny responded to a post I made about whether or not Jews of the Holocaust were victimless in what happened to them, NOT ABOUT EUROPEANS STANDING BY WHILE JEWS WERE 'TRUNDLED OFF'.The rest was response and counter response to that.

I guess this is you being deliberately 'contrarian' again. Or a shit stirrer, as I prefer to call it. I disagree (understatement) with Johnny, but at least I believe he is sincere in his view, even if that is utter balls from my view. Start posting your own sincerely held views, let them be aired or feck off with the stirring 'contarian' crap.

3 May 2014 22:05  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ AnonymousInBelfast (15:14 on 2 May)—A minor contribution from me:

You describe as racist my concern that England’s national identity is under threat from Third World immigration. Israel is also concerned that her national identity is under threat from Third World immigration (the link I gave is here). Therefore, if my concern is racist, so is Israel’s. Hence my comment, ‘You’ve just called Israel racist.’ Attacks on Israel are habitually met with an accusation of anti-Semitism so, for completeness, I added ‘that makes you anti-Semitic’.

@ David Kavanagh (21:51 on 3 May)—It’s been an enjoyable discussion that has given my brain some much-needed exercise. As I type slowly and think even more slowly, I found the debate was demanding more time than I can currently spare and, reluctantly, I had to call a halt. Until next time.

4 May 2014 14:20  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older