David Craig, on March 18th, 2019(Monday blog)
What to write about?
Footballing fun?
I’ve got an idea. I could show you a short video clip of some people from a certain religious persuasion laughing as they play football with some human heads they’ve just cut off from some of those they consider their enemies. But that would be a hate crime.
No, you maybe misunderstand. Laughing while playing football with human heads isn’t considered a ‘hate crime’. In fact, if any of those ‘footballers’ were British and decided to return to the UK, the authorities would welcome them with open arms, put them at the top of the queue for council housing, give them loads of benefits and spend millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money supposedly deradicalising them. In the eyes of the British police, those who chopped off human heads and then played football with them wouldn’t have committed a ‘hate crime’. But if I were to feature the video or even just give you a link to the video, I would be considered as having deliberately tried to stir up hate.
Love that cross?
Or I could show you a short video clip of a gentleman from a certain religious persuasion cutting one hand and one foot off a man who has been crucified but is still alive. In cutting off the hand and foot from different sides of the victim’s body, the chopper would be obeying instructions given in a certain quite famous book.
No, you maybe misunderstand. Crucifying someone and cutting off one hand and one foot wouldn’t be considered a ‘hate crime’. Nor would the book which instructs its followers to cut the hand and foot from different sides of the victim’s body be considered as inciting hate or violence. In fact, if the crucifiers and the man who chopped off the victim’s hand and foot were British and decided to return to the UK, the authorities would welcome them with open arms, put them at the top of the queue for council housing, give them loads of benefits and spend millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money supposedly deradicalising them. In the eyes of the British police, those who crucify their supposed enemies and who cut off hands and feet wouldn’t have committed a ‘hate crime’. Nor would the book which told them to do this be considered as promoting violence. But if I were to feature the video or even just give you a link to the video, I would be considered as having deliberately tried to stir up hate and violence.
I could even quote the exact passage from that book (in Arabic and/or English) about crucifying and cutting off the hand and foot or I could just give you the verse number. But if I did that, I would probably be accused of hate speech whereas the book itself would never be banned because of hate speech.
We’re seeing exactly the same situation across Europe. In France, for example, bankers’ globalist glove puppet Macron is trying to have his anti-immigration opponent Marine Le Pen prosecuted for supposedly inciting hatred by tweeting some pictures of ISIL beheadings. At the same time Macron’s government is welcoming back French Jihadis who were responsible for such beheadings and worse.
And in Sweden and Germany, bloodthirsty, twisted,violent and dangerous Jihadis are also being welcomed back with homes, money and all sorts of other kinds of help. But should a white, indigenous Swede or German dare suggest that these people have been a bit naughty, then they’re immediately branded a racist, bigot and Izlumophobe and will probably be hauled in by the police for interrogation and then prosecution.
It’s a funny old world we live in, isn’t it?
Censored?
At the weekend, I tried to post a totally innocuous comment on the Times website pointing out that of the 355 terrorist attacks committed so far in 2019, only one had been carried out by a right-wing extremist and the other 354 had been the work of gentlemen from our most favouritest, wonderfullest religion. Less than a minute passed before the Times moderators deleted my comment. Our rulers don’t want people knowing the truth about the dangers facing us.
Mission impossible?
Following the Christchurch attack, it’s going to be increasingly difficult to write a blog without Plod smashing down my front door and doing a Kevin Crehan on me.
I hope readers will bear this in mind when judging any blogs I may write in the future.
Category: 
You are correct David, it is a funny old world we live in, but the sad part is it’s going to get a lot morther funnier….
Oh how we will laugh !!
Kalergi.
Barcelona.
Marrakesh.
How quickly the Marxist meedja forget Bataclan, Barcelona, Berlin, Belgium…and that’s just a few ‘B’s.
I didn’t see a media Dianafest about this: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/01/bombs-target-church-philippines-jolo-island-190127050818906.html
There was an article in the Telegraph over the weekend, written by a Muslim entitled: “Like Isil murderers, far-Right racists want to destroy our pluralistic societies.” When I last looked, it had over a thousand hostile comments, including mine who pinched that ‘355 terrorist attacks, only one by a ‘right wing extremist’ – which wasn’t censored. A milder, but apt comment came from a ‘Fred Bloggs:’
What is this “pluralistic society” of which you speak?
My home town has a large Pakistani Muslim population, many of them recently arrived. We are not part of the same society, in any meaningful sense.
Increasing numbers of them do not speak my language, nor do I speak theirs. I do not recognise or observe their festivals and holidays, nor do they show any interest in mine. They congregate in closed communities, focussed around centres of a religion alien to this land.
They do not recognise the paramountcy of our laws. Their marriages do not comply with our laws. They practice sequestration of their womenfolk, importation of spouse’s, arranged marriage and demand religious conversion.
Their diet is not mine, which they reject as unclean or forbidden; their recreations are unintelligible to me and they show no interest in mine.
We exist in separate enclaves, with an interface of mistrust. Successive laws have given them the right to have unsubstantiated, wholly subjective allegations accorded the full weight of proof in a court of law; a decidedly one-way privilege.
In what sense are we a “society”?
But I know we are doomed when on our local TV programme featured a local Rugby League match – and they were having a minutes silence over the Christchurch shootings!
WTF has a rugby match in Britain to do with an incident in NZ!
Good article in the Telegraph today about the folly of introducing a law against ‘Islamophobia.’ by Charles Moore – unfortunately pay to view.
Isn’t this really an issue of freedom of speech rather than blogging? Where do we see rational debate these days? The Commons is two sides shouting at each other. Question Time is now often the same. I don’t know whether the figures you posted on The Times website are correct but if the paper is interested in accuracy and debate it should have posted a correction, not removed a post it did not like. I gave up with The Times about two years ago because it exercised no control over comments that were simply insults.
I thought your prompt post of 15 March was spot on. The media and politicians did exactly as you predicted and have bombarded us with propaganda about right wing terrorists. This issue is really about governments failing to keep their citizens safe from attacks from anybody. But they have restricted our freedom of speech so much that we can only now criticise right wing extremists and the media is not doing its job of providing a balanced view. Jacinda is milling the situation as much as possible with her fake tears. This is how the politicians avoid dealing with their failure to keep us safe. The gun laws in NZ are disgraceful and no attempt has been made to change them. Did the NZ government think they were immune from attacks? Wait until the rapes start and NZ hardly has a good record on protecting women anyway.
VonVeezil is correct. All extremist are now right wing. This is because the media and all governments lean to the left and socialism is all about equality and rights so it cannot possibly produce extremists.
I am reading Douglas Murray’s book on the Death of Europe and he discusses the reasoning of EU politicians, especially Merkel, for accepting immigrants. The EU is protecting people escaping from violence and I think that there are about 600,000 deaths a year from war and violence. Compare this with the millions of deaths from starvation and poor health. The polticians are not dealing with the major problem, they are just dealing with the problem arriving on their borders without any concern about the implications for the existing populations. People can escape from wars, they cannot escape from starvation and sickness and Merkel has no sympathy for them.
It’s all very simple when you understand that the State wants civil war and is doing everything it can to bait the white Christian man into reacting violently.
Those stupid government policies and decisions don’t seem so stupid once you understand the agenda.