Lord Phillips & Sharia Law: A False Flag Operation?

I feel a bit grubby today. I had to scrub my hands and have a jolly good wash before I started work.

Right: Populist "anti-Jihadi" material can be amusing... but is often used to whip up people to defend 'liberal democracy' whilst people opposing (for example) homosexuality and Judaism are at best portrayed as "extremists" and even possibly get a knock on the door from the political police.

Yes, I have a confession to make to you. I.... no, I can't write this. It's just not right!

OK. Steady now. Fight back the tears. Chest out, chin up. Right. Here we go.

I bought a copy of the Daily Express!

Yes!

It's true! Oh the shame! Oh the ignominy!

I can feel my invitations to polite society functions drying up as I type this.

I had to ask the (White!!!) newsagent for a plain brown paper bag to put it in before I left the shop for fear of being spotted down the high street with such nefarious reading material.

So what possessed me to swallow my pride and go to the counter red-faced eager to pass over the 40p, get the paper in a bag and scuttle out of the shop as quickly as possible?

I scanned the headlines for news on the issue that the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips, had said Shariah Law could be justified in the UK.

No doubt the Daily Mail would cover it best - perhaps with input from the Lilliputians Melanie Phillips or Richard Littlejohn. Yet it was sold out, so I had to plump for Richard 'Dirty' Desmond's offering. Desmond publishes the Express in which he tries to mimic the moral outrage of the middle classes, yet he also owns quite a few TV porno channels (the magazine Private Eye regularly entertains its readers by juxtaposing Express moralising with titles from Desmond's porn offerings).

What did my perusal of the Express teach me? Little more than I expected, various Neo Cons, Tories and similar were screeching. A Tory MP hurrumphed "This is totally unacceptable."

Indeed.

So why is it OK then for Jewish autonomous courts to oversee problems in Jewish families (this is exactly what Lord Phillips was suggesting re. Muslim families) and not for Muslims?

Do we have a double standard when it comes to dealing with Jews and Muslims?

This Talmudic law set-up is already in practice and recognised by the courts. Even the arch-Zionist and whitewasher of Israeli crimes (no, not Lee Barnes!) Melanie Phillips had to recognise this basic fact a few months back on the BBC's Question Time programme.

When she had to admit to the existence of these Jewish courts, and recognition of them by the UK law courts, it took the wind right out of Ms. Phillips's sails. Oh you could see she was longing to launch into a tirade against Islam and "Islamic extremists." But how could she do that without allowing others to launch into tirades against Judaism and "Jewish extremists," such as herself!

But there's more dear reader! (Oh yeah - I'm not finished yet...)

Did you know there's an officially recognised Jewish area in London? Oh yes!

There is an area of London which has a wire going around it on poles. I don't know who paid for this, who maintains it, but I suspect it had government and planning approval. This means that within this area Jews can travel about and do other things (I don't know Jewish Talmudist rules and their anally retentive "laws") on their Sabbath (Saturday).

The idea that we are starting down the road of handing over England to a foreign, invading, offensive and anti-Christian religion is false!

Talmudic Judaism (which is all of the above) is already well and truly encroaching on the judicial and governmental (not to say financial and entertainment) spheres of this land.

But there's more!

There is a state funded school in North London that blocks admissions from people outside a certain racial group. Even more, it even blocks admissions from families that aren't exactly of the racial type they want.

Where is this hotbed of discrimination and racial prejudice?

The JFS, formerly the Jewish Free School, recently refused a place to an 11-year-old boy whose mother had converted to Judaism (though I understand the father is Jewish).

Here's a quote from a linked article below:

Dinah Rose, QC, representing [the child], said that the school would accept a child of Jewish-born “committed atheists” but exclude others who are “Jewish by belief and practice” because of their mother's descent.

That, my friends is racism no matter how the courts whitewash it by comparing it to Muslim or Christian schools.

if I convert to Islam or any Christian denomination I would get into one of their schools (indeed it's well known that Christian and Muslim schools welcome those from outside their religions - though few if any choose to go to Muslim ones. Catholic schools, on the other hand, accept a wide range of children whose parents want to get them in to schools which perform well).

If a Muslim or Jew converted to Anglicanism or Catholicism do you think it would be lawful for a CofE or RC School to block them because they were born otherwise? Even if the rest of the family were CofE or RC?

Yet a Jewish school can block children on racial (not religious!) grounds and the courts find an excuse for them??? It's crazy!

So as you travel through cyberspace in the next few hours or days and witness the Neo Con, Zionist and Tory denunciations of Lord Phillips and Shariah Law, wonder why these same people have stayed quiet over the system's acceptance of Jewish religious law, Jewish racism and an official Jewish zone in our capital city.

Or is "Islamophobia" more acceptable than "anti-Semitism?" Out of interest, I have little brief for either term.

Left: Islamic Nazis from Bosnia. These are the kind of images that Neo-Cons love to use as it brings all the bogeymen together!

There was a time when Christian laws forbade usury. There was even a time, not so long ago (and some say it still is on the statute books), when Christian law forbade blasphemy and promotion of foul language. There was certainly a time when Christian law ensured the correct line was taken on homosexuality and abortion.

Yet in today's humanist, relativist society those times have passed. Rights for everyone in the wrong, including criminals, is all the rage.

We face a battle in which humanism wants to integrate certain aspects of Muslim, Jewish and yes even Christian laws - but all in a very low-level way so as to enshrine some kind of "multi-culti" inclusiveness. At the same time the defendants of the humanist system are seeking to treat the three main religions in distinctly different ways:

1. Christianity. The humanists show little but disdain of the religion of the land. They seek to use human rights legislation, especially but not exclusively on homosexuality, to attack the Church and traditional morals.

2. Judaism. The system gives every encouragement to this religion, allowing it to operate as a law within a law, with its own structures, courts, security groups etc. There is also explicit support from a media which paints any form of criticism as hatred: a position it does not take on either Christianity or Islam. The recent ruling on the JFS (see link below) is an example of "one law for them..."

3. Islam. The system wishes to integrate some minor elements of Islam so that it can be seen to be "inclusive," ironically more for racial than religious reasons. However, the Neo-Con nature of the political and media sections of the establishment means that Islam itself (especially as it takes a more robust line on homosexuality, Judaism etc.) is painted as the main threat to our society - as opposed to the forces who are controlling or undermining the structures of the land.

For nationalists, the choice is clear. We can oppose growing humanism in our lands (including liberalisation of moral laws and partial acceptance of Judaism and Islam) or we can join humanist forces in opposing the Islamist bogeyman.

For nationalists who take a traditional stance, the former choice is obvious. It means defending our traditions and being aware of our enemies from all angles. It won't be easy and we will be painted as "extremists" for opposing the humanist agenda of all the major parties.

For nationalists who want scraps from the top table, who want nice media coverage and who want to fight on the agenda of the Neo Cons, then defending the status quo is the option - and a Pim Fortuyn style of attacking Islam by defending "western liberal democracy" becomes the 'populist' way.

My gut instinct is that the whole Sharia Law episode is what some label a "false flag" operation, designed to whip up hysteria whilst providing a smoke screen for increased liberalism and the Jewish courts already accepted by our justice system.

As some coloured gents in America once said: don't believe the hype.


Link:
Jewish State School Cleared of Race Hate