You’re [not] free to speak.

At approximately 3pm on the 27th of April, 2014, chairman of the political party Liberty GB, Paul Weston, was arrested by 6 police officers. Why, you ask!? For reciting the following quote by the late, great Sir Winston Churchill:

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 ā€“ either as a child, a wife, or a concubine ā€“ 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 quote originates from Churchill’s 1899 publication ‘The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan‘ which offers an insight into his personal experiences and observations as an Army Officer during the Mahdist War in Sudan. Not only did Winston’s esteemed political career span a period of 40 years, he was also an accomplished author, having captured the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953 “for his mastery of historical and biographical description as well as for brilliant oratory in defending exalted human values”.

Yet some 61 years on, a mere recitation of Churchill’s once enamored literature has lead a politician straight to the back of a paddy-wagon. This begs the question: If Churchill were alive today would he even be allowed to speak his mind, let alone be revered for it? Worse yet, would it lead to his arrest?

The great conundrum in the situation at hand is that the quote is an expressive analysis of an ideology that – quite literally – permits the murder and oppression of the vast majority of the United Kingdom’s established and native non-Muslim populace; an ideology that literally harbors cultural and religious supremacy, and a demographic that is forced to undertake and uphold the belief that the Prophet Muhammad is the ‘perfect Muslim’ and therefore perfect human. This being a man who, by the way, married a 6-year-old (slept with/raped at 9) and ordered the murder, rape, and pillage of countless. Indeed, pledging allegiance to such an ideology before your country and countrymen appears to me to be far more criminal than the likes of which Churchill or Weston have done: simply offer an analysis of it.

Similarly, the hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Muslim ‘protesters’ across not only the United Kingdom but wider Europe, are quite often documented spreading anti-Western hatred. Picket signs calling for the death of infidels (non-believers, non-Muslims) are not necessarily uncommon. Anjem Choudary, despite wide-spread calls for his deportation, has a long-standing history of public radical Islamic doctrine; refusing to condemn terrorist attacks on British soil, and going so far as to refer to the 9/11 terrorists as ‘magnificent martyrs’.

Yet these instances and those like them are seldom seen as criminal acts, nor are they punished through arrest or law despite being a much larger threat to a nation’s social fabric and cohesiveness than anything Weston has done. At least, that is, to anybody with an ounce of commonsense that isn’t buried beneath their own misplaced sense of white guilt.

In Australia, the current conservative party in power has proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975. The proposed amendments would bring stringency and decisiveness to the otherwise vague and flimsy wording of sections 18C & 18D, which can see a person imprisoned on the grounds of an individual’s sensitivity and their ability to whine and cry foul. Currently, the proposal is opposed by ~88% of citizens according to multiple opinion polls, despite the fact that the amendments would no more afford a person the ability to denigrate a person’s character or social standing based on their race or ethnicity than they currently do.

Not without irony, president Gillian Triggs of the Human Rights Commission sees the validity of the amendments, having stated during an address to the National Press Club that she agrees the “bar has been set too low”.

Australian politician Bob Carr, in his book ‘Diaries of a Foreign Minister’, calls into question a Jewish Lobby’s perceived stranglehold over the Australian Labor party. This resulted in widespread media coverage that saw Jewish politician and member for Melbourne Ports Michael Danby to label Bob Carr a “bigot”. While Carr’s observational recount of his time as Foreign Minister suggests nothing of dislike, hatred or bias against Jewish people, Michael Danby’s provocative assumption is one that is a direct attack on Carr’s character. Yet who, in the end, was the person being ostracized by media and public? Carr, of course.

It stands to reason then, in my view, that the issues we face in regard to freedom of speech are as much a societal problem as they are a problem of law. And so long as they remain a societal problem, the greater the chance of radical opportunists invoking damaging interpretations of law and the potential enactment of new laws themselves.

In affording minorities of non-Western backgrounds the freedoms and civil liberties of the West, we have slowly locked ourselves out from them. In giving one protection, we remove multiple rights. Yet the hypocrisy stands tall, as the imbalance of our policy and priority both in society and in the interpretation of law continues to allow those we mistakenly see as disadvantaged to hold the one great trump card: The race card.

This is how the West was Lost.

10 thoughts on “You’re [not] free to speak.

  1. This article, as I would call it, it laughable. The fact that you’re reffering to Churchill as great is despicable.

    1. Yes, the blind worship of blatant war criminals who care not for the people is frightening when you consider how many people actually truly think this way. Churchill was a corrupt leader with selfish goals but since he was part of the winning side we have been hammered with propaganda with the intention of painting him in a better light. Sadly it has worked on a massive scale and people think of him as a hero. The article was well written, it’s just too bad the writer didn’t have something better to write about.

      1. I struggle to reciprocate your sentiment, especially considering you refer to propaganda being the shining beacon for the perception of Churchill, yet go on to mention media agenda concerning race wars; the very propaganda that has allowed for the interpretation of law to ostracize members of the public and of parliament for simply reciting the works of one of the UK’s largest historical figures.

        BTW, general disclaimer: You’re welcome to post anything in response to my blogs that you wish, constructive and non-constructive criticism alike. Appreciate the response.

      2. I think the writer is very brave in scratching the surface of a very deep issue. Most are as blind to the immigration war as they are to the demolition of building 7 on 9/11 that the BBC mistakenly pre announced.

        Some are aware of one issue, and some of the other, and a few of both.

        Turth4Thought is right about the media’s race war agenda, as he would be right about white race discrimination agenda, and the Christian faith discrimination agenda, and as from the winter olympics the reignited cold war Russian discrimination agenda.

        Which ever of the media’s agenda you are personally aware of, the likely hood is you are unaware of the others. None of us like to admit we have been had. The only way out is to make some independent research and test both your assumptions/facts as much as those assumptions/facts you oppose.

        I.e. with regards to Ukrain. Watch both the BBC and RT, as both have agendas and contain propaganda. If you only watch one – well then you have fallen prey. don’t generally like to admit 9/11 was run by higher powers than Al-Qaeda, but it is these higher powers that are more of a problem than the jihad, which can be seen clearly in the case of Paul Weston, and the denial of his free speech to pass on Churchill’s insight and warnings about the Muslim ideology.

        It is the Ideology followed by Muslims that is more inimical to the occidental ways than the mass immigration or baby jihad. And because it is the ideology that is being drawn under inspection, and not the people, there is and never can be any question of race involved here.

        For a long time I have been happier to point out 9/11 truth than the problems the young, the weak, the gays, the female, the Christians, and the Jews face everyday from those following the Islamic ideology. All I can say is sorry to them and especially the “Christians Are Being Burned Alive, Beheaded, Crucified, Tortured To Death & Imprisoned”, is please forgive me.

        All replies to this post will be scanned, categorised, analysed, and sold or given to the business or security agencies that pay or threaten the most. What more could you want? Free speech?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s