As new and more sweeping race hate laws have been
introduced into Parliament, Zionist MPs have ensured that they should be
so worded that if members of ethnic minorities feel or imagine that they
have been insulted, the person they accuse is thereby deemed to have committed
the offence. (Under English Common Law we would have been deemed innocent
unless proved guilty.) During the last few years these same MPs have been
seeking to have similar laws applied to religion as well as race. Considerable
pressure is also being applied elsewhere, and the first Racial and Religions
Vilification Bill has been introduced in the Victoria State
Parliament in Australia.
This Bill criminalises strong missionary activity and the vigorous proselytising of religious groups. This is in line with the UN Children's Rights Charter, suggesting that they have a "right" to be protected from religious indoctrination. That Charter only allows a Marxist/Humanist outlook. The Bill also seeks to criminalise " ...The possession of written or pictorial material strongly presenting religious beliefs and criticising opposing theological beliefs". If such material is considered to "create or promote or increase hatred of any group of persons on the grounds of their race or religion" that is an offence. The penalties proposed are fines of Aus.$6,000 or six months imprisonment.
We can now see why there has been an upsurge of Zionist
propaganda suggesting that Christian teaching criticising the Pharisees
— "whitened sepulchres" — and their criminal act in having Christ crucified,
is an insult to all Jews. Yet the Crucifixion, followed by the Resurrection,
Ascension into Heaven, and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost are
central to the Christian faith. At the same time the Zionists are seeking
to establish that to draw attention to the vicious anti-Christian passages
in The Talmud is an offence under present race laws
which they themselves caused to be enacted.
On the theological level there is the question of
the Old and the New Covenants. The Old Covenant was that given to Moses.
As well as the Ten Commandments there were laws governing worship. The
inner sanctuary of first a tent and later the Temple in Jerusalem was in
two parts: an outer part called the "Holy Place", and the inner part called
"The Holy of Holies" in which was placed the Ark of the Covenant. The Lord
was believed to be present there. The end of the Old Covenant was symbolised
by the destruction of the "Holy of Holies" as Christ died on the Cross.
"And, behold, the veil of the Temple was rent in twain from the top to
the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;" (Matthew
27, 51). That was followed by the total destruction of Jerusalem
in 70 AD.
Robert Maxwell had acquired a plot in an Oxfordshire graveyard for himself and his family, but he later decided that he wished to be buried at a prime site on the Mount of Olives. (The breaking of the ground alone costs £100,000 plus.) The prophet Ezekiel had indicated that when the Messiah came graves would open and people would rise from the dead, and it has been reported that he wished to be one of the first to rise. But that prophesy has already been fulfilled. When Christ died " ... the earth did quake, and the rocks rent", and St. Matthew continues "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many". This raises an interesting question. The banker said that "anti-semitism is indispensible to us for the management of our lesser brethren". The Jewish Chronicle and other papers written for Jews repeatedly carry stories of allegedly anti- semitic incidents, and prominent among these are cases of desecration of graves. Is it being unduly cynical to note that a large proportion of the incidents seem to portray a Jewish rather than a Gentile mentality?
In Annex C is given details of instructions to members of pressure groups committed to the use of violence, including groups from the United Kingdom. These instructions included:
" Installations to be attacked professionally. They had plans and the methods of attack were practised. But it was to be made to look like amateurs. This was to make it harder to detect,In 1979 to 1982 there were a series of race riots— ostensibly amateur events said by the media to be "spontaneous". But at the time of the Brixton riot, for example, there were also riots across other main traffic
and to delay the conclusion that there is a real organised force behind the operations."
Since then, at the instigation of Zionist activists in Parliament, the previous Riot Act, specifying that three or more people could be prosecuted for provoking a riot has been repealed and replaced by the Public Order Act of 1986, which states that there must be twelve or more before a group can be deemed to have started a riot. Also, the present situation is that if a member of an "ethnic minority" attacks ordinary English people it is only the actual offence that constitutes a crime, while if the English are provoked to retaliate they are deemed to have also committed a "more serious" racist offence. After a particularly revolting torture case, when the Special Branch were ordered not to investigate, I discovered that for 20 years, and probably for over 30 years, there has been an arrangement whereby cases of grievous bodily harm, torture, arson, and so on, committed by members ofthe Board of Deputies, their 'Heavy Gang' or their agents, are not investigated nor are the perpetrators prosecuted.
Members of ethnic minority groups willing to indulge
in violence have been collected together in the Anti-Racist Alliance (ARA).
As with the environmental pressure groups many people who are unaware of
primary purpose are being encouraged to join in order to swell its membership and thus their claim that the extremists have broadly-based support. The ARA has provided a platform for the Zionist planners to
go a stage further, this time aiming to link the prevention of effective opposition to a planned "revolution" with further attacks on the Christian Churches.
Many complaints of alleged "racial harassment" are malicious, and so are not taken seriously by our overworked police forces, themselves under attack. It must not be forgotten that since the introduction of the 1957 Act into Parliament all Criminal Justice Acts have sought to place more and more obstacles in the way of attempts by the police to maintain "law and order", and actively to assist criminals. According to the Jewish Chronicle (9 April 1993) a Bill that is intended shall be introduced into the British Parliament this summer (1993) will include clauses making it a legal requirement for the police to fully investigate racial and religious complaints by members of minority groups.
The ostensible reason for introducing the religious
(and anti-Christian) element is that the Jews are not an "ethnic minority".
Judaism is a religion, with very few members of Hebrew descent. Most belong
to other races. Their religion is therefore the only cohesive factor. And
so for this ostensible reason the Bill aims to outlaw religious intolerance,
so as to include Zionists among the potential complainants. Given the present
immunity of members of the Zionist faction from prosecution for crimes
of violence, no doubt they expect that any anti-
Christian activities they indulge in would have the same immunity. As with the Australian Bill, the fundamental teachings of Christianity could be interpreted as an attack on the Jewish religion. Mandatory investiga-
tion of complaints by the police could put Christians in the police forces in an intolerable position.