Recently, the controversy about halal meat being supplied covertly to people has surfaced again in Britain. It has generated the usual responses from multicultists, many of them Jews, insisting that concern by animal welfare is only being feigned by those who, in reality, are motivated by anti-Muslim prejudice. As I have discussed many times, this is an example of the Oriental-style discourse, which unfortunately now become dominant in Europe, which insists on evaluating political propositions, not according to their intrinsic merits, but according to the presumed moral purity of the motivation that lies behind them. The logical consequence of this type of discourse prevailing is the end of democracy itself, since once every faction has conceptualised the opposition as "wickedly motivated" and therefore invalid, civil co-existence becomes impossible and there really is nothing left to do but fight. Anyone who defends themselves against these accusations of impure motivation implicitly validates this form of discourse. It illustrates the pattern of moving from the objective realm of action to the subjective realm of what goes on inside people's heads, a phenonenon I see occur repeatedly as I contemplate the lunacy we are living through.
In the recent spate of articles, quite a few demands have been made that halal meat at least be properly labelled, so consumers can make an informed choice. Left out of most of the discussions is the role of the Jewish lobby in collaborating with the Muslims to ensure that this has not happened. There were a few occasions in the past when it looked like a labelling requirement might make it into law. Always, the Jews intervened to see it off. Even though Muslims represent a far larger share of the population, the Jews are clearly more powerful.
I found one interesting nugget in an otherwise worthless article on the subject in the Observer today. The author claims that Muslims account for 4.8% of the British population, yet 12-15% of meat consumption in the country. The 4.8% figure presumably comes from the census. But there have been recurring suspicions that the census provides an inaccurate overview of the extent of Muslim colonisation because of illegal immigration and the reluctance even of legally settled Muslims to participate in the census exercise. The author doesn't specify where she gets the Muslim meat consumption of 12-15% from. Assuming it is reliable, how could Muslim meat consumption be so enormously out of whack with their share of the population? Do Muslims really eat three times more meat than anyone else? It seems hard to believe. Could it be that the real Muslim population is significantly higher than the 5% indicated in the census?