Thread: BNP Chairman´s statement on the Gaza incident

Originally Posted by British-Conservatism

It isnt.
Your the one defending Commie Cuba.

Defending it? I said it was better than Nazi Germany.

Originally Posted by Wowbanger TIP

They are far for irrefutable, most people believe Fascism to have been a worse phenomenon than Communism. The only argument you have got is that the Communists killed more people but as I have demonstrated since that is not a universal characteristic of Communism then those deaths can not be attributed to it.

Oh really? the extermination, by various means, of 100 million people during the 20th century in at least half a dozen communist dictatorships "is not a universal characteristic of Communism"? Is that meant to be funny?

Originally Posted by Wowbanger TIP

Moreover, as is instinctively recognized by the overwhelming majority of the population, morally communism was far more justified than fascism.

Yes, because they have been brainwashed by 60 years of solid anti-fascist propaganda and the monstrosities of communism have been quietly swept under the carpet. Propaganda is not history. eventually the truth will become more widely known. Fortunately for the communist murderers most of them will be dead by then. I've seen plenty of Nazi hunters. No communist hunters though. It is a demonstration of how people have been hoodwinked.

Bild have just reported the finding of a mass grave of German civilians at Marienburg (now in Poland) of 1800 bodies mostly women and children. The disgraceful (ex) Communist local authorities said "oh, they must have been caught in cross fire". Who will be brought to book for that? Indeed, which communists have been brought to the bar of justice for their exterminations?

Originally Posted by Wowbanger TIP

As for twisting what has been said, you offered Russia as an example of the fact Communism is worse under peacetime conditions the fascism. I offered an explanation for this phenomenon, cultural and economic legacy, and proved the point by offering Cuba as an alternative comparison to Russia. That is not twisting what has been said, that is successfully debating a proposition.

But others, not just me, disagreed with your Cuban example, where virtually everyone lived in abject poverty while the Cuban government found the money to export arms and revolution to central and south America, not to mention over 100,000 interventionist troops in Angloa to shore up the Marxists there.

The simple absolute fact is that any scholar knows that life for the average person in, say, peacetime Italy and Germany under fascism was very good compared to that in the Soviet Union. No comparison whatsoever. You may not like it but you cannot argue that away. How many White Sea ship canals were built outside Russia, with tens of thousands of innocent deaths, buried where they fell. Just one, of a great many, examples.

Originally Posted by London Orbital

I take your points about the balance of power in Europe having largely brought peace since 1815.

I don't. It is a myth. There is no evidence of any substantive nature that the continentals were in the slightest bit concerned about British intervention in their affairs. Russia continually expanded during the 19th century. More to the point, by 1910 its very substantial industries and mines were all fairly new when everyone elses were starting to creak a little. What about the wars in Italy, notably with Louis Napoleon? He was also active in Mexico.

Originally Posted by London Orbital

However there seemed to be no great enthusiasm for containing potential German power from 1919 to 1939, apart from the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, which even Britain and France seemed ultimately unwilling to defend at various times during the 1930s when its terms were being overturned by Germany.

But there was no German "power" to speak of. Their navy was minimal and easily outnumbered. Their air force never reached parity with Britain's. Their army never reached parity with France. This is all a myth. Surely a nation of Germany's size, population, and position whould have had defence forces of parity? That is what they were arguing for.

Originally Posted by London Orbital

If they had meant anything, the Brits and French would not have allowed (from 1936 to 1938) the occupation of the Rhineland, the Sudetenland, the rest of Czechoslavakia, and then Austria.

err...but the Rhineland was part of Germany. An examination of the archival documents relating to this period will give you an entirely different story from the anti-German propaganda which has been dished out. Austria had been calling for union with Germany since 1919. When it happened there was cheering from the rooftops throughout Austria. The shocking 'anschluss' and 'rape of Austria' fed to us is all a myth.

The British and French governments had agreed without any military persuasion that the Sudetenland should not have been given to the Czechs less than 20 years previously and agreed for its separation. When this happened the Slovakians and the Ruthenians started sabre-rattling and appealed to the German government formally for protection if they were to secede from the union forced upon them. They resented being ruled by the Czechs. Then the Poles entered into secret negotiations with the German government saying that they would not oppose the further dismemberment of Czecho-Slovakia on the condition that they were given chunks of it. It becomes clear that this artifical new state was a nonsence and when everything was put to the Czech government they caved in altogether. So the story being peddled here by the politicans, newspapers etc at the time and since is garbage.

Originally Posted by London Orbital

Would it have been correct to have declared war on Germany in 1861 or 1866. Or perhaps the Franco-Prussian war should have developed into a wider European conflict involving Britain.

Germany was not federated in 1861 or 1866 so presumably you are speaking about Prussia? But with regard to that and to the Franco-Prussian war, why on earth should Britain become involved in neighbour disputes which have nothing whatsoever to do with us, especially when engineered by Louis Napoleon.

Originally Posted by London Orbital

I mean, I wonder exactly how large Germany was permitted to become before the British decided it had grown large enough. In fact this position actually makes no sense. We ought to have been able to live with a more powerful Germany. We are forced to now, after all, despite our membership of the European Union.

Agreed. Lets face it. On paper the Holy Roman Empire and Hapsburg Empire (especially for the period that it included Spain) was a far far greater size and 'threat' than Germany ever was. And France had been threatening us since the 100 years war. Why not eliminate them? After all, history shows that they are largely responsible for most of the destructive wars in Europe prior to the 20th century.

I have hesitated to comment on this, but 3 things about The Chairman's intellectual dishonesty compel me.

Firstly, that The Chairman thinks that writing an article about how the BNP has 'no comment' on Israel which clearly sides with Israel is really a position of 'no comment'. If he is willing to comment on the BNP site about this particular international issue, why not others then? Is he a hypocrite or does he take us for dolts? You decide.

Secondly, that The Chairman thinks that the Israel Vs Palestine Grudge Match has 'nothing to do with Britain'. Well, I've not read the rest of this thread, but I dare-say that somebody else may have raised the point that, well, Nazis gassing Jews had 'nothing to do with Britain' but a basic sense of humanity and justice informs us that not to take a stand against such actions would be wrong. Also, when a part of the population ask the Government that there is a global situation that is unjust and what can we do about it, I would expect the government to have a better stock answer than "it's nothing to do with me, guv". If the government does not address the wishes, fears and hopes of it's people, then what kind of a government is that?

Thirdly. Is it not obvious why the BNP would support a Jewish state?

It is often stated in the speeches and utterances of the leading statesmen of National Socialist Germany that a prerequisite of the New Order in Europe requires the radical solution of the Jewish question through evacuation (“Jew-free Europe”).

The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question; but this can only be made possible and complete through the settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine, and through the establishment of a Jewish state in its historic boundaries.

Jan. 11, 1941,
Stern Gang: Solution of Jewish Question and Participation in the War on the Side of Germany (1941)

Avraham Stern wrote that. It was in a letter found in a German embassy. He goes on to say...

The cooperation of the Israeli freedom movement would also be along the lines of one of the last speeches of the German Reich Chancellor, in which Herr Hitler emphasized that he would utilize every combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England.

Gosh. Early Zionists offering to support Nazi Germany? Who'd a thunk it?

Stern went on to write that his organisation (NMO or 'Irgun')

...is closely related to the totalitarian movements of Europe in its ideology and structure.

The fighting capacity of the NMO could never be paralyzed or seriously weakened, neither through strong defensive measures by the English administration and the Arabs, nor by those of the Jewish socialists.

Stern went on to form what is know now as the Stern Gang. But that terrorist organisation is another subject altogether, along with the NMO and I digress.

My point is this. Of course The BNP supports Israel. Why? Because from the standpoint of the BNP, Israel is a country that will readily accept Jews from Britain were the BNP to attain power, in that respect, then, it is very much in the interest of the BNP to support Israel.

I'm not saying that the BNP hates Jews. I'm even aware that the BNP apparently has (still has?) had a Jewish councilor, however, this does not mean that, by the terms of the BNP manifesto, that some Jews will not be required to leave if the BNP were to attain power. The BNP is:

...committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948

BNP Constitution, 9th Edition, 2005

I'm not saying that all Jewish folk will be removed from the country, but clearly, taking the country back to the "overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948" must require some percentage of Jews to be involved in the process of "legal changes, negotiation and consent".

Zionism is of course a very Nationalistic ideology in that Zionists want to have and hold their own country for their own people, this has been clearly demonstrated in the banning of non-Jewish political parties (ahh, Israel, that Middle East bastion of democracy!). So we can see that the BNP shares a nationalistic brotherhood with Zionism. The fact that the leading early Zionists where happy to provide an answer to "solving the Jewish question" (i.e. "the establishment of a Jewish state in its historic boundaries") would probably please the current leadership of the BNP no end, certainly, if the BNP were in power it is surely no secret that such an offer would be firmly grasped at with both hands?

In effect, supporting Israel allows the BNP to kill two birds with one stone. In Israel they have a country which will both gladly accept Jews from Britain, whilst at the same time implementing an apartheid regime against the Palestinians, which largely consist of current BNP figures of hate and political punch bag, the "evil" and "wicked" (according to The Chairman) Muslims.

Very well said.
I had really thought that any party or individual anxious to defend a national character, a national homeland, a majority of indigenous inhabitants would naturally side with the Palestinian position- an indigenous population losing its territory to invaders. Nick Griffin's policy therefore makes no sense. It is devoid of any basic moral substance and leans heavily on hypocrisy in the expectation that such hypocrisy will be invisible if it is wrapped in a blanket of localized and specialized xenophobia-nouveau . Today they came for the Palestinian homeland, Mr. Griffin. Tomorrow they may come for yours.

Still, one can't judge an entire party, or movement, on the failings of its leader. Should the BNP rid itself of the sideways-moving Mr. Griffin it might still have something to offer. Let's have a look.

Edit. My apologies to Mr. Griffin if the amoral views expressed in the opening post of this thread are not his views at all.

Mighty Erick

Moon, you dont understand the position of the BNP. If they ever dared to state the minimal remark on Israel, then the media would start to cry "See? See? They are anti-semite!!!! I told you... Darn! We were right all along!!!".

The only position he could have taken was total neutrality, I totally understand that.

There is another position, Erick, and the sooner it is generally understood the better for everybody, and by 'everybody' I mean the whole world because Zionism is a grave threat to peace.

At the risk of repeating myself, 'Zionism' and 'Judaism' are not synonymous. Neither are 'Israeli' and 'jew' . Neither are 'arab' and 'muslim' , for the benefit of those anxious to play 'pin the swastika'. Furthermore, criminals are criminals no matter what their religion or political color.
Mr. Griffin's position should be , like everybody else's, a compliance with the law and an opposition to those that break it. The situation in Palestine is that the Zionists, Israel's ruling politic at the current time, are criminals. Their occupation of Palestine is illegal and their actions to ethnically cleanse Palestine are illegal, the arrests without trial , extra-judicial killings, demolition of houses, razing of farms and groves, the apartheid barrier, the settlements , the collective punishments, the bombings, shellings, phosphor weapons, cluster munitions, land theft- all are illegal. How can anybody turn a blind eye to this ? Ignoring it is complicity with the criminal elements of Israeli society.
Nobody can call me 'anti-Semitic' for insisting that international and humanitarian law are observed. Nobody could call the BNP 'anti-Semitic' for taking a supportive stance for the Palestinians along with the United Nations. It would be a moral stance, a position which could be respected, a worthwhile cause because it is just, legal and mirrors the position of support for any cultural group threatened with extinction. That's an admirable position, worthy of emulation. Who wants to emulate doing nothing ?
Times are changing, Erick. The Zionists have already squandered most of the sympathy for the victims of WW2, squandered it by way of fascist laws and actions, squandered it by continuing their policies of 'brutal compulsion' against their Palestinian prisoners even though the world is watching. Opposing Zionist brutality is a policy of decency which all democracies should adopt, even the USA in time, because Zionism is fascism. Criminal Zionists deserve the same punishments as any other criminals. A criminal jew is a criminal and the cry of 'anti-Semitism' is simply designed to keep him out of the slammer. If the BNP can't navigate that obvious and redundant canard then there is something seriously amiss with its vision of itself. Even jews in New York take to the streets and demonstrate against the brutal Zionist movement which uses their religion as a cloak. You want they should be jewish anti-Semites now ?

It's Hitler's Curse, people.

There's not one damn thing any of you can do about aggressive Zionism.
Get used to it.