BNP Chairman Nick Griffin on the continuing conflict with Hamas in Gaza

[Fortis]

We have said nothing, quite simply, because it’s nothing to do with Britain, and therefore nothing to do with the British National Party. That is the simple answer to the number of newer readers who have emailed recently to ask why this website has said nothing about the current number one international news topic - Israel’s targeted but massive air and ground response to indiscriminate but relatively feeble Hamas missile strikes on Israeli civilians.

The fighting in Gaza is not a proper concern for a British political party - especially at a time when the Bankers’ Bust threatens the livelihoods of millions and what little remains of the social cohesion of our own country. One of the core tenets of our nationalist philosophy is that Britain should keep completely out of other people’s quarrels and wars unless there are clear issues of our own national interest to give us the right, and our government the duty, to interfere.

Beyond that, as nationalists and not imperialists, we recognise the right of every other people under the sun to seek to secure self-determination on a patch of earth that is their historic and spiritual homeland, and the duty of every government of such a nation-state to protect its citizens from terrorism or oppression.

That includes both the Israelis and the Palestinians, but while we instinctively would suggest that a land-for-peace, two-state solution is the most likely way to square their very differing ambitions, in the end it is entirely up to them whether they make peace or continue fighting from now until Judgement Day. It really isn’t any of our business.

A superficially logical argument has been made by several of our readers to the effect that the endless television coverage of dead or injured Palestinian children (the anti-Israeli bias of the leftist BBC is particularly marked) will inflame Islamist extremists against not only Israel but also against other Western states, including the UK and our soldiers currently stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reality, however, is not only that our troops should not be there in any case (and never should have been, for thy are two patches of howling desert that have nothing to do with Britain) but that Islamist ‘extremists’ need no ‘inflaming’. The massively influential Wahhabi and Deobandi sects behind most Sunni ‘extremism’ were alive and kicking, against the West in general and Britain in particular, decades or indeed a century before the state of Israel came into existence.

Indeed, the destruction of Israel (which is the generally stated aim of all the far-left and Muslim demonstrators screaming and on occasion rioting outside the Israeli Embassy in London, and the generally unstated aim of the far smaller number of neo-Nazi cranks siding with them on the Internet) would most definitely not placate a single hardline Muslim.

One of the fundamental lessons of the West’s long and at times desperate defence against Islam’s institutionalised aggression, sexual predation and imperialism, is that every victory for Islamic fighters reinforces the hysterical certainty in the word of the Prophet and in Islam’s self-proclaimed destiny to conquer the entire world.

The destruction of Israel would not send Islam back into a peaceful slumber, but would merely inspire and radicalise a whole new generation of Jihadist fanatics with the idea that the hour of their final triumph against the ‘Crusaders’ had been signalled by the collapse of the latter’s ‘Zionist outpost’ on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean. This would lead as a direct and immediate consequence to:

1) Renewed acts of ethno-religious cleansing against the non-Muslim remnants of the earlier populations of the Dar al Islam (lands which have already submitted to Allah);

2) A fresh confidence in the plan to re-partition India and establish a contiguous ‘Moghulstan’ taking in Pakistan, the Kashmir, huge swathes of northern India and Bangladesh;

3) A stepping up of the pressure through demographics and violence to reconquer further swathes of the Balkans and the southern edges of Russia;

4) Even more strenuous efforts to hasten the conquest - by demography, immigration, conversion, subversion and, when the time is right, force - of Western Europe and, a generation or so later, North America.

While Israel’s no-holds barred self-defence undoubtedly gives Islamist recruiters good material with which to radicalise some of their less motivated brethren, Israel’s extinction would provide them with even stronger arguments in favour of Jihad. The most elementary study of their rhetoric shows that they do not regard Israel as the great enemy, merely as the catspaw of Christendom. They may be right or they may be wrong, but that is what they believe; the destruction of Israel would therefore make them even bolder and more aggressive. Thus while we would oppose any move to entangle Britain in war on behalf of Israel, it is in our clear national interest that it should survive.

Whether that survival is made any more or less likely by responding on such a scale to the cynical provocations by Hamas is another matter, but that judgement is for Israelis to make at the ballot box, and not for us.

Westerners should concentrate on the key matter that concerns us. Our people must understand that Islam is not a mutated version of Christianity with a pacifist core in which the Meek will inherit the earth; it’s a creed of War and the Sword. It is inflamed by victory, and encouraged by successive advances. Once they start fighting, the only thing its followers understand is defeat. The centuries in which Islam has slumbered have all followed massive defeats which shattered the conceit that its date with Destiny and world domination was just around the corner.

Tours, Lepanto, Vienna, and even in its lesser way Omdurman, all show that Islam defeated is Islam tamed. The burning of the ancient Library of Alexandria, the obliteration of Christian North Africa, the Islamist genocides in India, the destruction of Byzantium, the repeated rape of the Balkans, the ceaseless efforts to take Europe - all show that when Islam takes a foot it wants a hundred miles.

That is the nature of the great Beast of our times. It can be defeated and put back to sleep. Its modern prestige and especially the power of the Sunni and Shi-ite fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Iran is based on one thing. It certainly isn’t military prowess, as the American, British and Israeli machines have all shown over and over again. Nor is it about guerrilla warfare successes of the kind seen in Afghanistan and Lebanon, which may yet emerge in Gaza.

The real motor of Jihad is oil money. The move to a post-oil world will be difficult even for the West, but once it is properly underway the resulting crash in the income of the fundamentalist paymasters of Islamic expansionism and terror will force them to stop worrying about conquering the world and to concentrate on looking after their own people or risk ending up riddled with bullets.

It can’t happen too soon, and developing the technologies and economic model needed to wean ourselves off oil, and the perpetual growth superstition it has fostered, is the very best way to deal with the instability of a Middle East that should have nothing to do with us. In the meantime, we will go back to ignoring Gaza and concentrate on the things that matter to our people.

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/01/%e2%80%9cisrael%e2%80%99s-gaza-affair%e2%80%9d-by-bnp-leader-nick-griffin/

[mord]

Great opinion piece

[q_q_]

That is an excellent article..  great clarity and quality and analysis.  And also totally consistent with Rabbi Kahane's principle that countries should do what is in their own interest.

[Muck DeFuslims]

We have said nothing, quite simply, because it’s nothing to do with Britain, and therefore nothing to do with the British National Party. That is the simple answer to the number of newer readers who have emailed recently to ask why this website has said nothing about the current number one international news topic - Israel’s targeted but massive air and ground response to indiscriminate but relatively feeble Hamas missile strikes on Israeli civilians.

The fighting in Gaza is not a proper concern for a British political party - especially at a time when the Bankers’ Bust threatens the livelihoods of millions and what little remains of the social cohesion of our own country. One of the core tenets of our nationalist philosophy is that Britain should keep completely out of other people’s quarrels and wars unless there are clear issues of our own national interest to give us the right, and our government the duty, to interfere.

Beyond that, as nationalists and not imperialists, we recognise the right of every other people under the sun to seek to secure self-determination on a patch of earth that is their historic and spiritual homeland, and the duty of every government of such a nation-state to protect its citizens from terrorism or oppression.

That includes both the Israelis and the Palestinians, but while we instinctively would suggest that a land-for-peace, two-state solution is the most likely way to square their very differing ambitions, in the end it is entirely up to them whether they make peace or continue fighting from now until Judgement Day. It really isn’t any of our business.

A superficially logical argument has been made by several of our readers to the effect that the endless television coverage of dead or injured Palestinian children (the anti-Israeli bias of the leftist BBC is particularly marked) will inflame Islamist extremists against not only Israel but also against other Western states, including the UK and our soldiers currently stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reality, however, is not only that our troops should not be there in any case (and never should have been, for thy are two patches of howling desert that have nothing to do with Britain) but that Islamist ‘extremists’ need no ‘inflaming’. The massively influential Wahhabi and Deobandi sects behind most Sunni ‘extremism’ were alive and kicking, against the West in general and Britain in particular, decades or indeed a century before the state of Israel came into existence.

Indeed, the destruction of Israel (which is the generally stated aim of all the far-left and Muslim demonstrators screaming and on occasion rioting outside the Israeli Embassy in London, and the generally unstated aim of the far smaller number of neo-Nazi cranks siding with them on the Internet) would most definitely not placate a single hardline Muslim.

One of the fundamental lessons of the West’s long and at times desperate defence against Islam’s institutionalised aggression, sexual predation and imperialism, is that every victory for Islamic fighters reinforces the hysterical certainty in the word of the Prophet and in Islam’s self-proclaimed destiny to conquer the entire world.

The destruction of Israel would not send Islam back into a peaceful slumber, but would merely inspire and radicalise a whole new generation of Jihadist fanatics with the idea that the hour of their final triumph against the ‘Crusaders’ had been signalled by the collapse of the latter’s ‘Zionist outpost’ on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean. This would lead as a direct and immediate consequence to:

1) Renewed acts of ethno-religious cleansing against the non-Muslim remnants of the earlier populations of the Dar al Islam (lands which have already submitted to Allah);

2) A fresh confidence in the plan to re-partition India and establish a contiguous ‘Moghulstan’ taking in Pakistan, the Kashmir, huge swathes of northern India and Bangladesh;

3) A stepping up of the pressure through demographics and violence to reconquer further swathes of the Balkans and the southern edges of Russia;

4) Even more strenuous efforts to hasten the conquest - by demography, immigration, conversion, subversion and, when the time is right, force - of Western Europe and, a generation or so later, North America.

While Israel’s no-holds barred self-defence undoubtedly gives Islamist recruiters good material with which to radicalise some of their less motivated brethren, Israel’s extinction would provide them with even stronger arguments in favour of Jihad. The most elementary study of their rhetoric shows that they do not regard Israel as the great enemy, merely as the catspaw of Christendom. They may be right or they may be wrong, but that is what they believe; the destruction of Israel would therefore make them even bolder and more aggressive. Thus while we would oppose any move to entangle Britain in war on behalf of Israel, it is in our clear national interest that it should survive.

Whether that survival is made any more or less likely by responding on such a scale to the cynical provocations by Hamas is another matter, but that judgement is for Israelis to make at the ballot box, and not for us.

Westerners should concentrate on the key matter that concerns us. Our people must understand that Islam is not a mutated version of Christianity with a pacifist core in which the Meek will inherit the earth; it’s a creed of War and the Sword. It is inflamed by victory, and encouraged by successive advances. Once they start fighting, the only thing its followers understand is defeat. The centuries in which Islam has slumbered have all followed massive defeats which shattered the conceit that its date with Destiny and world domination was just around the corner.

Tours, Lepanto, Vienna, and even in its lesser way Omdurman, all show that Islam defeated is Islam tamed. The burning of the ancient Library of Alexandria, the obliteration of Christian North Africa, the Islamist genocides in India, the destruction of Byzantium, the repeated rape of the Balkans, the ceaseless efforts to take Europe - all show that when Islam takes a foot it wants a hundred miles.

That is the nature of the great Beast of our times. It can be defeated and put back to sleep. Its modern prestige and especially the power of the Sunni and Shi-ite fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia and Iran is based on one thing. It certainly isn’t military prowess, as the American, British and Israeli machines have all shown over and over again. Nor is it about guerrilla warfare successes of the kind seen in Afghanistan and Lebanon, which may yet emerge in Gaza.

The real motor of Jihad is oil money. The move to a post-oil world will be difficult even for the West, but once it is properly underway the resulting crash in the income of the fundamentalist paymasters of Islamic expansionism and terror will force them to stop worrying about conquering the world and to concentrate on looking after their own people or risk ending up riddled with bullets.

It can’t happen too soon, and developing the technologies and economic model needed to wean ourselves off oil, and the perpetual growth superstition it has fostered, is the very best way to deal with the instability of a Middle East that should have nothing to do with us. In the meantime, we will go back to ignoring Gaza and concentrate on the things that matter to our people.

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/01/%e2%80%9cisrael%e2%80%99s-gaza-affair%e2%80%9d-by-bnp-leader-nick-griffin/

Griffin makes some valid points about the expansionist nature of the Islamic enemy, and the utmost importance of ending the flow of petro-dollars to the koranimals.

But overall, his statement is poorly thought out, as well as full of contradictions and innaccuracies.

Griffin starts out by telling the reader that the BNP has made no statements regarding the current conflict in Gaza "because it’s nothing to do with Britain, and therefore nothing to do with the British National Party."

Oh really ?

Grffin's own words give numerous elaborations proving precisely the opposite is true. Griffin rightly states that an Islamic victory over Israel would not only fail to placate the jihadists, but would inspire and inflame them. Griffin then goes on to detail the dire consequences for the West and the UK in the event of an Islamic victory and erradication of Israel.

So Griffin needs to do some re-evaluating and hard thinking about whether current events in Gaza and Israel 'have nothing to do with Britain'.

Griffin is correct that British troops have no place in the fight in Gaza. Indeed, they should stay away. But that doesn't mean Britain and the BNP shouldn't openly voice their support for Israel. Not only because it's in Britains long term interest to do so but because it's the morally correct thing to do.

Griffin also makes some incredibly ignorant and callous statements that should leave any clear thinking person shaking his head in disbelief.

Here's an example: Griffin characterizes Hamas rocket and missile attacks on Israel as 'cynical provocations' and 'relatively feeble'.

Let me assure you, if thousands of rockets had been continuously launched at Britain over a period of years - murdering, maiming and terrorizing the British population- Nick would most certainly not be calling these attacks 'cynical' or 'feeble'. Nor would Mr. Griffin be too quick to mis-characterize the scope of any British retaliation as 'massive' or 'no holds barred'. He'd likely be wondering why it took Britain so long to respond and if the measures taken were sufficient to end the genocidal Islamic war crimes and acts of aggression. There would be no hint of the 'disproportionate response' nonsense that his statement reeks of. 

Griffin's 'instinctive suggestion' of a '2 state solution' and 'land for peace' as the 'most likely way to square differing ambitions' is so absurd that it really doesn't even deserve comment. Griffin knows damned well that there's no amount of land and no number of states that will placate the jihadists.

One other thing for Griffin and any other BNP member to consider when posting here at the JTF forum -- Here we do not recognize the existence (now or in the past) of any mythical people called 'Palestinians' or of any nation named 'Palestine'.

Griffin's half hearted and muted support for Israel in it's righteous struggle against the mohammedans and his inability to recognize that Israel's battle is indeed Britain's battle, leads one to question his morality, intelligence and leadership.

[q_q_]

<snip>
Griffin's 'instinctive suggestion' of a '2 state solution' and 'land for peace' as the 'most likely way to square differing ambitions' is so absurd that it really doesn't even deserve comment. Griffin knows damned well that there's no amount of land and no number of states that will placate the jihadists.

One other thing for Griffin and any other BNP member to consider when posting here at the JTF forum -- Here we do not recognize the existence (now or in the past) of any mythical people called 'Palestinians' or of any nation named 'Palestine'.

Griffin's half hearted and muted support for Israel in it's righteous struggle against the mohammedans and his inability to recognize that Israel's battle is indeed Britain's battle, leads one to question his morality, intelligence and leadership.

His stance on israel is better for israel than the stance of the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Let Israel go ahead and deal with Hamas.

Israel isn't saying "Britain, we need your help here, ammunition is low, we don't want the muslims to win.. you shouldn't want them to win either, so help, it's in your interest"  But if they did then i'm sure Nick Griffin would consider it and help, as he would agree that it would be in Britain's interest.

BNP does have a problem though, in that its leaders all have had an anti-semitic past. Be they the youth leader or the real leader, or the previous leader!, founder or whatever.

[Muck DeFuslims]

Sure, his stance is better than Brown's or virtually any other head of state.

But it's still sorely lacking and demonstrates some incredible ignorance and naivete.

His analysis of the ramifications of a koranimal victory over Israel is good.

His accurate observation that jihad is a fundamental, integral, institutionalized component of Islam is refreshing to hear from a Western leader.

Of course, his understanding the need to stop funding the koranimals with petro-dollars is spot on.

Still, for all the good points he makes, his opening statement that the current events in Gaza and Israel has "nothing to do with Britain, and therefore nothing to do with the British National Party" is ridiculous. His lip service to a 2 state solution is absurd, and calling Hamas' genocidal, criminal rocket attacks on Israel 'cynical' and 'feeble' is appalling. Statements like these just ruin the overall quality of his article.

Better than Gordon Brown ? You bet. But still not nearly good enough.

And of course there's always that nagging doubt about affiliations with anti-semites, that you correctly cite.

I have no doubt that there are many BNP members that aren't anti-semitic and have no problem whatsoever in wholeheartedly supporting Israel. They reject the idea of a '2 state solution', 'land for peace' or any appeasement of the koranimals.

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced Nick Griffin is one of them.

[q_q_]

<snip>
Better than Gordon Brown ? You bet. But still not nearly good enough.

And of course there's always that nagging doubt about affiliations with anti-semites, that you correctly cite.

I have no doubt that there are many BNP members that aren't anti-semitic and have no problem whatsoever in wholeheartedly supporting Israel. They reject the idea of a '2 state solution', 'land for peace' or any appeasement of the koranimals.

Unfortunately, I'm not convinced Nick Griffin is one of them.

John McCain i'm sure was for a 2 state solution, and would have pushed hard for it.  That didn't stop JTF rooting for him though when the alternative was Obama.

Really though, comparing him to the competition, it's not his stance on israel that is the problem.. his stance on israel is great(relative to the rest).   

The problem with the BNP is a problem of British nationalism , compared to American Nationalism.  In Britain, old school nationalism is for the -english-. So if an indian has a son, the son is british, but not English. And they would give priority to the English.  John Tyndall made an interesting case that there is no culture without preserving "the breed", "the stuff".    There is something to that, in that the chinese/japanese are really intelligent but not very creative. And the africans are neither. I wouldn't like to think what qualities they do or do not assign to jews, but none would ever consider jews english. And the BNP would favour "the English".. This is not like in America, where anybody born in America as American. American Nationalism is a danger, or not such a danger, to jews.

Also, of course, an indian coming to britain wouldn't even be British, let alone English, and they would give priority to british born citizens. That sounds alright perhaps, but  not really when you think of a great, completely anglicized work colleague that happened to come here from india 40 years ago. Being discriminated against because the "english" are given positive discrimination(What you americans call "affirmative action"). She speaks english just as well or better than the average Brit.

[Fortis]

I agree that Griffin's response is better than Gordon Brown's but still not good enough and it was full of contradiction. Not bad for a politician though.

Perhaps another terrorist atrocity will flip the switch.

Also, of course, an indian coming to britain wouldn't even be British, let alone English, and they would give priority to british born citizens. That sounds alright perhaps, but  not really when you think of a great, completely anglicized work colleague that happened to come here from india 40 years ago. Being discriminated against because the "english" are given positive discrimination(What you americans call "affirmative action"). She speaks english just as well or better than the average Brit.

There is no committment to affirmative action for English, Scottish, Irish, Cornish and Welsh people on the part of the BNP although Mr Griffin has said that he would not rule it out as a possibility.

Personally I would be against affirmative action for native Britons, just as I am against this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Relations_Act_1976

The BNP is an ethno-nationalist party, if it were not, then it would be like the French Front National and that is not a good route to go down for a European nationalist party.

The FN have shrivelled away as Le Pen has become almost indistinguishable, in rhetoric, from Sarkozy, and still France is becoming more and more Islamified.

[q_q_]

I agree that Griffin's response is better than Gordon Brown's but still not good enough and it was full of contradiction. Not bad for a politician though.

It's the right thing to say..

Putting Britain first.

And he's not harming israel by saying "let them fight their battle"!

Infact, rabbi kahane never expected gentiles to say that their country and Israel are joined at the hip.  (he took the position that he didn't want them to either! because israel should be a nation that dwells alone. And it's israel's feeling that it wants to please the nations that worsens the problem)

It's hard to expect a british nationalist to say he is joined with another country.. And he wouldn't want to play into the hands of those that might accuse him of being in the hands of the jews. His policy would do no harm to israel if implemented, and would be an improvement to what we have.
It's very nice when people speak emotively and say "we are with you israel", that's great.. But a nationalist has to be careful about saying that kind of thing in regards any other country.  They may for a real European country, for ethnic reasons. Though I don't know that nick griffin talks much of ethno-nationalism it's very racial.

Perhaps another terrorist atrocity will flip the switch.

rabbi kahane was always in favour of being partners as in deals.
So against foreign aid, but in favour of , say, america pays Israel to develop weapons for them. 

somebody did point out to me though that since 2001, since america went into afghanistan, and now iraq. They need Israel alot less. They are testing their weapons in combat situations, they have their own trained arabic translators. They have their own intelligence on what is going on in the arab world.

It's silly to think that britain and america because of a special relationship should follow each other into silly decisions , sharing them..
If that was why britain went into iraq (to bring peace!!) then I think that's problematic..But I think they were right to go in to remove saddam.. and now I think they are right to stay!
I used to think get rid of saddam and get out.  Somebody wrote that they gain by fighting the enemy on enemy turf, so the enemy travels there to fight.  That is likely..    And would be a good reason to stay. But an even better reason to stay in iraq and fight them there.. is because at the moment they are doing pretty well in iraq, and while there they are gaining valuable expertise in dealing with arabs and their terrorism.

people did think Oil.. But i'm not sure that being in iraq has helped oil prices!

Also, of course, an indian coming to britain wouldn't even be British, let alone English, and they would give priority to british born citizens. That sounds alright perhaps, but  not really when you think of a great, completely anglicized work colleague that happened to come here from india 40 years ago. Being discriminated against because the "english" are given positive discrimination(What you americans call "affirmative action"). She speaks english just as well or better than the average Brit.

There is no committment to affirmative action for English, Scottish, Irish, Cornish and Welsh people on the part of the BNP although Mr Griffin has said that he would not rule it out as a possibility.

Personally I would be against affirmative action for native Britons, just as I am against this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Relations_Act_1976

The BNP is an ethno-nationalist party, if it were not, then it would be like the French Front National and that is not a good route to go down for a European nationalist party.

The FN have shrivelled away as Le Pen has become almost indistinguishable, in rhetoric, from Sarkozy, and still France is becoming more and more Islamified.

interesting, that race relations act by the british parliament .. that forbids discrimination based on race, colour, nationality..

going against it seems similar to jared of amren's concept of "free association".

What it means though, and this came out when Jared was interviewed by a that rude fellow doing the "The Young Turks" program.

It means that shops could deny entry to somebody based on colour, race, religion, e.t.c.   

Now, I understand what athat is meant to do. Besides possibly protecting the shop.  It is to make an unwanted group feel uncomfortable and thus get them to leave. It lets the people make that decision.

Given history, and even current times, I think that would disadvantage jews. 

For one thing, I know that muslims would says Jews or Zionists cannot enter. Shops would become politicized.   

What is nice about Britain is that it is fairly colour blind.. in that people have a right to go to any shop they want and be served. We don't have one law for one race and another law for another.  There is justice there within the law.   

Jewish life in britain would be completely dependent on the feeling towards jews which can change with the wind.
For years Jews in britain have watched the television anxiously when there is a program about jews or israel.. because that conversation translates into the wider world, it changes peoples' thoughts, it becomes discussion in the office, we have to keep our finger in the pulse.  We know given jewish history, that our time in any country is limited. The only reason why we are fairly comfortable now is that the gentiles feel so guilty after the holocaust that they may even give us another few hundred years of relative peace in nicer parts of the diaspora. Or more time because a law like the racial discrimination act would prevent them from doing what they would want.

[Cato]

There are huge numbers of genuine, decent people in the UK who regard the BNP as the only party which comes near to addressing their problems with immigration and Islam. In my opinion they are right. My only concern is that it may by now be too late.

[TavorIMI]

There are huge numbers of genuine, decent people in the UK who regard the BNP as the only party which comes near to addressing their problems with immigration and Islam. In my opinion they are right. My only concern is that it may by now be too late.

It's never too late, as I often tell my friends and colleagues. Sometimes the best solutions are the simple solutions.

For example:

Get our military back from Iraq and Afghanistan. Equip them with the right tools for the job. Then shutdown EVERY mosque in the UK and deport ALL illegal aliens. If the muSSie scumbags riot on the streets then give them one warning, well we are British after all , and then shoot them one at a time until  they get the message to leave.

Get out of europe, the ec, then when the bleeding heart brigade of europe complain just use a typical Churchill repost:  "It's our country and we'll do what we dam well please!"

[Fortis]

It's hard to expect a british nationalist to say he is joined with another country.. And he wouldn't want to play into the hands of those that might accuse him of being in the hands of the jews. His policy would do no harm to israel if implemented, and would be an improvement to what we have.
It's very nice when people speak emotively and say "we are with you israel", that's great.. But a nationalist has to be careful about saying that kind of thing in regards any other country.  They may for a real European country, for ethnic reasons. Though I don't know that nick griffin talks much of ethno-nationalism it's very racial.

The BNP use the term ethno-nationalism because it is inclusive of race and culture.

I like what I see here on the JTF website, because I see a counterpart to my own nationalism in terms of political economy as well as general ideology. The racial differences between Jewish people and British people are not a concern for me. I understand that the Jewish people are another nation. I would also be able to see a counterpart in, say, Balinese nationalism, or Hindu nationalism, as I would in Dutch nationalism.

For me a large part of nationalism is an attitude towards political economy which could be illustrated by this recent article from the BNP website:

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/01/british-nationalist-vision-beats-the-world-for-the-chinese/

There seems to be an almost Thatcherite attitude towards Israel's economy on this forum, and that is perfectly understandable, as you have to smash the system.

I would love to know which of the nationalist parties in Israel is more in line with British nationalist economics, but their websites are all in Hebrew. 

interesting, that race relations act by the british parliament .. that forbids discrimination based on race, colour, nationality..

going against it seems similar to jared of amren's concept of "free association".

What it means though, and this came out when Jared was interviewed by a that rude fellow doing the "The Young Turks" program.

It means that shops could deny entry to somebody based on colour, race, religion, e.t.c.   

Now, I understand what athat is meant to do. Besides possibly protecting the shop.  It is to make an unwanted group feel uncomfortable and thus get them to leave. It lets the people make that decision.

Given history, and even current times, I think that would disadvantage jews. 

For one thing, I know that muslims would says Jews or Zionists cannot enter. Shops would become politicized.   

What is nice about Britain is that it is fairly colour blind.. in that people have a right to go to any shop they want and be served. We don't have one law for one race and another law for another.  There is justice there within the law.   

Jewish life in britain would be completely dependent on the feeling towards jews which can change with the wind.
For years Jews in britain have watched the television anxiously when there is a program about jews or israel.. because that conversation translates into the wider world, it changes peoples' thoughts, it becomes discussion in the office, we have to keep our finger in the pulse.  We know given jewish history, that our time in any country is limited. The only reason why we are fairly comfortable now is that the gentiles feel so guilty after the holocaust that they may even give us another few hundred years of relative peace in nicer parts of the diaspora. Or more time because a law like the racial discrimination act would prevent them from doing what they would want.

If a shopkeeper refuses to serve someone, it hurt their business, not the consumer.

The threat comes from being boycotted, so I do not really see what you are saying, because in Britain we can already boycott as much as we want.

The BNP do not have a programme beyond removing illegal immigrants and their descendants, and the BNP accept that Britain will always have ethnic minorities as it always has had, since international trading began. Britain's native population is racially very homogenous compared to Southern European countries, but if you look back at our history we are composed of a number of different peoples who each became British. What is of concern to us is that these people are now being discriminated against in favour of immigrants and cheated out of their native entitlement by thieving socialists and big business, mortgage companies, pension funds, inflation... need I continue? The British people should own their own country. Period.

British Jews have lived quite comfortably in Britain since the late 1600s without the need for the Race Relations Act 1976.

The Race Relations Act 1976 and amendments to it were part of a deliberate programme to forcibly multiculturalise British society and hyper-liberalise our economy with the 'free movement of labour' which is part and parcel of international hypercapitalism. It is a vicious, racist piece of legislation, and put into context, such legislation is ridiculous:

In Britain you can beat someone to a pulp and maybe receive a caution. Say something 'racist'  and you can, theoretically get seven years in jail.

What sort of wicked society have these laws been designed to construct? No, please do not even answer that question; I do not even want to think about it.

In fact, we do not have equality before the law. The law is biased against 'white' people. We call this melaninism, and it hurts us:

http://racismcutsbothways.bnp.org.uk/

[serbian army]

We must stop them, muslims are taking over our Europe

[Ultra Requete]

Q-q has right; If the Israel will ask for help it will be given; but I think Jews are people who can take care of themself and making them dependent on aid will hurt them just like it hurt blacks in America or
Africa. IDF can do the job and best method to aid Israel is to stop all money tranfers to Palis and Arab world. Global jihad is international problem on other hand and we shud all cooperate on this.
And my motto for this day: Expect little and you won't be disapointed. It can be aplied to America, BNP or future Likud goverment.

[q_q_]

The BNP use the term ethno-nationalism because it is inclusive of race and culture.

I like what I see here on the JTF website, because I see a counterpart to my own nationalism in terms of political economy as well as general ideology. The racial differences between Jewish people and British people are not a concern for me. I understand that the Jewish people are another nation. I would also be able to see a counterpart in, say, Balinese nationalism, or Hindu nationalism, as I would in Dutch nationalism.

For me a large part of nationalism is an attitude towards political economy which could be illustrated by this recent article from the BNP website:

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/01/british-nationalist-vision-beats-the-world-for-the-chinese/

There seems to be an almost Thatcherite attitude towards Israel's economy on this forum, and that is perfectly understandable, as you have to smash the system.

I would love to know which of the nationalist parties in Israel is more in line with British nationalist economics, but their websites are all in Hebrew. 

I think israelis are more concerned with the arabs..  they don't even demand that the economy be dealt with..
The left are more concerned with not looking mean to the arabs, and giving land to the arabs, they think they'll get peace. And the right are more concerned with fighting the arabs back - the establishment right in israel don't have the heart/kahunas to transfer the arabs.

 They just hire some really clever guy to deal with the economy. The ultimate guy being Binyamin Netanyahu - who would rather be prime minister!

(totally leftist article, but the first paragraph about netanyahu being the only one with a clear ideology on the economy, might be right)
http://jewishtoronto.com/page.aspx?id=42760

I think he may have raised taxes though..

Regarding the race relations act..
What benefits would it have?
Why disagree with it?

What would you use it for..?

Infact, why can't you use the act to say stop discriminating against white people.
it says,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Relations_Act_1976
"
Items that are covered include discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, ethnic and national origin in the fields of employment, the provision of goods and services, education and public functions
"


The race discrimination act isn't being used -against- white people..

It has nothing to do with the problem of racism against white people.

I don't see how it has to do with the racismcutsbothways issue that the BNP raise.

btw- shop keepers could and have refused entry to some groups.. I think there were times in america, and i'm sure in britain, where shops said "no jews or dogs allowed".. and even within the last 60 years in america and pehaps britain, jobs being refused to jews.   I saw jackie mason on a serious program, telling blacks to stop complaining about slavery.. When he overcame job ads saying no jews.. Something like that.. It's on youtube, a talk with blacks meant to focus on the crown heights riots of 1990.

[Fortis]

The Race Relations Act 1976 is selectively applied, and rarely in favour of white people.

I reject racial definitions such as 'white' and 'black' as unscientific, subjective and socially constructed/self-defined.

I am interested in culture and genetics.

In law, someone only has to be offended for something to be 'waycist'. How subjective is that?

This is why RRA 1976 has to go.