Regardez-moi, mon petit Sémite

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 22:56.

The BNP was vigorously chasing new writers a few months ago. I know of two whom they approached, only to be turned down. Here is a sample of the writing that meets the required standard of intellectual enquiry:-

The suggestion that a French President, who is of second generation Hungarian Jewish origin may be an (admittedly), unlikely candidate to receive the accolade of the most nationalist head of state, will doubtless seem controversial to the many adherents of the old style nationalist parties across Europe, who have regrettably inherited and furthermore institutionalised some degree of anti-Semitism.

However the BNP looks forward, not backward and looks beyond such blinkered vision and while acknowledging that President Nicolas Sarkozy was elected on a populist patriotic nationalist platform at the expense of the BNP’s friends in Le Pen’s Front National, there is no doubt that Le President is continuing to deliver the goods to the long suffering voters of France.

... President Sarkozy is definitely one to watch. As all of Europe faces the common enemy of militant Islam; the scourge of Marxist-liberalism; the interference of the unelected European Commission and the widespread decline of an industrial economic base, it remains to be seen whether Sarkozy’s actions are merely headline grabbing window dressing or genuine action to rescue a nation under threat from within and without. How France responds to these issues could set the scene for replication across all of Europe, including the UK.

Well, style aside, let’s strip away one or two layers of this so very forward-looking nationalist substance, and see what lurks beneath.

Of course there is no mileage whatsoever for the BNP in going “through the Jew”. It’s political death. And, indeed, that’s so even without odd political gestures of the kind familiar to Dr Strangelove’s right arm. Currently, any intimation, however vague or discursive, that Jews might have ethnic interests of their own, and not just the same interests as the rest of humanity, will jerk gentile knees like crazy, and shrink vocabularies to a single word. Public opinion has been comprehensively neuroticised. Thanks very much.

So what’s a nice, reformed, modernised, anti-intellectual nationalist party gonna do? It’s going to try to live with it, that’s what. It’s certainly not going to do the decent, difficult thing and challenge the unfree English mind. Ever, from what I can see. But isn’t that what the people deserve? Isn’t that what a Party comprised of those who love England and the English people should be desperately anxious to do? Isn’t that, anyway, the sort of zeitgeist-breaking effort that has to be made eventually? How else but by such efforts are we to be shifted from a culture of suicidal individualism to one of vivifying unity?

And there’s the root of the problem with Nick Griffin’s party. It is not seeking reformation of our political universe, which is the precondition for a thorough-going reclamation of our living space. Without changing anything at the foundational level ... indeed, just assuming that its own election would suffice, it will endeavour to resolve the conflicts with Islam, the left, the EU and global capitalism, plus whatever else seems practical. Sort of.

It’s not enough. So what, caught as it is in an elegant semitic trap, can the unphilosophical BNP do?

At the very least, it can put a stop to these trite and opportunistic expressions of Judeophilia. It can observe a studied silence on the Jewish Question, and leave interested parties to come to what conclusions they may. If it wants to be a bit more vocal it can express support for Israel, admiration for Jewish intelligence and industriousness, charitable giving, self-help… At the same time it can make it clear that it would like to see fewer Jews at the forefront of culturally damaging social and political movements. And it would like Jewish objections to its own pursuit of native interests to be dropped. If it reaches a critical mass, it could recognise the long history of Jewry in Britain by offering a conversation about the best way forward.

I am not saying that there is no danger in intimating to Jewry that certain things must change. Clearly, any implied criticism runs the risk of a concerted counter-attack. But at the moment Griffin looks both ridiculous and weak.

This, however, is only the Griffin of 2007. Here’s how he looked in 2004, talking to Ha’aretz:-

Griffin, who was convicted of incitement to racial hatred in April 1998, has called the Holocaust “the hoax of the 20th century” and coauthored a pamphlet alleging that a Jewish conspiracy controls the media, where it provides an “endless diet of pro-multiracial, pro-homosexual, anti-British trash.”

But Griffin insists that he did not allege that there’s a Jewish conspiracy. “That’s absolutely out of the question. What the pamphlet says, and what everybody recognizes, is that especially in America, the Zionist lobby is massively powerful and influential….But also in Britain, if you look at the funding and influence in the Labour Party - again, there’s a disproportionate number of Jews involved in that. But that is not to say that either a Jewish conspiracy or that Jews are involved or to blame.”

Griffin says the illustration on the cover of the New Statesman showing a Jewish star piercing the Union Jack “a vulgar piece of artwork… I can imagine that to Jews it was thoroughly shocking, and I wouldn’t have used it, not least because if we had used it we would be in court for incitement for racial hatred”.

But what about the issue of the Holocaust as “the hoax of the 20th century?”

“Fundamentally, I would say that it is something from the 20th century… I am exasperated by the way it was used as a moral club to beat anyone in the Western world who wanted to preserve the Western world. It is an absurd position to use that… I think it is also becoming or should be becoming clear to Jews around the world that basing a large part of one’s claim to anything, and basing one’s politics in relations to the rest of the world on death camps, is fine until you have a Jenin. And then the moral high ground is no longer there. And I think it is time to put the whole thing behind us.”

Griffin argues that the active role the Jews played in such movements as “egalitarianism, feminism, [and] Marxism, of course” served the “perceived Jewish self-interest in breaking up a Western society, making it less homogenous, on the basis that a less homogenous society is less likely to identify the Jews as different… So therefore I understand, and I have changed my position over the years in the sense that I can see from the Jewish perspective, how Jews felt having been persecuted, and why they have a sense of insecurity and fear.

“Now, I think that we are at a point where if white nationalists can understand and forgive that, and if similarly Jews can be less - I should be blunt - paranoid about any manifestation of white nationalism ... it doesn’t mean that we want to exterminate you, any more then you want to exterminate us.

“The problem is the pure hypocrisy we get from significant number of Jews who when they are talking about Jewish things, say `yes, we want to preserve ourselves’. Now, I got a suspended sentence for incitement to racial hatred, for saying effectively precisely the same thing about my people, and that’s the problem; it appears to be an hypocrisy where it is fine by the Jews, that’s good when they want it, but when gentiles want it, that means that they want to exterminate people and establish a fourth Reich. It is simply not like that. We want the same.

“If both sides can give a little bit, then I think that particularly after the September 11 events, I believe that Jews have no choice: they either back the West and accept our right to preserve ourselves as the overall majority or the Jews will vanish, because the alternative is only West or Islam… And it the West goes down, so do the Jews.

The BNP appears to be revising its stance as it tries to reach out to the electorate - or, anyway, that part of it that is English and still capable of love of kind. Perhaps Griffin’s playing a long game, as some think. I am becoming less convinced of that as time goes by.

Tags: British Politics

Comments:

Posted by Top on Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:31 | #

He is playing a silly game because he thinks that’s the only way he can get anywhere. A new time and the game will change. Things will not go on this way forever. Once the tipping point is reached in the West, nationalists will be more free to voice their opinons. Right now the whole game is played in small isolated circles. However, the situation is unsustainable for the Jew-dominated intelligentsia. How long can they make fools out of us? Griffin’s head is in the right place. Once his party becomes more mainstream than even more pro-national views/parties can emerge. The BNP is a vehicle for change - but it is not in itself the end goal. What we want today is too far psychollogically off for most of the population. Let Griffin play his game of appeasing the jew dominated media. One day we will not have.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:44 | #

Top,

Let me re-state the problem at ground floor level. It is no problem for our rulers - and I mean our true rulers - if we react racially to “Islamicisation of our schools” or “Polish workers depressing our wages”, or any other purely negative reaction. Creating social tension assists in the Leviathan Project, because it pressages a security solution. The BNP can be allowed to exist - just - today, albeit hampered and hated by the slave liberal Establishment and the mainstream politicos, because the work of transforming us into a minority, with all the social tension that will entrench, has not yet gone far enough. As it proceeds, the BNP will be allowed to garner our votes more freely.

The real work of freeing the English into their own ethnic interests is not one of a negative character, bitching at other peoples who have no right to our land. That may be natural and inevitable. But it will not do the trick. The real work is one of upending the philosophical bed of down on which the power elite lays.

This is a revolution, and it is not at all clear to me that the BNP is a revolutionary party.

Posted by Bill on Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:04 | #

Here’s my two cents worth. I’m no scholar and know Jack sh*t about politics, but I do recognise an intriguing situation when I see one.

First off, I would opine that since the beginning of mankind, an elite has not offered their tribes to the alter of sacrifice to strangers in their midst - in the name of tolerance or anything else, in other words, mankind and it’s civilisations have not witnessed anything on the scale that confronts us today, we simply haven’t been here before, which all lends me confidence to say my piece, as I feel my ramblingss are as valid as the next.

However, back to basics. How long will Griffin remain The Man? He has already intimated that he will not see the project through, (talk of retirement) so I reckon he ought to go for broke and at the first opportunity give the people the Full Monty, he has no need to mention the architects, just lambast the elites and lay it all out straight.

Upon being outed, the MSM will go ballistic, hysterical in fact, they just don’t like the truth exposed, as Corporal Jones would say, “They don’t like it up’em Captain Mainwaring.” By this tactic, the bulk of the nation will have their innermost thoughts confirmed and recognise the validity of what the BNP is telling them – crikey it’s right before their eyes. From the resultant ashes (BNP badly mauled) a real consensus may well emerge, as I see it, the (BNP) have nothing to lose.

Some further ponderings. How do you replace a billion people? (Such a sanitised shrink-wrapped expression – we’re talking extinction here.) To my mind, to replace something you make the original redundant, which in this case is what? Nowhere have I seen suggested what the end game will be and over what timescale? Will we just roll over and await our fate? Will there be a fight to the end and what will that mean? When push come to shove will the elites just cave in? Will it all unravel in unworkable chaos as most Leftist schemes do.

Do our adversaries know what they intend other than to destroy, do they have a plan B? On all my Internet travels I have not seen (other than Fonte) an account of what the new utopian vision will be (group equality) - To all of these questions my mind goes blank - it is beyond imagination. None-the-less, I have lived long enough to know that events don’t always follow the script - this is Postmodern insanity gone mad!

Posted by wha? on Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:27 | #

Q: long history of… blah?

So Africans, south Asians and east Asians too have their residential rights respected…

In other words… Let’s all just get along?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:25 | #

Erm ... are you suggesting that the BNP formerly announces its intention to deport all Jews? Will your Auntie Ethel vote for that?

Posted by wha? on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:41 | #

I’m not running for office or recommending that those who do allow for race replacement.

Are you recommending that the BNP ought to formally announce a conviction that the presence in Britain of so many Jews is tolerable but the presence of an equal number of either Hindus or Chinese is intolerable? Will your Aunt Ethel understand your reasoning?

MR is ‘ideas’ free of party practicality, no?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 02:47 | #

Bill, pushing race-replacement are a lot of different kinds of individual, having different mentalities and motivations, who are for the most part no more capable of forming a clear idea of what the aftermath will be than most of those who pushed for black rule in Rhodesia and South Africa were of what the aftermath of that would be — an aftermath now glaringly on display for all the world to see, of course. Some string-pullers do have a clear idea, got what they wanted in Rhodesia and SA, and are after the same sort of outcome for the Eurosphere countries. You have to understand these particular behind-the-scenes string-pullers don’t think like you or I but are totally different from whatever we’ve imagined others to be like in their private thoughts. One has to be something extremely unlike you or me to want to race-replace the populations of entire traditional Euro nations. I’m talking about the inner-core plotters of this, not their various sorts of dupes who are constantly before the news cameras and in the newspapers shooting their mouths off. The hidden plotters deep in the inner core of the thing aren’t seen on news cameras or quoted in newspaper interviews. They have their dupes for that. But they and their confederates make sure such-and-such person, Doris Meissner for example, or Stuart Anderson, or Chertoff, gets appointed Immigration commissioner or gets to effectively control immigration, race-replacers such as George Bush get the GOP presidential nomination, and so on. We don’t necessarily have to understand their thinking to stop them. We only have to rise up and put a stop to it all. But if you want to understand their thinking, prepare yourself for something totally unlike whatever you might ordinarily have expected: they don’t think like you or I, not by a long shot.

Posted by JB on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:15 | #

whatever works. Let the BNP do their thing. What matters is the english people waking up and refusing national suicide. They don’t necessarily need to be aware of every problem the white race has.

Sarkozy is a p.o.s. but the leftists hate him so he can legalize thousands of illegal immigrants, appoint ex-commies to positions of authority and still be called a “facho”. Expect all kinds of anti-national anti-white policies (i.e. affirmative action) to be implemented while the media and the academia yells “Right Winger! Fascist! Bushist!”

The goal of the Sarkozy-Royal show was to push aside the Front National: in the “Left” corner one annoying feminist with false teeth/boobs and a IQ of 80 and in the “Right” corner a slick half-jew who pretends to be a tough law and order guy. Sarkozy did a cut+paste with the Front National’s message while Royal embraced burka wearing arab women.

Many people fearing Royal would get in voted for Sarkozy and now he can apply the same leftist agenda that Royal would have applied without being called a crazy leftist because… he’s a Right Winger, he can’t possibly have the same agenda as The Left because… because… he’s of The Right, you see ? The Right. There’s The Right and there’s The Left. The Right. The Left. The Right. The Left. Got it ? The Right. The Left.

Posted by Top on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 06:33 | #

JB,

excellent comment. That’s why in my opinion there are no ordinary ‘political’ or at least ‘democratic’ solutions to our problems. The whole apparaus has become corrupt through and through. Most ordinary people just don’t see how corrupt it has become. In fact I would go as far as saying that today’s version of ‘democracy’ is a form of a supremacy system of non-whites (mainly jews) oppressing Euro whites. It is brilliant when you think about it. Not even communism was as destructive to its majority populations (it killed more, but it had less lasting genetic damage).

Centralization of power, followed by a purge is the logical way out - that is obvious to me. In fact I will go as far as saying a soft dictatorship like Signapore may be a good model. But really we need to do whatever it takes. I know many on this site will disagree. But I don’t care about temporary discomforts - I care about long term effects. What is the point of having a ‘democracy’ when it’s one real effect is the destruction of its Euro population? You can take ‘democracy’ and stuff it.

The problem is that we are in such disorientated state right now that we have few intellectual or practical models that allow us to move towards the way out. The whole rightist movement (and I am not talking about the fake neo-con, Sarkozy varieties) has very few realistic goals. There is very little unity and it is easy for our enemies to confuse us. Many on the right think they have don’t morality on their side, and in fact live in a political world that is really a jewish carictature of themselves. The biggest mistake right-wing Euro activists make is to allow themselves to be slotted into mental categories created by their enemies.

The whole system of Euro oppresion/hate needs to be rejected. And it needs to be rejected firmly - with force if needed. A new, energetic, merciless, uncompromising, and fearless class of leadership needs to emerge to lead and fight. I am still of the opinion that parties like BNP are more good than bad (as opposed to neo-cons which are all bad). But for parties like BNP to become truly effective and in order for them to be able to reject foreign saboteurs they will need a critical mass of the Euro smart faction on their side. Otherwise right will be left and left will right and really it’s all anti-Euro.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 09:21 | #

This post is not only about the balance between, OTOH, a political party in our democratic system staying electable, since it believes that one day it can win a free election, and OTO its representation of reality to the voters. It is also about the fact that the BNP has gone beyond fearing the electorates learned sensibilities about Jews. Today it’s openly pro-Jewish, all the way up to going soft on black, Sikh and Indian “Britons”, and naming the issue only in terms of Muslims and “asylum seekers”.

For now I think one must give them the benefit of the doubt. After all, they are trying to grow a movement from the bottom up, and every local council candidate is a hostage to fortune in that respect. A constant stream of dumb braggarts outed by the press will keep the Party down forever. So, the present overkill in the direction of the semitically correct could be explained as no more than a control mechanism, and a pretty smart one at that.

But I don’t think so.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:25 | #

Outstanding commentary by both JB and Top, above. Outstanding.

In regard to the following from GW’s comment,

“the BNP has gone beyond fearing the electorates learned sensibilities about Jews. Today it’s openly pro-Jewish, all the way up to going soft on black, Sikh and Indian ‘Britons,’ and naming the issue only in terms of Muslims and ‘asylum seekers,’ “

if that’s so, it’s because the party has been approached discreetly with offers of Jewish money “if only it will soften it’s stance” on this or that “issue of special significance to Jews.” It’s jumping through hoops held by Jewish trainers, undergoing Pavlovian conditioning in preparation for a transition to a “softened” party which Jews (ones who are starting to get alarmed at the ever clearer reality of the disaster British race-replacement actually portends for Jews) can support with contributions. The day will come when this type of Jew (the type capable of somewhat clear sight on what race-replacement actually portends) won’t be so finicky but will support any opposition to race-replacement they can find and heartily glad to do it.

Posted by JB on Mon, 27 Aug 2007 05:07 | #

Not even communism was as destructive to its majority populations

the Slavs are in a better shape racially, culturally and psychologically than us. Despite decades of communist tyranny.

Posted by JB on Mon, 27 Aug 2007 05:29 | #

“our” commies did more damage to us, racially and culturally, during the Cold War and after than the real commies who had nuclear weapons and the KGB. The post WW2 Soviet empire was horrible but it didn’t try to ethnically cleanse the peoples under its boot. “Our” governments on the other hand have done everything they could to kill us and they are succeeding.

Posted by r on Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:46 | #

Perhaps our racial destruction is a means to that end - the slavs might be in better shape because the struggle to implement the leviathan was relatively brief, and did not have to break down the massive barrier to totalitarian government and slavery that a people aware of itself and its destiny presents.