Sunday, January 30, 2011

Whose Tent?

Girl fightOn Friday night I broached the subject of pragmatic and temporary alliances among diverse anti-jihad groups who may disagree with each other on many other issues, but share the primary goal of resisting Islamization.

The paradigmatic problem is the rift between the BNP and other groups in Britain, including the English Defence League. Imnokuffar, one of the commenters on the second thread, voiced a sentiment that seems common among BNP supporters: they feel the BNP has been treated so badly in the past that they want nothing to do with any other organizations:

Theory is great but it must inform action. The problem is that those constructing the tent will define who enters it and for what reasons they are allowed to enter.

So for instance my party the BNP would never enter the tent if it were to be merely “tolerated”. We wound find such toleration to be insulting and demeaning to our members. I think that other groups labeled as “far right” would hold the same opinion though of course I cannot speak for them.

I am not going to enter a tent full of people who have already branded me a racist, a bigot and a fascist but who have decided to hold thier noses in the name of the common good. [emphasis added]

Bewick, whose comment was the original seed for the post, spoke up for the contrary point of view:
Your stance, Imnokuffar, is the problem. You won’t enter the tent because of a perceived slight. Doesn’t that make you exactly the same as “offended” Muslims?

If you would prefer that your female grandchildren (even daughters) must wear a burka , be treated as 2nd class citizens, possibly be forced to become sex slaves then feel free in your tunnel vision. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I despair and thank God that I’ll be gone by the time this nightmare matures. I would so wish that Islam really was a Religion of Peace but it isn’t.

BNP members often express scorn for the English Defence League. To an outsider such as myself, a temporary alliance of expedience between the BNP and the EDL would seem natural and desirable. Although the two groups differ on the topic of race, among other things, they are in broad agreement on the most important issues that face them: the rapid Islamization of Britain and the need to reverse the suicidal policy of mass immigration. Those issues are so urgent, and so potentially catastrophic for the English nation, that it would seem prudent for the two organizations to overlook their differences on other issues and combine forces to resist Islam.

Since the BNP is a political party, and the EDL is a community action organization, there need not be any great rivalry between the two groups over their general functions, which could complement one another. Differences of political opinion on topics other than those of Islam and immigration could be reconciled through the normal sausage-making process that goes on within any political coalition.

Yet it is not to be — the BNP seems staunchly opposed to the EDL, even though the distaste may not be entirely mutual.

Looking at the broader picture presented by Imnokuffar, it’s clear that much of his antipathy towards potential allies is motivated by the feeling that his party has been treated in an “insulting and demeaning” manner.

But why should that be the basis for a decision on whether or not to forge temporary and pragmatic alliances with other popular groups?

Why not put aside feelings of personal slight and calculate the most expedient course of action?

Which approach does more to improve the long-term electoral prospects of the BNP?

To be open to a coalition does not imply that one should be indiscriminate in forming such alliances. Each possibly ally should be assessed individually to determine whether its advantages outweigh its disadvantages.

As an example, consider the earlier post about Douglas Murray, Maryam Namazie, and “One Law For All”. Ms. Namazie’s group is blatantly Communist, which means that its participation in any alliance should be regarded with the utmost skepticism. Communists have an extensive track record of entering alliances with the long-term goal of co-opting their ostensible partners and then overpowering and destroying them when their usefulness is at an end. Simple prudence would favor avoiding any alliance with any Communist group, no matter how temporary it might be.

And Mr. Murray, conservative or not, is himself prone to flinging the “racist” or “fascist” epithets fairly indiscriminately at anyone who seriously attempts to grapple with a solution to the imminent destruction of Great Britain by its rapidly growing Muslim population. If I were a British anti-jihad activist, I might well be reluctant to enter the tent with him — I would never know when he might turn on me as a “fascist”.

However, such calculations need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Is this person or group likely to be accommodating within a Counterjihad alliance? Can we expect cooperation, or are sniping, sandbagging, and infighting the more likely outcomes? Do our potential allies have assets to offer the coalition that outweigh their liabilities? And so on.

Imnokuffar mistrusts “those constructing the tent”. Well, who is constructing the tent? As a general rule, no one in an established and successful organization wants to hand over control of tent-formation to another group.

Under current circumstances, however, the proper course is for the tent to form itself. No one group need be the controller — different groups could come together as equals and agree to mutually acceptable terms for cooperation and coordination. All participants could decide to put aside their mutual antipathy for the time being for the sake of their common objectives.

Consider what is happening right now in Egypt — no one constructed that tent. It formed quite spontaneously, when the time was right. The Muslim Brotherhood did not create the insurrection, but it is shrewd enough to exploit it for its own purposes, just as the Communists would.

Consider also the various traditional branches of Islamic zealotry. The Shiites and the Sunnis hate each other more than do the BNP and the EDL (or even the BNP and Labour). Yet they often work together for the cause of jihad. Hamas is a Sunni organization, yet it is armed, funded, and at least partially controlled by Iran, a Shiite theocracy. The two factions are willing to put aside their ancient and substantial differences to make common cause against the infidel. After the kuffar have been totally defeated there will be time enough for a Sunni day when the Shiite hits the fan — or vice versa.

We need to learn from the Islamic example. Throughout its history, Islam has successfully expanded by exploiting the differences between groups of non-Muslims, who are as fractious as petroleum in a refinery tower. Pitting infidel against infidel has been a winning strategy for Muslims ever since the 7th century.

Not to raise a big tent over the shared goals of the Western Counterjihad would be a catastrophic failure. If we can’t put aside our feelings of insult and resentment for the duration, and make common cause against our common enemy, we are likely to meet the same fate as the formerly vibrant Christian nations of the Persian Gulf, Syria, Egypt, and Asia Minor.

And this time there’s no guarantee that there will be a 21st-century equivalent of Jan III Sobieski to turn back the tide at the gates of Paris, or Oslo, or Sydney, or Ottawa, or San Francisco.


In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

In hoc signo vinces

Attempting to pitch the counter-jihad tent on claimed politically infiltrated terrain will risk turning the counter-jihad movement in the UK into a political freak show.

Dymphna said...

@ 4Symbols--

But wouldn't you say that any given group is already infiltrated? Doesn't that come with the territory? It would seem that the leadership's job would be to recognize those people and give them a 'place' in the organization where they can't do any damage.

Caroline Macafee said...

I'm not very sophisticated politically, but I am British, and I'd say any alliance with the BNP would produce an immediate reductio ad Hitlerem. Nobody but the already convinced would have any more to do with the EDL.

Rafael London said...

Hmm... Nick Griffin recently speaks wisely about immigration or Islamisation. But it's difficult to trust a guy who (he changed his mind around 3 years ago as far as I remember) wasn't sure if Holocaust ever happened. I'm not sure if EDL should officially ally themselves with BNP. Let's be patient and we'll see how they'll develop on their own. What do you think people?

In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

In hoc signo vinces


True to keep your friends close and your enemies closer is one technique.

Ultimately this is a battle of hearts and souls rather than hearts and minds - where mind is our pre-conditioned political agendas, the success of the counter-jihad in the UK may (but not necessarily will) depend on how willing we are to suspend those individual political agendas.

Islam is adept at exploiting and subverting political agendas the counter-jihad needs to ensure there are no political agenda chinks in the counter-jihad armour.

Zenster said...

fogbraider: … I'd say any alliance with the BNP would produce an immediate reductio ad Hitlerem.

Regardless of the BNP's like or dislike of Nazism, it's previous "whites only" policy makes it a perfect target for the favorite Liberal charge being hurled about these days and that is:


Worst of all, it largely would be correct.

The EDL has taken great pains in seeking to turn back any such accusations and it would be highly counterproductive for them to suddenly open the door, and − even worse − rightly so, for such an effective smear.

That said, Liberals will continue, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, to tar the EDL as "racist" anyway so there may not be far to fall in this matter, whatever the case.

All of the foregoing is tempered by the fact that I am sitting across the pond and cannot know the situation with any degree of expertise.

That said, the overall concept is still a good one. The counter-jihad must look towards building a tent of three ring proportions to contain an audience large enough whereby they can begin turning back Islamic colonization in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe.

What a pity that the Church of England is so thoroughly compromised by its suicidal Multicultural stance. It is precisely such longstanding British institutions that are needed to give credibility and strength to this movement.

In Hoc Signo Vinces† said...

In hoc signo vinces


"What a pity that the Church of England is so thoroughly compromised by its suicidal Multicultural stance. It is precisely such longstanding British institutions that are needed to give credibility and strength to this movement."

The chink in its armour was the adoption of the political agenda of secular equality this along with entryism made its fall inevitable.

Profitsbeard said...

When you join an over-riding Movement to Defend Civilization against Barbarism- the latter exemplified by retrograde, intolerant, terror-loving Islam- everyone needs to shed their little political and cultural pennants at the door of the Big Tent, and all take up the larger unifying banner of Fighting for Freedom From Tyranny.

Everyone can later pick up their little flags once the War is won and re-begin their small snipings over minor disagreements in the inspiring knowledge that they all sacrificed trite egos for true survival.

To battle against a global theocratic Terror State requires unity of Purpose, and cutting the cluttering crap.

As a wise printer once put it:

"We must hall hang together, or we shall surely hang seperately."

Islam is bad noose.

doxRaven said...

from a thin skinned BNP supported
So for instance my party the BNP would never enter the tent if it were to be merely “tolerated”. We wound find such toleration to be insulting and demeaning to our members.

OMG what does he want? A valentine's day card?

If I was the strategist for the EDL I would not waste a moment on a group with such whiny sentiments.

Freyja's cats said...

My recommendations:

1) Arrange a private, secret meeting on "First Amendment" U.S. soil of delegates from across the likely counterjihad spectrum, for a frank discussion.

The political center of gravity of the spectrum should ideally be of individuals who have not yet been tarred-and-feathered by the left, the UK media and the police and national security forces, yet is not infected with PC/MC and still cares about and will speak to their fellow Englishmen of the nationalist flavor, drawn from the political center, center-right, right and far-right. UKIP might be a good source for the fulcrum.

All participants should be indigenous Englishmen of unquestionable allegiance to the English people and to the land of England, with historically deep English roots, who represent groups of significant popular support.

Include EDL and BNP.

Having neither EDL nor BNP as the fulcrum, will help deflect the possibility of the meeting being branded as "far-right" by the media.

The guiding principle should be, "Everybody in...No true Englishman out. Leave your ideological ambitions at the door. Come together for England."

Any charges of "racism" that might be hurled should word of the meeting leak out, could be met with, "This was a simple meeting of indigenous Englishmen loyal to and concerned for the welfare of their fellow countrymen, across a broad political spectrum, to discuss an issue of critical importance to the survival and stability of the English people." End-of-statement.

2) I would suggest as moderator and host Mr. Cliff Kincaid.

Mr. Kincaid is a globally-respected anti-communist researcher who has an intimate understanding of socialist and communist activists, history and techniques. He hosts an annual conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. He is a gracious yet compelling man. He is a lifelong American conservative with no foreign loyalties, but with strong "Free Speech" Western values. He is a champion against PC.

3) I would suggest as co-moderator and host Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, another gentleman with solid conservative credentials and an intimate knowledge of communism and Islam.

It is very important to pair any counterjihad movement with anti-communist expertise.

Mr. Trevor Loudon, the internationally-respected libertarian anti-communist from New Zealand, communists and militant socialist operatives are embedded in the current Arab world uprisings. Mr. Loudon taps into an extensive Western intelligence network. As can be seen from a perusal of Mr. Loudon's recent New Zeal blogposts on the Arab uprisings, the Muslim Brotherhood and the hard Left, together, are causing global instability that is feeding the jihad.

It is essential, then, that the counterjihad movement integrate with anti-communist expertise in order to fully address the global problem.

Mr. Kincaid and Mr. Loudon have been researching Marxism-Leninism activists and groups for decades, deep into cold-war times. They have access to a wealth of global expertise.

In fact, if Mr. Loudon is available to make the trip, I would encourage his attendance, so that the meeting participants may have him immediately available to draw upon his encyclopedic knowledge base.


Freyja's cats said...


4) One could consider inviting an expert representative from each of Canada and Australia, as knowledge resources.

5) I would invite some of the folks from Continental Europe who have been subjected to state prosecution to provide testimony and serve as the European link. Elisabeth Sabaditch-Wolff is an excellent choice, given both her experiences as target of state repression, and her extensive expertise of Islam and the Islamic world.

6) I also would consider a suitable representative of South Africa.

7) The European, American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and South African participants would act only as resources for the Brits. The Englishmen, themselves, should hash out what will work for them. The non-Brits could withdraw to other chambers during periods of sensitive English deliberations.

8) One could also consider inviting Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, who has for years been developing a substantial "white nationalist" network. Tayor and American Renaissance welcome Jewish participation and do not carry the "anti-semitic" label of the more militant white nationalist organizations. Taylor is also a polished speaker and highly-educated. I think that he could be of assistance in helping nurse BNP into communion with the other Brits: the BNP would not feel so alienated from the discussion, if Mr. Taylor were present.

I believe that it is time to pull together the global resources of the entire Eurosphere to assist Britain.

The international presence would help stabilize the British discussion by providing the entire affair with respectability and by assuring the Brits that they are not alone in this global war, and by encouraging the development of the wider support network. This will help them put the internal squabbling aside, for the good of the Eurosphere.

This would be a good way to start.

Baron Bodissey said...

FC --

These are excellent suggestions. I hope our English readers, especially the EDL, are willing to seriously consider them.

Freyja's cats said...

I would also encourage readers to consider the following.

If we Americans can successfully remove President Obama from the White House in 2012; strengthen the Republican majority in the U.S. House; and possibly even pull a narrow majority in the Senate...

...then the Euro-Americans of center-right-national inclincation will again have control over the machinery of state.

We would likely end up with Mitt Romney as president, with possibly Huckabee, Palin or Gingrich as vice-president, or someone along those ideological lines.

I think that if we should be fortunate enough to pull the trifecta, the Americans can then put diplomatic and intelligence apparatus pressure on the Britsh state machinery to lay off of EDL as a movement.

This, I think, would help EDL grow.


Also, hopefully, the graphic videos of UNDENIABLE, OBVIOUS EVIDENCE of the violence of the Arab uprisings, and what can happen in a society where Islamist and Marxist-Leninist agents are driving instability among the "brown" masses, will awaken more of the Eurosphere to the dangers of PC/MC in traditionally Western lands: as in,


imnokuffar said...

I do not speak for the BNP and am only a member of the party.

As to the EDL. I have some respect for these people but think that a polical problem needs a political solution. This is the route that the BNP takes. The EDL take a different approach - that of direct confrontation. Sometimes I wish we too would take such a route but as a member of a disciplined party I hold back from this prefering the slow steady work of building opposition amongst the general population. The EDL generate a perception amongst ordinary people that people on the right are thugs and racists - I don't share this view of the EDL but lots of people do and they are assisted in this perception by the MSM. This of course has electoral consequences for the BNP and actually undermines our work.

I have read all the comments. Far from being "whiny" our members put themselves on the line every day. They stand to lose thier jobs, thier homes (some already have) and to be banned from certain occupations I, for instance, cannot any longer work work in my chosen profession because of my membership of the BNP. Our Chairman and other members of the party have faced jail and our party has been faced with bankrupcy due to the tender ministrations of the EHRC.

We also face physical attack on a daily basis. Not long ago one of our members was injured in a hammer attack and there have been other incidents - "whiny", I think not.

Personally, I would be in favour of an alliance with other like minded groups around the specific issues of Islamofascism - I can only speak for myself.

Our members are fully aware of the dangers posed by Islam. However we are not a single issue grouping unlike the EDL. Issues like immigration, the economy, terrorism, unemployment and the ongoing outsourcing of our industries and services all play a part in the story.

Being part of a grouping that solely opposes Islam is therefore very difficult for us as all the other elements are intertwined with it.

Finally, the party is open to all races as long as they agree with our policies. However, as our policies especially on immigration are not going to be to the liking of those who are going to be effected by it I can hardly see certain sections of the community lining up to join !

imnokuffar said...

"Looking at the broader picture presented by Imnokuffar, it’s clear that much of his antipathy towards potential allies is motivated by the feeling that his party has been treated in an “insulting and demeaning” manner."

Its more than a feeling its a fact !

However you are correct in your assertions that we should put our feelings to one side in the common interest. The problem would be for other people to put aside thier feelings of revulsion towards us.

The BNP has made alliances with other Nationalist parties all across Europe and there are also alliances within the European Parliament so a begining has already been made in the formation of a counter jihad transnational movement. Judging from the results of elections in Europe the Nationalist cause is gaining ground at an exponential pace.

Perhaps this is something that should be factored in to the deliberations of all those participating in this discussion.

Sagunto said...

I'd like to submit that there are two enemies, working like a pair of pincers, cutting us of from freedom:

Islam - (not fundamentalist islam, political islam or islamism, just Islam, and consequently all that practise it).

Central Banking Progressivism (CBP) - The supra-collectivist entity that loves (and finances): national and international socialism, fascism, communism, sharia-supremacism, liberal or conservative nanny state nationalism.. all kinds of collectivism, branded with whatever label seems fitting to suit each and every demanding taste.

Now, most in the CJ public know what the fight is against (though some still cherish the progressivist notion of reforming Islam, analogous to the nefarious enlightenment myth of "taming Christianity"). But that i.m.o. is just one side of the coin, and when there's the slightest uncertainty about what the fight is for, then anyone can indeed share the tent.

I strongly agree with @profitsbeard that our fight is for freedom from tyranny.
That is why I think it important to point out the collectivist friends (or tools) of CBP. My question is: what if some in the CJ initiative are against Islam as the enemy of freedom, but at the same time prove to be in league with another formidable foe of freedom, which is Central Banking Progressivism? I'd say that a big tent would be a nice thing if indeed all of the public would keep their eye firmly fixed on the ball. But unqualified entrance for political activists could easily turn this tent into a huge spectacle, perhaps even somewhat of a circus.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

bewick said...

@ imnofuffar
I'm pleased to read that you do not actually represent the BNP. You seem to have retrenched from your original response to my post re the Pat Condell item.

Might I suggest that you spend some time persuading the BNP leadership that beating the dangerous "polar bear" is the single most important issue for the time being, and for all?
Unless that issue is addressed then nothing else matters. The restoration of free speech is the vital first step.
Normal hostilities can be resumed once the common problem has been solved. Enter the bloody tent!
Believe me. Been there done that and SILLY arguments and disagreements usually wreck all intentions.
Don't actually care about divisions between BNP and EDL. The single common cause is the issue here.
Oh nearly forgot. BNP had in excess of 1m supporters at the last election

Hesperado said...

I tend to try to be a rational man, and the notion of rejecting -- or refusing even to read -- the ideas of someone about X, just because I disagree with (or even find repellant) their ideas about Y, is a notion I ordinarily strongly resist.

However, there is a limit to everything. And -- Good God! -- if championing Hitler as the good guy in WW2 isn't the breaking point of that limit, I don't know what is. That would qualify as the exquisite Gold Standard of a limit broken beyond repair -- at least to any sane person. I therefore not only cannot countenance FC; I can no longer even stomach reading FC's writings.

The fact that others continue treating FC as though FC were a normal participant makes me feel like GOV has turned into the freaking Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits.

The Hesperado

Baron Bodissey said...

Hesperado --

I think you posted your comment on the wrong thread by mistake. No support for Hitler on this one yet -- thank God!

Sagunto said...


My thoughts exactly when I referred to the large tent proposed, in danger of becoming a circus.

Perhaps the point is somewhat overstated, but I fear that some of it already applies, when national-socialist clowns like FC are spreading their old school nazi ideas here at GOV. The one reason for calling such contributors neo-nazis might be that, contrary to the old comrades, they seem (or pretend) to be fighting against Islam instead of admiring and supporting it like Hitler did. That indeed is something new.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Hesperado said...


My guess is that FC supports the anti-Islam cause because FC believes that Jews are manipulating Muslims in order to use them against the


The fact that FC did not mention Hitler in this thread illustrates my point. If the support of Hitler does not cut across the barrier of different threads and infect a person's reputation no matter what thread they are in and no matter what they write, I don't know what would.

Freyja's cats said...

I am not a "national socialist."

I am a proud descendant of the Germanic peoples.

I love my peoples, for all their beauty and talents, and despite their wars and warts.

I am an avid student of history, who keeps an open mind and does not bow to socially-sanctioned, pre-approved versions of it.

I will not suppress or revise history, either to make Germans, Germanic peoples, or any of the indigenous peoples of Europe look to be something that they aren't, or to hide uncomfortable facts or politically-incorrect interpretations.

I like accuracy in history. I am not afraid to take a different perspective on the Great Wars and Marxism and Hitlerian national socialism.

I happen to be of the belief that the warriors and über-patriots and other champions of the various indigenous peoples of Europe, are all to be respected for their tenacity of life and their determination that their people should survive.

I love 'em all.

King Leonidas I of Sparta was one of many hero-kings that I admire. He fought the Battle of Thermopylae with dignity, honor and pride, for the sake of the survival of his people.

Leonidas was a very good warrior. He, like other warriors of Europe have had to be, was brutal. Leonidas killed a lot of people in his time, either via his own hand-held weapons, by strategy, or by the hand-held weapons of his most excellent soldiers.

I love the military history of the peoples of Europe. I study them all -- winners and losers, both.

Wearing the eye of a descendants of Germanic warriors, who made it possible for me to be alive today, I admire all European men of valor, strength and determination.

I believe that those among our indigenous European peoples who are fighting the hardest, politically, for our European survival, are to be included in the tent.

I believe that all of our blood is precious, as it carries the encoded history of Europe in its DNA.

If it is blood that is strong and determined to survive, I see no reason why we should not work together to preserve it.

Therefore, I am opposed to either the explicit or implicit exclusion of any anti-communist, counterjihadist, nationalist or any other determined and committed warrior-for-our-people from the political process of forming a coalition for the survival of European peoples.

I refuse to take the elitist view, or the viewpoint of non-indigenous Europeans, that some of our warriors must be shunned or excluded on grounds of "political correctness," or that their presence and participation might be deemed as offensive to a certain ethny or religion.

All of our warrior blood and brains are valuable.

Everybody in. Nobody out. Shields locked. Spears, swords and arrows ready.

That's how I feel, and that's where I stand.

imnokuffar said...


I don't understand your reference to Pat Condell.

The EDL have made it clear that they will have no truck with us in the BNP and refer to us as Fascists and Nazis, other groupings have indicated the same sentiments.

A further complication is that some people in the tent would be out and out Communists - how exactly are we going to square that particular circle given that these are the very people alongside thier liberal buddies who have contributed to the situation we find ourselves in, in the first place ?

Given both the attitudes of the EDL and the fact that we would find it impossible to even enter the room with a communist in it would be impossible to do a deal with these people. How can one have a dialogue with someone who is for whatever reason completely antithetical to you or you to them ?

So whilst I am in favour of entering the tent and perhaps others in the party might be, our very presence in it would present major problems for others whose whole ideological stance may well be contrary to what we stand for.

It looks like we in the BNP are going to have forgoe this invitation.

In the meantime, rest assured our party is fully aware of what Islam represents and we will fight it with every democratic means we have.

As I have said before, Nationalist parties of differing hues have been growing in every European country. Islam is now widely seen as a threat to all the indigenous peoples of Europe representing as it does a polar opposite to everything the west stands for and has built up over millenia.

This is something that all those in the anti-jihad movement have in common so there is no disagreement there !

Unfortunately the MSM and the politicians still have a stranglehold on public opinion regarding Islam, this is weakening with every terrorist atrocity and every new mosque that is built. Regretably there will be more terrorist attacks all across Europe and when these happen more people will wake up to the true nature of the barbaric cult of Islam.

This whole debate ranges around the methods we use to combat this evil cult. There is no reason why blogs such as this one and others cannot continue to perform an invaluable role in fighting Islam whilst we make our own unique contribution as well.

We, in our party can be seen as complimentary to this struggle - though whether others in the wider anti-Jihad movement would accept this is another matter.

Sagunto said...


I think that FC actually believes that Hitler cum suis couldn't have been socialists, because they fought the commies. He doesn't seem to understand that comparing Nazis & Bolsheviks is like comparing Coke & Pepsi. It is as Hayek mentioned in the Road to Serfdom, that the conflict between the two was like a dispute between brothers.

Now let's see why FC really is a socialist, and I quote some of what he said about Hitler's national socialist economy policies:

"Hitler stabilized the money, the economy and alleviated the hunger of a lot of people [..]"

No one, in favour of free market philosophy could ever have produced such a statement on Hitler. FC is a socialist, just like der Führer was and claimed to be.

Now, on a more general note concerning the BNP and its place in some kind of Counter-Jihad tent: why take any advice from a FC nazi-supporter on this issue? What we see is two groups, claiming that associating with one another will give them a bad rep. The EDL says so for the right reasons and here's why.

I really am sick and tired that the BNP still goes with the "far-right" or "extreme right-wing" label attached. I know it is a leftist tactic to smear conservatives (whatever party that may be in the UK), but it's also obvious that Labour clique is scared as hell, because the BNP presents itself as "the Labour party your parents voted for". And with good reason it seems, when I look into their manifesto.

To sum up:

Trade tariffs - check
State owned businesses and monopolies - check
Big state solutions to social issues - check
State run economy in the "national interest" - check
Compulsory national service - check
Worker co-operatives and worker ownership of enterprises - check
Political environmentalism - check
Open opposition to free market economy - check
Forced redistribution of wealth - check

to be continued -

Sagunto said...

To add to that with a few chilling and illuminating quotes from the same manifesto:

"The fact that the banking system has been able to increase the supply of money electronically has confirmed the long-held nationalist interpretation of money creation, namely that it is possible to generate ‘valid’ banknotes quite literally out of nothing. [..] We would have employed at least a significant element of the new funding to create capital projects and investment in new infrastructure in the energy and transportation sectors — which would also have created real jobs."

So the state can "create" jobs? That's very typically a socialist fiction. The idea to just print money plays into the hands of CBP, i.e. Central Banking Progressivism. In America, look to the FED for a disastrous example and a threat to freedom and free markets. As a sidenote, the FED was based on the model that the Bank of England provided.

Put that together with the proposal in the manifesto to, quote: "restore he authority of the Bank of England" [to be renamed the Bank of Great Britain]

And you have a BNP recipe for disastrous leftist policies.

To round up this one, what does the BNP manifesto say about the total economic framework of Britain?
"It is a primary responsibility of government to create such a framework."

So let's take stock here: collectivism; state control; anti free market; forced redistribution of wealth; political environmentalism. What kind of a socialist party would that be when you add it to their glorification of nationhood?

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

imnokuffar said...

Sagunto/Hesperado, you just proved my point about the tent scenario.

I could go into great detail to defend the BNP's position on all the items you mention.

I will however point out that the present situation has given us mass unemployment, falling living standards, mass immigration with all that entails, attacks on the democratic rights of people, unwinnable wars, trillions of debt, economies close to collapse, the destruction of our natural environment, social decay, the degradation of our health and social services, terrorism, civil strife and penury for lots of people.

I don't know where you live but you must have noticed these trifles. And it occurred under the present system. I have no problem with capitalism but any system devised by man that is not regulated in the interests of humankind will eventually provoke anarchy. The level of such interference in the free market is obviously a moot point.

Here is the foreword to the BNP's election manifesto. Read it if you want to.

"The British National Party enters the 2010 general election with one of the most comprehensive and detailed manifestos in its history."

"The BNP is proud to campaign on a number of issues which set it apart from all other political parties, namely the conflict in Afghanistan, the immigration invasion of our country, the threat to our security posed by Islamism and the danger of the European Union to our sovereignty."

"The BNP is also the only party to map out realistic and sensible budget cuts which will bring the deficit under control — without cutting front line public services to the British people."

"In addition, the reader will find unique and innovative policies within this document which range from a solution for the housing crisis to restoring British industry, and from building our nation’s IT infrastructure to constitutional reform to guarantee our peoples’ liberties and freedom."

"The word 'democracy' appears in the title of our manifesto for good reason. It represents our desire to preserve this great institution. It is also a warning that democracy is under threat from the European Union and mass immigration, both of which threaten to extinguish all of our traditions and culture.The word “freedom” appears in the title to alert readers to the fact that civil liberties and personal freedoms in modern Britain are under attack."

"In the name of “fighting terrorism,” the old-gang parties have introduced draconian laws which have usurped many of our traditional freedoms — while the old-gang parties themselves are to blame for the threat of terrorism hanging over our country."

"The word 'security' appears in the title because the BNP believes in the sanctity of life, limb and property. This means safe neighbourhoods with vibrant, cohesive communities; it means security of long-term employment, devoid of the fear that industry, commerce and employment will be transferred to the Third World."

"The word 'identity' appears in the title because the BNP believes in genuine ethnic and cultural diversity and the right of all peoples to be free of colonisation and rule by others — including the indigenous people of these islands."

"The BNP is committed to putting the interests of the British people first. I invite you to review our policies and make your choice."

Anonymous said...


The BNP is definitely a socialist party, for all of the reasons you mentioned. Its preference for open state control of the economy is a throwback to Hayek's time, and his wisdom is perfectly applicable. I can't say with any degree of confidence whether FC is a socialist or not, although it would fit well with his every-European-is-my-brother Weltangschauung and his general Nazi outlook.

In any event, any deficiency in Hitler's governance, such as it was, are to be explained by FC's universal theory: the Jews made him do it. All the verbiage that FC has slung on this site reflects his obsession with Jews and his limitless belief that anything amiss in greater Germania (if not the entire world) can be attributed solely to the malevolent existence of Jews.

Again, FC is a Nazi.

Mark said...

Racial Volunteer Force - Message to the EDL

Sagunto said...


Come on don't back away now, be a sport and show a little more spirit. I have (re)read the BNP manifesto and argued on good grounds why I think the BNP is a leftist party. In my view, explained earlier in this thread, any party or initiative with collectivist leanings will ultimately serve as a tool in the hands of CBP, i.e. Central Banking Progressivism, one of our two existential foes.
Because I mean well, I'd like to help you get rid of that collectivist tendency towards servitude, so why don't we step outside "the Tent" for a moment and exchange arguments?

To be quite frank, I don't need to be inside any more than you do, for I find the whole concept a bit flawed and unattractive. Tents are for Muslims. I prefer a good pub ;-)
So what do you say to that proposal and present some sound arguments as to why I am mistaken? You might just convince me.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Sagunto said...


Some 9000 years ago, our ancestors could still walk across, or wade (8000 years ago) the Channel-in-the-making, and trade with each other, argue and go to war and, in order to prevent the latter, exchange women. So on that broad note, I imagine that at least some common ground can be found outside the Tent.

Concerning the rights of Western aboriginals like you and myself, let me briefly state what I believe in and why I am prepared to fight for it.

I firmly believe in Natural Law as the basic underpinning of any sound sense of civilization and community, and in free market philosophy that naturally goes hand in hand with it. This balanced sense of community is totally different from the childish visions that inform all sorts of socialism. Natural Law describes our unalienable natural rights as individuals: the right to property, to our life and to enjoy the fruits of our labour. So logically, I'm all for defending the rights of the indigenous people of say, the Lowlands or the free republic of Dutchmark (would be nice). Where people have lived for generations, they have developed traditions, a way of life, and also their property (if they haven't fallen victim to collectivist looting schemes). My kind of Natural Law "democracy" would also be, like Chesterton's, a democracy of the dead, were the voices of our ancestors count as well.

He wrote:
"Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead."

And he goes on to say: "Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father."
- Orthodoxy, Chapter 4, "The Ethics of Elfland."

So that in itself will always put additional weight to the rights of indigenous people compared with newcomers (let alone invaders, which are best covered by my own private version of the "just war" theory). The quote also nicely illustrates why I am more fond of the term "fatherland", i.e. land of my ancestors, as opposed to the corrupted progressivist version of "la Patrie" or "the Nation". In precisely the same way, I am more fond of growth instead of "progress". Glorification, by the way, of nationhood has been part of the political religion of state-worship, forced upon Europe ever since the "enlightenment" attack on Western civilization was first undertaken.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,

Hesperado said...


"He doesn't seem to understand that comparing Nazis & Bolsheviks is like comparing Coke & Pepsi."

Or Sunnis vs. Shias. As the philosopher Eric Voegelin pointed out, Nazism and Communism both derive from a common gnostic disease, even if some of the particulars vary.

Another good source on this is Hitler was a Socialist, by John Ray. It's a very long article, but it is meticulously referenced, and nearly impeccably argued. I have yet to see a cogent rebuttal of it.

Sagunto said...


I've read both sources some time ago, Voegelin, Collected Works, Vol.5, "Modernity Without Restraint", and both the long and short articles on Hitler (and many more) by John Ray. Perfect material.