If I compare Jews with non-Jews as Mr. Armor suggests, I find they are overwhelmingly normal, functioning members of Western societies with no particular animus against their societies or against non-Jews. Like other groups, however (in the U.S., blacks, Mexicans, and women), I find they are more liberal and leftist than the population as a whole. Even if they were overrepresented in the media (and in academia), they would not be distinguishable because the media and academia are overwhelmingly left-liberal regardless of the presence or absence of Jews. I don't think any of the problems that conservatives, patriots, nationalists, and traditionalists deplore would be appreciably different if there were no Jews around at all. Liberalism does not require Jews or Jewish assistance to maintain its hold on a huge proportion of the population of a democratic, mixed-economy, welfare state. Therefore I ask, why single out Jews at all when talking about contemporary issues (apart from Israel)? It only offends and threatens Jews who would otherwise be sympathetic to nationalist and patriotic arguments, alienates our Jewish allies, and disgusts non-Jewish fellow citizens whom we wish to persuade to patriotic, conservative, nationalist, or traditionalist views. What patriots should do is formulate a reasonable relationship of the majority to minorities in the societies they envision. Jews should know there is an honored place for them in a traditionalist America, for example--the place acknowledged by George Washington and John Adams. Patriotism should be broadly defined enough to admit all who are willing to be patriots. (A BNP error, hoepfully to be corrected--excluding non-Celto-Teutons, when there are rooted Indians who would fight to restrict immigration and preserve Britain as Britain.)

Look how badly antisemitism damaged Germany. Wasn't a patriotic German Jew the minister who organized the secret survival of the German military following Versailles? Then some antisemite ignoramus assassinated him! Antisemitism was one aspect of Germany's national suicide under Hitler. There is no need for the same poison to be imbibed by contemporary patriots, when Jewish history is a model of nation-formation and survival, and there are Jews able and willing to join the patriotic fight on behalf of the Western nations.

"Why call that a Jewish agenda when it is the agenda of the left which is overwhelmingly non-Jewish? "

I think you should compare Jews with non-Jews, rather than with leftist non-Jews. In real life, I don't know any one who defends population replacement. I don't know any Jew personally, but I can see that they are very much overrepresented in the media, and it seems that almost every one of them defends population replacement, even though it would be so easy for them to speak against immigration.
A huge percentage of western TV fare is anti-white propaganda, even though most white people are not anti-white at all. It is a fact that much of this anti-white propaganda is interlaced with holocaust propaganda, Israeli news, debates among Jewish intellectuals, programs about Jewish authors, and so on. How come? Don't tell me this is because Europeans are obsessed with the Jews. Every one wishes we would hear a little less about them. My conclusion is that media propaganda for population replacement, as well as the censorship of mainstream European opinion, mainly comes from the Jews. And it obviously has tremendous influence on the whole of society.

"Are all the other lefties just the stupid tools of conspiratorial Jews? I don't think so. "

I don't think so either. Where did I mention a conspiracy in my comment? There is nothing very secret about Jewish propaganda, although there is much duplicity, for example when they pose as European conservative anti-islamic protectors of the West..., while promoting mass immigration. Mentioning the problem leads to Jewish accusations of "anti-semitism", as does drawing lists of Jews in politics and the media.

"White guilt, white suicide, multiculturalism, left-liberalism, socialism: we would have these problems without liberal-leftist Jews playing any part in them."

I cannot know for sure, but I think we would not have the current immigration disaster.

"Why are people left-liberal is the real question: not because they are dupes of the Zionists"

Your previous comment addressed the question of Jewish influence. This is what I replied to.

Crazy European leftism is hugely encouraged by the Jews (especially through the mass media). Are you saying that the Jews have no particular responsibility in the destruction of the West? For my part, I never thought that the problem was entirely caused by them. I know that Jewish efforts would have little effect if there was no European weakness. But where did you see in my comment that I said the Jews were entirely responsible for our problems?

To Mr. Scarborough: Bon voyage!

To Mr. Armor: Why call that a Jewish agenda when it is the agenda of the left which is overwhelmingly non-Jewish? Are all the other lefties just the stupid tools of conspiratorial Jews? I don't think so. White guilt, white suicide, multiculturalism, left-liberalism, socialism: we would have these problems without liberal-leftist Jews playing any part in them. The hypocrisy of leftist Jews I did not directly address, but I think it was present in my concept of liberal Jews using their Jewishness to justify their destructive liberalism.

Why are people left-liberal is the real question: not because they are dupes of the Zionists, but because they reject society, nature, the Creation, the Deity, natural law, and nations as they are. They are in resentful rebellion against reality.

KO said: "I would agree that there are powerful Jews out to undermine Western society and that they and other Jews believe in their superiority to other groups. However, I think the undermining is a result of their liberalism, not their Jewishness or their Judaism."

There is much Jewish hypocrisy: they will say it is natural to protect the borders of Israel but not the borders of Europe and America. It is natural to encourage intermarriage among Jews, but racist and despicable to oppose miscegenation between Europeans and African immigrants. It is a strange kind of "liberalism".

Auster quote: "Jews are a distinct people who because of their energy and talents tend to become dominant in culturally influential areas of society. This leads to the problem that a small minority group begins to become the definer of cultural standards for the majority. For the most part, this is not due to any Jewish racial agenda or conspiracy"

When Jews promote deviant art, it may be because they have a taste for deviant art, and not because they try to degrade European art. Maybe they just use their dominant position to promote what really appeals to them without any concern for popular European tastes. Is that what Auster tried to say? But how come Europeans become consumers of the Jewish cultural production even though it is not what naturally appeals to them? It is obvious that the "energy and talents" of the Jews lies in achieving control of the media and distribution channels, more than in producing European art that appeals to Europeans.

Anyway: when Jews encourage the racial replacement of the white people by third world immigrants, how could anyone argue there is no racial anti-white agenda?

KO,

I am about to embark on an extended holiday over seas, and promise to respond with a comprehensive reply when time permits. I have enjoyed our debate immensely. It is refreshing to discuss controversial issues, vehemently disagree, and yet retain a cordial, mutually respectful relationship. I thank you for that. We can only learn from each other when we talk to and listen to each other without attacking one another for not sharing our particular beliefs. That is what true freedom and democracy are all about. And the establishment has declared war on freedom, democracy, and dissent. The information you provided in your post presents some very thought provoking and illuminating insights into the subject at hand. I found the writer's arguments quite edifying and provocative, and would not disagree with a word; however, I feel there are many sides to this very complex and emotionally evocative issue.
Hopefully we can continue where we left off when I get back from my mission. (insert cheesy grin smilie here).

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

Thanks to Mr. Scarborough for developing his ideas in further detail. Many of his facts are not in dispute, but the conclusions that he draws do not appear to be justified. For instance, I would agree that there are powerful Jews out to undermine Western society and that they and other Jews believe in their superiority to other groups. However, I think the undermining is a result of their liberalism, not their Jewishness or their Judaism. Gentiles need to reproach Jews and other liberals for their destructive liberalism, and need to reproach liberal Jews for using their Jewishness to justify their destructive liberalism. Gentiles also need to assert the prerogatives of traditional national cultures, the alternatives to which are impoverishment, anarchy, and the destruction of those cultures. In the words of Lawrence Auster, speaking of the U.S., the majority has to start acting like the majority again. With your indulgence, I will quote at length his discussion of "the Jewish problem" on VFR, with which I hope BJ readers would sympathetize:

"The Jewish problem--not the Jewish problem of the Jew haters, but the real Jewish problem--consists in the fact that Jews are a distinct people who because of their energy and talents tend to become dominant in culturally influential areas of society. This leads to the problem that a small minority group begins to become the definer of cultural standards for the majority. For the most part, this is not due to any Jewish racial agenda or conspiracy . . ., rather it is just built into the fact of Jewish distinctiveness combined with Jewish talents. But even though the situation is not anyone's fault, it is not a healthy situation. The way the problem can be resolved, as I've said many times, is by the majority recovering and maintaining its majority identity, functions, and authority, and thus requiring minorities to conform to the majority's standards.

"It used to be this way in America. A classic example is the Golden Age of Hollywood. The movie industry was largely a Jewish creation, yet the Jews of Hollywood loved the majority culture and elevated its ideals. For example, the beautiful MGM movies of the late '30 and early '40s that were set in England and were imbued with an English atmosphere (so that it's hard to believe the movies were made in Los Angeles), were the brain child of Louis B. Mayer, head of MGM. Contrast that with today, when many of the Jews of Hollywood, such as Steven Spielberg, are self-consciously alienated from the majority culture and seek to tear it down. An example is "Saving Private Ryan," in which the elderly Ryan, re-visiting Normandy in his old age, is bizarrely portrayed as a broken down figure overwhelmed with guilt. That's the way alienated leftist Jews want to portray the Christian majority.

"What is the solution? There is no quick solution, but there is a solution. The majority needs to rediscover itself and start acting like the majority again and start setting the standards for America. Once a new elite was in place setting different and better standards from those we have now, the viciously anti-American movies that are now standard fare in Hollywood would cease being made. Jews who persisted in alienation toward or simply a lack of identification with the majority culture would still be able to express themselves in a minority cultural setting, but their minority views would not be considered legitimate or authoritative for the society as a whole. The basic principle is that people who do not identity with a society do not have the right to speak for that society. I am not talking about legal restrictions, but about the restrictions that a healthy majority culture would naturally impose.

"In short, the Jewish problem can be solved, and Jews can function, as they have in the past, as a minority that has a certain distinctiveness and yet conforms itself to the standards and allegiances of the majority culture."

A nationalist in a Western country should seek to reestablish the nation in the face of the overwhelming liberal assault on the nation through its culture, its laws, its religion, its population (through immigration), its economy, and its institutions. All of these, in a country like Britain, have an important Judeo-Christian element in their history. A nationalist should seek to recover and reestablish the Judeo-Christian aspects of the nation, and that means fighting all liberals including liberal Jews who use Jewishness as a shield and sword for their liberalism. A nationalist should not expel Judeo-Christianity from his program to renew the nation.

How about this: why is the British monarch anointed with oil? Because the Frankish emperors were anointed with oil, in imitation of the kings of Israel. The sacramental character of Western sovereignty is thus a Jewish creation, and we should cherish the Jews for what they have given us. That is my argument in a nutshell.

Quote: KO "The talent and hard-earned wealth of some Jews makes them more effective in their endeavors than less talented, less wealthy people...,"

If I had made such an elitist statement pertaining to the superiority of white Europeans I would have found myself vociferously denounced by both the American left and right as a racist and 'white' supremacist. For as we all know, because the liberal establishment tells us this to be self-evident, all peoples enjoy full equality in all ways. Of course a society of pygmy Negrito Andaman Islanders has the intellectual capacity and drive to put a man on the moon were they not hindered by the environmental limitations of their island homeland (insert roll eyes smilie here).

The talent of Jews is greatly over dramatised, mostly by Jews themselves. The fact that Jews seem to be so inordinately over represented within the medical profession, law, academia, media, civil service and political arena is to be attributed less to any unique intellectual gifts particular to Jews than to the fact that many Jews have a natural impulse to seek positions of power and influence, self-enrichment, and prestige. The Jewish respect for education is born of a recognition that a good education is a necessity in aspiring to such ambitions.

Hard earned wealth? You mean like the wealth acquired by wall street guru Ivan Boesky, or Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorovsky and the other Russian Jewish Oligarchs who raped the Russian economy and then fled to the West after the dissolution of the Soviet Union?

Quote: KO:" But globalism and socialism have a huge following regardless of Jewish participation".

Yes, and crack cocaine and heroine also have a huge following, but the fans would have a difficult time acquiring the object of their desire without the services of the International drug cartels and their local pushers. Internationalism is the drug, the Zionists and multinational corporations (often one and indivisible) are the cartel, and the rank and file Jew, politician, and liberal community leaders are the pushers.

Quote: KO:"That said, with Jews voting overwhelmingly Democratic in the U.S.--that is, for the party of globalist socialism--one might conclude Jews are no more desirable as immigrants to the U.S. than Mexicans, who are similarly overwhelmingly inclined to vote to destroy the nation as traditionally conceived."

Of course Jews support the democratic party in significant numbers. The democratic party has for some time been representing itself as the only political advocacy for the dispossessed and downtrodden minority elements of American society. Jews consider themselves a persecuted, long suffering minority and would thus naturally gravitate to the company of their fellow victims of white, Christian male persecution. But another factor which engenders support for the Democratic party among ethnically conscious Jews, is the fact that the democratic party IS the socialist party of the United States, and - like its counterpart in Europe - advocates for conditions which can only result in a diminution and devolution of white/European hegemony, and a subsequent break down in traditional conservative protestant values, which of course results in an identity crisis for white Americans who then become more vulnerable to co-option by the destructive influences of multiculturalism. Most perniciously the identity solvent of miscegenation.

Many Jews harbour an ancient and abiding hatred -perhaps understandably -for, and fear of the white European Christian, and would find the world a much safer place indeed for the Children of Abraham, were the white man no longer an inhabitant of any great number. In the context of the Jewish drive for self-preservation, the philosophies of Marxism, Bolshevism, and multiculturalism suddenly seem reasonable.

And what makes you assume I or anyone else would necessarily regard great numbers of Jews in Western Society as any more desirable than great numbers of Mexicans, Pakistanis, Nigerian Ibo tribesmen, or any other alien race? And with that I have just instigated round three of the debate have I not?...lol

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

Quote: KO: "Mr. Scarborough mentions many significant facts about Jews that cause him to see Jews as enemies of the nation he seeks to preserve."

Of course any particular person who happens to be Jewish deserves to be viewed as an individual like anyone else, and judged according to his own character, personal conduct and activities. However, when several or many Jews band together into a group or lobby and work together in furtherance of a specific agenda; these Jews may be held accountable for their activities collectively, as would be an association of Roman Catholics or Armenian Americans. Thus one can speak of AIPAC as a specifically Jewish organisation, just as one may refer to al-Fatah as a specifically Palestinian organisation. Can anyone reasonably be expected to exercise such concision as to describe AIPAC's agenda or undertakings as being specific to the Jewish supporters of AIPAC? ; or would you expect people to simply describe AIPAC as a Jewish organisation? And would AIPAC describe anyone who might publicly object to AIPAC's undeniably pervasive influence in American politics as anything other than anti-semitic or racist? Of course not. So don't expect me, as a Nationalist, to exercise any greater degree of generosity when relating to AIPAC, its supporters, or any other hypocritical ethno-centric Jew. I ain't one of those new testament turn the other cheek type Christians. I am one of those old testament smite my enemies type Christians. What's good enough for the Hebrews is good enough for me.

I have lived in the United States, off and on, for many years, and have directly experienced the unmitigated, singular arrogance; aggressive ethno-centrism, and haughty, overbearing sense of entitlement observable in many American Ashkenazic, Sephardic, and Hassidic Jews. So spare me the worn out 'Jews are a cuddly, lovable, meek and mild, unfairly maligned little religious community just trying to make their way in the world like everyone else' aphorisms. Jews can be just as hostile and abusive as any other member of that carnivorous family of primates known as man; and shouldn't enjoy any greater degree of immunity to criticism, or any other special dispensation than any other group. Period. I will not, nor should anyone blithely accept the equation of: criticism of a Jewish person or group of Jewish persons = antisemitism.

In my community I have never observed a Christian attempting to oppress any and all expression of the Jewish holidays in our schools and public places as I have observed the local Jewish community making every conceivable effort to keep the Crèches in the shed, any mention of Jesus confined to the pulpit, and the seemingly innocuous salutation: 'Merry Christmas' banned from department store to municipal library. Whilst concurrently Channukha, menorahs, stars of David, and all manner of Judaica are shoved down the Goyim's throat at every given opportunity 24/7. And can you imagine a Jew referring to Channukah with the Euphemism 'the holidays' as are Christians Christmas? And please don't try and dismiss such things as a myth or stereotype. I have experienced this offensive phenomenon of Jewish cultural militancy and intolerance first hand and with my own eyes. I do not hold the Jews to account for promoting their own group self-interests, it's a natural and healthy human inclination, and one I admire and would like to see emulated by my own people; however, the best interests of the Jewish community and those of its hosts are not always mutually compatible, and thus, the influence of the inordinately powerful Jewish Lobby, admittedly one special interest among countless others, must be exposed, confronted and opposed when its machinations pose a threat to Occidental civilisation and the European peoples.

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

Please forgive that time permits a comprehensive response only to key, select passages of your last reply in our debate.

Quote: KO: "I would only add that freedom of speech only works among people who are generally committed to living and working together . Communists, Nazis, Moslems, and now Left-liberals seek to destroy the traditional ways of people including their freedom of speech. Should they be accorded freedom of speech to do that? A people has the right to protect itself, and at some point speech turns into a detriment to the people. Witness the scandalous protection granted pornography by U.S. courts under the rubric of "freedom of speech."

Yes, this is indeed a frustratingly complex issue. Where to draw the line on free expression? There are great dangers inherent in the concept of regulated, conditional free speech because if something is to be regulated, than there must necessarily be regulators; and who exactly could be trusted in establishing the rubric of what is or isn't an idea or topic which should be tolerated or should be censored? The government? The European Union and its commissioners in the Brussels politburo - aided by the dutiful Kommissars in Londonistan, Dar-el-Paris, and Berlinşehir - has made the incremental abrogation of free speech a priority in its frenetic drive to consolidate its far reaching prerogatives and secure the execution of its agenda from any and all possible resistance from the masses. The establishment of so-called racial equality legislation, obsessively though 'selectively' enforced by the Commissariat for racial equalityin Britain, is little more than a bare naked, carefully calculated contrivance for gagging the increasingly skeptical element of the public on the issues of immigration and multiculturalism and thus asphyxiating any meaningful discussion on these issues which are fundamentally intrinsic to any viable debate on these matters.

Any speech which might be negatively received by Muslims, Indians or African migrants is deemed as an incitement to racial intolerance and threatening to community cohesion; and of course you can assume it will be necessarily viewed with resentment by the alien population if anyone openly questions, say: the wisdom of maintaining an unregulated, and consequently chaotic open door immigration policy; or expresses concern over the establishment of ethnic enclave no-go zones in whole areas of Britain's urban centres, or the skyrocketing increase in violent crime as a direct result of the government's effective 'don't ask don't tell' policy which expedites the admission of tens of thousands of violent, third world criminals into the UK. These anti-free speech statutes masquerading as less objectionable harmonisation and social cohesion laws are intended to intimidate and terrorise the indigenous populace of Britain into silence and politically compliant submission. So, by this one example, you can see the dangers which are latent in any attempts at qualifying the acceptable parameters of free speech. For me, the only legitimate conditional which should be applied to free expression is if that free expression can be clearly demonstrated as encouraging an act which might present an immediate danger to an individual or to the public. Hurting an ethnics feelings or insulting someone's religious convictions should NOT qualify as such. Insensitivity should mayhap be discouraged, but certainly not illegalised. Big brother is out of control.

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

But Hebrew history is indispensable for the British nationalist, who should persevere in the old English identification with the Jews. King Alfred prefaced his traditional Anglo-Saxon law code with the Hebrew decalogue, and the great Bede (who enjoyed an international reputation for several centuries) showed in his commentary on Genesis that the English people were legitimate heirs of the Lord's promise to Abraham. Bede's Ecclesiastical Hostroy of the English People is an essential description of the origin of English civilization. Later in time, the New England colonists were British Christians who so identified with Hebrew history that many of them gave their children Hebrew names. In the same period, Oliver Cromwell was the first British ruler to officially welcome Jews. In sum, I again commend the history of the Jews to British nationalists, and the exemplary nationalism of some proponents of Israel. (Eric Voegelin's political thought, based on the "order of being" in which a people seeks attunement with divinity, is a wellspring of truth for the nationalist, as is VFR.)

Thanks again to Mr. Scarborough for his comments. I hope his skepticism regarding any commonality of thought between American traditionalists and British nationalists will eventually be overcome. Britons and Americans both need to assert their nations' true interests, the survival and prosperity of their related peoples. They should band together against globalism, socialism, appeasement of the Islamic world, and appeasement of the EU. This website is a great place where people can discuss what makes a nation, and why one's nation is worth preserving.

In the new John Adams movie, the American has an audience with George III. He says that he can only be loyal to one country, his own. The monarch replies, That is the only proper view for an honest man.

Thanks very much to Mr. Scarborough for his considered replies to my comments. All blogging involves some rhetorical experimentation, and my use of "Mr." and the third person is not meant to be condescending, but only formal, for the purpose of avoiding the constant ad hominem that detracts from blogger credibility.

I am sorry to hear about the lack of welcome Mr. Scarborough has experienced from the BNP. God knows they need all the help they can get. They should welcome free discussion among allies. I would only add that freedom of speech only works among people who are generaly committed to living and working together . Communists, Nazis, Moslems, and now Left-liberals seek to destroy the traditional ways of people including their freedom of speech. Should they be accorded freedom of speech to do that? A people has the right to protect itself, and at some point speech turns into a detriment to the people. Witness the scandalous protection granted pornography by U.S. courts under the rubric of "freedom of speech."

Mr. Scarborough mentions many significant facts about Jews that cause him to see Jews as enemies of the nation he seeks to preserve. It is true there are active Jewish organizations that cozy up to Moslems at the same time as raising the hue and cry against white anti-semites. It is true that Jews have had leading roles in the globalist and socialist movements that are destroying all nations. But is it because they are Jews they pursue these policies? There is a saying in the U.S., Jews are just like everyone else, only more so. The talent and hard-earned wealth of some Jews makes them more effective in their endeavors than less talented, less wealthy people, but globalism and socialism have a huge following regardless of Jewish participation, and even if Jews said they pursued these things because they are Jewish, the fact would remain that it is a leftist interpretation of Judaism that they have embraced and not the Judaism of the Lubavitcher rabbi I quoted or of the "Israel Our Home" party of Israeli nationalists (for example) who advocate a limited, patriotic government that would probably appeal to most of the classical liberals that frequent this website. The question of divided loyalty, an accusation flung at Jews, should not arise where it is expected that people will responsibly and prudently adhere to the multiple loyalties dictated by family, religion, region, civilization, nation, and race. That is the traditionalist view--we have multiple affiliations. The traditionalist does not say, "Within the state (race, party), everything; without the state (race, party), nothing." The ambiguity of "Jew" as both an ethnic and a religious identity makes the picture somewhat more complicated, though one might add that in past generations in the U.S., "Roman Catholic" was both an ethnic (non-WAS) and religious (non-P) term. So I still disagree with Mr. Scarborough's objection to Zionism, and I propose that what he sees as Zionism is leftist globalism and socialism using the cloak of Jewishness to further the leftist agenda. I think the fact that the same leftists are really destroying Israel for the sake of leftist principles is a pretty good argument against seeing Zionism as a far-reaching Jewish conspiracy. That said, with Jews voting overwhelmingly Democratic in the U.S.--that is, for the party of globalist socialism--one might conclude Jews are no more desirable as immigrants to the U.S. than Mexicans, who are similarly overwhelmingly inclined to vote to destroy the nation as traditionally conceived. (Women and blacks also vote Democratic more than is desirable. That doesn't mean we can get rid of them, though it may put the extension of the suffrage in an unfavorable light.)

Based on the casualty figures published by the Research and Documentation Center (Istrazivacko dokumentacioni centar) in Sarajevo, the war in Bosnia was really no worse than any modern armed conflict - actually, it was a good deal less destructive (perhaps because neither side had truly heavy firepower).

1.The ethnic distribution of war dead tracks fairly well the pre-war demographic distribution of Bosnia: Bosniaks - 66 percent; Serbs - 26 percent; Croats - 8 percent; Others - under 1/2 percent

2. The ratio of civilian to military dead (40 percent to 60) is much better than in most modern wars.

3. 90 percent of the dead are males, most of them between 25 and 35 - prime military age.

Based on these figures and conclusions, I just cannot see Karadzic's (and Mladic's) horns and cloven hoof.  They made some grave mistakes, no question - like failing to control their people when Srebrenica was taken; like failing to wage an effective propaganda campaign. But the did their best against hopeless odds, in defense of their own people. The Serbs are entirely justified in regarding them as national heroes.

Peter Kiss

As an anti-french Breton, I was very much in favor of everyone's independence in Yougoslavia, starting with Slovenia and Croatia. The french media and government were deeply opposed to the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, because they saw a parallel between the centralized dominination of Yougoslavia by Serbia, and the centralized domination of france by Paris. Although the Serbian domination was more respectful of the diverse identities within Yougoslavia. So, france supported the Serbs, while Germany supported the Croats. All of that changed when it came the turn of Bosnia, and later Kosovo. So, here is the french point of view:
independence of a small white nation = bad !
independence of a small muslim nation = good !

If you have a white muslim nation, the determining factor is: muslim.
I think the arrest of Karadzic is probably a good thing. What I don't like is the gloating in the media.

excerpted from Atlantic's link:
VDH: "neocon became de facto synonymous with “Jew” and there were overt efforts to tie Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith and others to a sort of covert cabal that had forced us to go to war for Israel — this despite the fact that Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice were neither Jews nor neocons nor malleable dupes."

I don't think Bush came up by himself with the idea of militarily invading Iraq and letting Mexicans demographically invade the USA. I think he is a dupe, but a stubborn dupe.

Neocons are mainly Jewish, and their policies are pro-immigration and anti-western. Who is responsible for that except themselves? I think neocon is the word they have chosen for themselves. But even so, if you disapprove of the neocons and don't say a word about Jews, VDH will hint that you are a racist crazy conspirationist! Some people in the media are doing the same thing with Obama. You are not allowed to criticize him because that would be racist.

VDH: "I’ve written no biography of any administration official / I have been to the White House only on 3-4 occasions"

It doesn't mean he isn't a neocon-court-historian. Today, power lies with the media owners, and I think VDH is pandering to them. By the way, what did he say in his book "The Immigration Solution"?

KO:"Shouldn't someone with Mr. Scarborough's abilities contribute to making the BNP effective and persuasive?"

Nice sentiment. But I, and my websites have been officially proscribed by the BNP administration as a result of a brief, and most unfortunate dalliance with the VoC; and also as a result of my outrageously subversive permissiveness in allowing people to reasonably and responsibly criticise the BNP leadership and particulars of BNP policy -on my forum.

Silly me. I seem to believe it appropriate to allow reasonable debate pertaining to any politician or political organisation: BNP, Tory, Labour, LibDem, society of arthritic Druids or otherwise. Isn't freedom of speech - for one and all - one of the personal liberties we Nationalists are nominally in support of? At least this Nationalist is.

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

KO:"As for Zionism, to the extent it is simply traditionalist Israeli nationalism, which it is among conservative Israelis, it is no doubt a good thing. There is little wrong and everything right about having a prosperous and secure Israel in the Middle East. More importantly, all Westerners are spiritually Jews to a very considerable extent, with the Old Testament providing us with our fundamental storehouse of historical, political, moral, and religious models for understanding reality.

And with this you have managed to increase my blood pressure to alarming digits. First of all you are placing the cart before the horse. Zionism existed long before the establishment of the Israeli state, though I find no disagreement in the equation of Zionism with Jewish ethno-Nationalism. I cannot take any other course than to place myself in opposition -at least as a matter of principal - to Zionism, for Zionism is indeed Jewish Nationalism manifest. As a Nationalist myself, you might ask how I could be opposed to any expression of the nationalist impulse by a fellow people; but it is in the very nature of the Zionist agenda, which includes unilateral self-preservation, that the answer for this seeming contradiction would lie.

How could I possibly support the Nationalist aspirations of the Jewish people, when many Jewish people have proven themselves so vehemently antipathetic to the Nationalist drives of Occidental man. Front and centre among the ubiquitous protagonists of every effort to impose new anti-democratic legislation in the EU and Britain, you will find various organs of the Zionist lobby. Laws ostensibly enacted to promote racial and ethnic harmony, and thus public safety and social order, are in fact thinly disguised tactics at restricting free speech to such a perverse degree that any meaningful dialogue pertaining to multiculturalism or immigration has been made an impossibility, (An example of political correctness gone mad here......). And thus, any viable political opposition to the EUs multicultural-collectivist agenda which is destroying European civilisation. Wherever an Occidental speaks out in advocacy of his own group, you will find well-financed, and obsessively motivated Jewish backed organisations such as: Searchlight, the ADL, the SPL, AIPAC, and a whole host of Judeocentric individuals attacking him as a racist, Xenophobe or, God forbid!, antisemite, and particularly using any and all methods from their bag of dirty tricks to defuse any potential public relations fallout when this reality is exposed. Conversely, these same entities would cheer and celebrate the very same expression of group self-advocacy if exhibited by an Asian or African.

How can I possibly find any enthusiasm for Jewish Nationalism when the Jewish Nationalists are so fanatically opposed to the Nationalism of my own people? As long as Jews have the power and influence to compel European governments to enact such outrageous laws as would place one of my countrymen in prison for simply not demonstrating an acceptable degree of reverence for the 'holocaust', I cannot in good conscious fail to feel resentment of this pernicious clout. Apparently it is perfectly acceptable for a Jew to seek the preservation of his own identity, but a most egregious travesty for a European? And I am not a Jew spiritually or otherwise, and do not need recourse to Jewish ethno-historiography in order to understand the realities of this world. I must hasten to acknowledge that there are many non-Zionist Jews such as can be found among the members of the Neturei Karta association, and with such Jews I have no argument, and can unhesitatingly offer my hand in friendship.

KO:"There is no need to attack our life-giving Jewish roots to oppose liberal globalism. (As a Lubavitcher rabbi said, "God rules the world--not the United Nations.")'

As Jews have always been among the primary driving forces behind International liberalism and many other destructive movements, and also secularism in Europe - I don't know if you are aware of the fact that Europe has become a Godless, humanistic society - I would have to disagree with your rosy asessment of these life giving Jewish roots. And your rationale would have no relevance to a secular society, Atheist or Agnostic.

I suspect you may have your own ethno-centric biases, as do we all.

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

Despite your rather back handed compliment in the initial and closing comments of your post, I must confess I am more than a little impressed by your erudition and literacy; and am delighted to encounter such a substantive piece - worthy of publication by any majour news venue - offered as a mere reply in a comments section. But please do not interpret my flattery as an indication I agree with much that you have written.

KO:"Surely it is a good thing for at least one Western country to take a leadership role in retaliating for terrorist attacks on its own soil."

And with this I would in no way disagree. I simply maintain that this effort at retaliation should have been confined to Afghanistan (and Pakistan), which is where the culprits for the 911 terrorist attacks were to be found.

KO:" can't believe that anyone who is as right on as many issues as Mr. Scarborough is would tell us that there was no possibility that Saddam and Al-Qaeda would cooperate because secular Ba'athists and Wahhabi extremists hate each other."

In my own defence, I would offer that even my hero, the great statesman Sir Winston himself, or that icon of American conservatism - William F. Buckley - might occasionally take a position seemingly contradictory of their own core positions, and which might be a disappointment to you. Not that I am conceding that this is the case. Once again, I feel that I am being condescended to and falsely discredited with theoretical suppositions rather than tangible, empirical fact.

KO:"There are great possibilities for U.S. cooperation with Britain and right-minded Europeans for our common defense and prosperity.

What might be considered the defence and prosperity of Britain is a purely subjective proposition, and I doubt a Nationalist would share a common vision qualitatively with even the most traditional of American conservatives. As long as US foreign policy is dictated by AIPAC, Walmart, and big oil; and American and EU globalist multiculturalism (or diversity as it is pushed in America) continue to feed off and promote each other; I must regard the US as no less an adversary to the Nationalist agenda than the EU itself.

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

The Neocon Slur.
 
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071208.html
 
 

Armor: Shouldn't someone with Mr. Scarborough's abilities contribute to making the BNP effective and persuasive? As you suggest, who else is in sight? Though it might be even more responsible to eschew any overt ideology, nationalist or otherwise, and simply conduct populist agitation to secure the people's rights and advantages at all levels of government. See www.neopopulism.org.

Achille: The huge shipment of yellowcake to Canada from Iraq--which leftists will tell you is insignificant because it cannot be used for weapons, although in fact it could be processed for weapons--was reported on by ABC online on July 5, 2008. See http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/WireStory?id=5314609&page=1

Since everyone criticizes you, I will do the same, so as to fit in.

You said: "The Nationalist movement in Britain is a farce, (...). The BNP can't even manage to keep order among a few thousand of its own members or run its own internal affairs in a responsible manner; how would such a group ever run a country?"

The BNP could not be worse than Labour or the Tory party. How could Labour or the phony Conservative party ever run Britain? It would be worse than a farce, it would be a disaster.
--
Alas, the terrible truth is that they ARE in power.

Once again everybody know that S.HUSSEIN tried to get the nuclear technology with France's help in the 80's.
Did you never heard on the uranium "yellow cake" found in IRAK these last month and discretly brought to USA(probably for security reasons).
I have not the link but it can be found on "freerepublic"

I followed Mr. Scarborough's link to britishnationalism.org and was delighted to find a community of British nationalists awake to the threats of uncontrolled immigration and multiculturalist government. With the news sprinkled with abominable Labourites and spineless Tories, it is refreshing to see that not every inhabitant of the Sceptered Isle is in a coma. In the course of this thread, however, I was disappointed to see Mr. Scarborough advancing some of the arguments we see from the "paleocons" in the U.S., who are so blinded by their hatred of so-called "Neo-Conservatives" that they will throw anything within reach at the Bush Administration, and "anything" includes far-left, Soros-type propaganda. Readers familiar with the writings of Justin Raimundo and Paul Craig Roberts will have seen the worst of this strain. I can't believe that anyone who is as right on as many issues as Mr. Scarborough is would tell us that there was no possibility that Saddam and Al-Qaeda would cooperate because secular Ba'athists and Wahhabi extremists hate each other. That is just naive. Hatred is no bar to cooperation against other objects of hatred, and no bar to cooperation with an eye towards future betrayal. A terrorist training camp in northern Iraq is the first thing U.S. Special Forces found (See Masters of Chaos, history of U.S. Special Forces), and the threat of WMDs in Iraq was by no means cooked up by the Bush Administration. Instead of Justin Raimundo and Paul Craig Roberts, conservatives who question the Iraq invasion should read View from the Right at www.amnation.com/vfr. Mr. Auster takes a balanced view on most issues and nationalists could greatly benefit from his "traditionalist" approach.

Anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism are extremely unpersuasive unless careful distinctions are made. Surely it is a good thing for at least one Western country to take a leadership role in retaliating for terrorist attacks on its own soil. I would rather hear a nationalist criticize America for liberal adventurism, but commend, correct, and support America's surviving nationalism, rather than urge it into line with the sovereignty-destroying EU. There are great possibilities for U.S. cooperation with Britain and right-minded Europeans for our common defense and prosperity. It does not help to scapegoat countries where potential allies lie. (A vice of the American right is to scapegoat France, but most Americans see no good examples of Frenchmen willing to persevere in our historic relationship.)

As for Zionism, to the extent it is simply traditionalist Israeli nationalism, which it is amoung conservative Israelis, it is no doubt a good thing. There is little wrong and everything right about having a prosperous and secure Israel in the Middle East. More importantly, all Westerners are spiritually Jews to a very considerable extent, with the Old Testament providing us with our fundamental storehouse of historical, political, moral, and religious models for understanding reality. To reject this heritage is suicidal (as it was suicidal for the Germans to reject German Jews). The Jews teach us better than anyone what a nation is, and why a nation is a sacred thing. It begins as a sacred calling, then extends itself as a kindred augmented by allegiances and acts of federation and warfare, suffers terrible reverses, must reconstitute itself, and so on. As the Jews, so the English (and the Americans). Churchill understood this. The only thing a nationalist should have against Zionism is as a form of multi-cultural international socialism. That is hardly a real threat from the Jews in the world today. The real enemy of British nationalism and nationalism everywhere is the liberalism that serves as a velvet glove over the iron fist of globalist tyranny, of which the EU and the UN are the most dangerous agents, though the U.S. is always in danger of cooperating with them all too much. To say that liberal globalism is itself Zionist is just gratuitous, self-defeating bigotry. The truth is that many prominent Jews are liberal globalists, but they share that with non-Jewish prominent Westerners generally. There is no need to attack our life-giving Jewish roots to oppose liberal globalism. (As a Lubavitcher rabbi said, "God rules the world--not the United Nations.")

British and American as well as European elites are gaga over globalism, so there is no reason to single out Americans or Jews as special offenders.

Nationalism is a force for good in the world because nations are part of the natural order of things which we defy at our peril. It is not good to the extent it attributes too much goodness or authority to the nation, as when it is advanced to fill a spiritual void. I don't see that in Mr. Scarborough or his colleagues, but I would like to see nationalism put in context of the proper order of human life.

@ Brendan S

1) Thank you for your futher clarifications.  They were truly informative.  Any serious reader would recognise that we agree a lot on many of the world's ailments, but that we disagree on what to do about it.  Your purported 'solutions' come dangerously close to those of Armor's, although I must say that you are much more honest and rational in your expositions.  

2) I hope you have noticed that, by now, Maliki's (24 hour) "retraction" has already been retracted further 3 times, in different directions.  In essence he has already 'voted' in the coming US election for Obama, for obvious reasons.  This should give you an indication why he cannot justly be described as an "American puppet".  But, this is a side issue.  And, believe me, I understand why some Brits feel such deep resentment towards the US as you obviously do.  It is like with your myopia and that of the globalist multiculturalists on a variety of other issues: it is something that I can understand well, but do not approve of.
 

@ Brendan S
 
I'll set my own agenda, thank you.

Atlanticist911: "I can see where your confusion lies here."

I can only aspire to your own infallible perfection.

In the future may I suggest contributing something of merit to the discussion rather than confining your participation to thinly veiled personal attacks?

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

@ Brendan S

Brendan S's  subject header:
 
"... alarming ..."
 
 
Kappert's subject header:
 
"search an enemy"
 
Atlanticist's subject header:
 
"re: search an enemy"
 
I can see where your confusion lies here.
 
 
ps: Don't worry, I feel sure our paths will cross again.

Marcfrans: "The fact that liberal globalist multiculturalists are myopic cannot justify your own myopia."

Sure it can. As the liberal establishment will tolerate no free, open, and fair debate on any of the issues pertaining to its agenda, I can only assume a dogmatic position in defence of my own doctrinaire attitudes as a Nationalist.

Marcfrans: "It is remarkable that you , as a 21st century European, can judge people on the basis of decisions and actions of their ancestors 400 years ago. Are you so sure about your own ancestors' actions that long ago? I judge existing people on the basis of their opinions and actions of today. And, yes, that includes the Germans of today."

And I will be more than happy to reassess my attitudes when 8 year old German School children aren't taught in school that they share a collective guilt for the sins of their grandfathers; and Europeans aren't gaoled for not showing an acceptable degree of reverence for the Jewish experience in WWII.

Marcfrans: "Are you suggesting that we should today behave like people did in the 18th century? I also do not believe in "rights" for Muslims in Europe. I believe in equal rights (and duties) for all citizens in any country. "

Behaving like enlightened 21st century Europeans when the rest of the world is yet behaving as people did in the 18th century puts us at a serious disadvantage. The world is only too pleased to take advantage of this unilateral liberal Celto-Teutonic Altruism particular to the Northern peoples; a flaw in our character which is proving itself fatal. On your second point, I am of course in full agreement; however, I'd go a step further in maintaining that none of these indigenous traitors to European civlisation (Albanians/Bosnians); or alien squatters should be permitted to acquire citizenship or even residency in Western Europe in the first place.

Marcfrans: "You are misinformed about the UN-imposed sanctions regime on Iraq during the 1990's. To the extent that there was any "famine" in that country, it was the direct result of decisions taken by the Saddam regime, not by the UN nor anybody else."

Yes. Saddam didn't capitulate to US demands (who listens to the UN?) as a result of the imposed economic embargo, thus he is entirely culpable for the resultant deaths. (rolls eyes) And why does the standard of toleration for despots seem to adjust the closer one travels in the direction of the Jordan river?

Marcfrans: "1) If you think that Maliki is an "American puppet", then you are certainly misinformed about realities in Iraq. Better find some more objective sources. And yes, I agree with you that there are many tyrants in the world. But I do not think that you "realise the answer" to why Bush and Blair chose to pick on Saddam. You do not have to agree with the reasons nor reasoning of Bush and Blair, but you do have a moral obligation not to misrepresent them either. You should try to remain both honest with yourself and with others."

Oh really? I look at the subtext as well as the spin marc. When al-Maliki recently stated that he supported a time line for withdrawal by American forces from Iraq; he retracted his previous statement within twenty four hours, no doubt as a result of the US state department yanking in his chain. You really must stop offering your own opinions or interpretations of the facts as the gospel and mine as misinformed delusions.

And I very much realise the underlying agenda precipitating the invasion of Iraq. It can be found at: Latitude: 32° 05', North. Longitude: 34° 46', East

And as for this discussion going off topic? I will not assume all responsibility for that. And there is a certain analogy to be made between the Balkan conflict and the occupation of Iraq.

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

Atlanticist911: "I did NOT post that "False dichotomy" comment in response to any comment you may have posted."

It wasn't clear to whom the comment had been directed, so I decided to cover myself'

Atlanticist911: "Thanks, but I really do not have either the time or inclination to get embroiled with you in a recapitulation of the perceived rights and wrongs of the war in Iraq."

An interesting statement from someone with the user name: Atlanticist911

Achille: "In France liberals, socialists shared the same stance, on the war in IRAK,as the far-nationalists and their leader J.M.LEPEN.
During the last presidential electoral campaign in France, LEPEN made an alliance with an anti-Semitic french-african "humorist" and a former communist...Now we have no REAL conservative party in France and i think that's the same in most of the western european countries."

There is a reason I refer to myself as an independent Nationalist. The Nationalist movement in Britain is a farce, and there isn't a single, even nominally Nationalist political organisation for whom I could work up much enthusiasm or feel compelled to throw my support . The BNP can't even manage to keep order among a few thousand of its own members or run its own internal affairs in a responsible manner; how would such a group ever run a country? I have long admired LePen for his courage in confronting the multicult in his homeland, most recently evidenced by his tirade against Nicolas ben-Sarkozy Strasbourg; but I have been greatly disappointed by some of the Front National's surprising, counterintuitive, and wholly unacceptable associations with the migrant community; the anti-Semitism of these dubious alliances being the least of my concerns. There is very little integrity to be found among the Nationalist leaders of Europe; and look how the Nationalist EU parliamentary bloc: Tradition & Sovereignty -dissolved over a petty dispute. Its all very discouraging. The Barbarians are at the gate and there is no one - Conservative or Nationalist - standing between them and the helpless townspeople.

Achille: "Stick to the facts and don't try to "cut and run" as the dishonest liberals do".

What are you on about?

Achille: "1/No WMD were found in IRAK but it don't mean that there were no WMD in IRAK"

And no life has yet been found on Mars, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We can go around in these circles for infinity. I deal in the available 'facts' not agenda driven theoretical suppositions.

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

Is there any real will in Srpska for independence? Do they have the military means to ensure it? Are there any plans?  If Obama is elected, would it be advisable to declare independence on his first day in office?

If there were no WMD in Iraq, I wonder how Canada managed to import 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake uranium from Iraq last month.

[Anyway, whether there were WMDs in Iraq or not is irrelevant to the basis for war, which was numerous violations of UN resolutions related to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.]

Thanks, but I really do not  have either the time or inclination to get embroiled with you in a recapitulation of the perceived rights and wrongs of the war in Iraq. However, I would just like to point out that, contrary to your clear belief that I did, I did NOT post that "False dichotomy" comment in response to any comment you may have posted.
 
@ Kappert
 
I had toyed with the idea of spelling it "Dyke- otomy"... Sorry I didn't now.

Go further Scarborough and you'll find the light.
1/No WMD were found in IRAK but it don't mean that there were no WMD in IRAK.In my precedent post i spoke of OSIRAK ,the nuclear power station built with the help of France in Irak and destroyed by an israelian bombing in 1981...Need some cartoons to understand?
2/IRAK had no link with the 9/11.Maybe but that's not the problem

In France liberals,socialists shared the same stance,on the war in IRAK,as the far-nationalists and their leader J.M.LEPEN.

During the last presidential electoral campaign in France,LEPEN made an alliance with an anti-semitic french-african "humorist" and a former communist...Now we have no REAL conservative party in France and i think that's the same in most of the western european countries.

Stick to the facts and don't try to "cut and run" as the dishonest liberals do

@ Brendan S

1) Thank you for explicitly confirming that your view on Balkan history and societies was one-sided.  It is OK to take sides, it is not not Ok to be incapable of seeing different sides to an issue or conflict.   The fact that liberal globalist multiculturalists are myopic cannot justify your own myopia.

2) It is remarkable that you , as a 21st century European, can judge people on the basis of decisions and actions of their ancestors 400 years ago.  Are you so sure about your own ancestors' actions that long ago?  I judge existing people on the basis of their opinions and actions of today.  And, yes, that includes the Germans of today.

3) I am also opposed to a "police state" in Europe and to a "United States of planet Earth".

4) I agree that all parties in the Balkan conflicts have committed inhumane acts, and that one should not single out the Serbs. I partially agree with you on Mandela, and consider 18th century America irrelevant to the issue at hand.  Are you suggesting that we should today behave like people did in the 18th century?  I also do not believe in "rights" for Muslims in Europe. I believe in equal rights (and duties) for all citizens in any country.

5)  You are misinformed about the UN-imposed sanctions regime on Iraq during the 1990's.  To the extent that there was any "famine" in that country, it was the direct result of decisions taken by the Saddam regime, not by the UN nor anybody else.

6)  I broadly agree with you on Darfur and the UN.

7)  If you think that Maliki is an "American puppet", then you are certainly misinformed about realities in Iraq.  Better find some more objective sources. And yes, I agree with you that there are many tyrants in the world. But I do not think that you "realise the answer" to why Bush and Blair chose to pick on Saddam.   You do not have to agree with the reasons nor reasoning of Bush and Blair, but you do have a moral obligation not to misrepresent them either.  You should try to remain both honest with yourself and with others.

@ Brendan Scarborough

The subject at hand was the arrest of karadzic and the plight of the Bosnian Serbs.  I would like to return to the 4 specific points I made about your initial posting, but no discussion can be useful unless one can stick to the specific subject at hand.  As I noted in my point 4, you did not advance your Balkan argument by raising irrelevant references to Darfur, Ruanda, Iraq etc.... It has only resulted in a mindless shouting match between various people concerning Iraq.

Concerning Iraq, I will simply repeat that the people of Iraq have been (1) liberated from an unspeakable cruel and evil regime, and that (2) they are now headed towards their 4th general elections in relative freedom.   That is all I have said on Iraq.  And if you have difficulty with these 2 observations, sir, then I must conclude that you are not an objective observer of events in the world, and that you are a hopeless anti-American Bush-hating ideologue.  I have lived and worked in Iraq in the 1980's, and I can assure you that the Baathist regime of Saddam & sons was "an unspeakably cruel and evil regime".  And, yes, the Iraqis are headed (later this year) to their 4th general elections since 'liberation'.  None of this is to make a definitive judgement about the pros and cons of the Iraq war.  That is a very difficult subject which has nothing to do with the subject at hand.  I simply have responded to the last sentence in your initial posting, and - I repeat - it was a totally irrelevant and unnecessary diversion that you set in motion. 

I will return to the subject at hand in the next posting.

I am somewhat dismayed to encounter so many Bushophiles on a nominally Eurosceptic website. Though I realise he (Bush) might be viewed as a champion among the pro-Zionist/Dhimmi watch crowd. I am neither a fan of the American left nor the right; which to me are two sides to the same coin. In the end they both serve the exclusive interests of the multinational corporations and special interest lobbies rather than the American electorate that puts them in office.

The Bush administration has been totally discredited, and has made lying to, and deceiving the American public a matter of policy. To be quite honest, I wouldn't have the slightest interest in American politics were it not for the pernicious influence of America on European society.

The information provided on the links you mentioned, is sound. I don't care if it has been made public by a visitor from Mars.
facts are facts. It is not an opinion that no weapons of mass destruction have ever been found; it is a FACT. It is not an opinion that Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attack on the world trade centre; it is a fact.

We all choose to support those who represent our own personal ideals, and the propaganda of our own political factions; and I can respect your right to choose who and what you support. But please don't dismiss me as a crank simply because I don't share your Pro-Bush attitudes and can objectively listen to both sides of an argument before deciding what I believe.

I can recognise when the media is feeding me a load of Liberal or Zionist propaganda; just as I can tell when the media is feeding me a line of Conservative or corporate propaganda. I listen to both sides of a debate, left and right; and then extrapolate an informed opinion.

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

at the risk of being at the end of one your borderline-incoherent rants, I'd just like to point out that some of the links you provided in your post are to far-left websites, so for you to claim that you haven't been influenced by the leftist media seems silly and somewhat lacking in self-awareness...

I must confess that I find your admonishment somewhat of an incoherent jumble and quite indecipherable. The only bit of your ramble I could pick out is that you imply my opinions have been influenced by the: 'liberal-fascist' media. Are you kidding? The idea that I, Brendan Scarborough, have been influenced by a liberal anything is laughable. I am a Nationalist, and a conservative one at that; the antithesis of any specie of liberal. I enjoy full immunity from the liberal biased propaganda of the establishment media

Would I also be correct in deducing you are somewhat sympathetic to Zionism and would be amenable to the idea that invading Iraq or Iran for the benefit of increased regional security for Israel would provide a reasonable justification for the Iraq war?

French is your primary language? Perhaps you could better articulate your thoughts in your native tongue?

Atlanticist:"False dichotomy"

I take a direct approach to most things and don't believe in overly complicating matters by exploring every minutiae and grey area inherent when debating any complex issue. I choose the position that best suits my own ideological view point, as do most people, particularly the liberal.

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

Search the term: "False dichotomy".

Keep in mind that the Israeli Atombomb was sponsored by FRANCE; some BJ commentators say the Iraqi atomic program was sponsored by FRANCE; the Darfur-Tchad crisis was monitored by FRANCE; most African dictators have summer palaces in FRANCE; the creation of Lebanon was made by FRANCE; the Indian nuclear power stations are quite similar to those in FRANCE; the first bombardement on Serbia in the Kosovo war was executed by FRANCE; FRANCE protested against the American war in Vietnam and Iraq; FRANCE was together with Germany the first country to recognize Croatia, thus splitting Yugoslavia; FRANCE has a strange relationship with Nato; FRANCE continues to have excellent relations with China, despite of Tibet; ...
Am I mistaken or aren't these 'facts' enough to bomb the country with the same easyness as you like to bomb Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Iran?

Don't know where you have been living for the last years but you have for sure be brainwashed by the liberal propaganda which explains a stunning inability for a relevant analysis based on facts and reason...
You should better have lived on a desert island far from the liberal-fascist medias which confuse information and propaganda.

BTW it will not take a long time to sweep your 2 or 3 short "arguments" endlessly repeated for shamefull political reasons by misled uneducated whining crowds.

I just highlight 2 or 3 points which maybe can help (but i'm not sure!)
1/After 9/11 USA(i mean the true proud americans not the left and the kind of J.WRIGHT/Oubsama blaming america first)had to face a new kind of enemy not located in ONE country but in MANY countries and specially in the Middle-East.
2/Since a long time S.HUSSEIN had been considered as a threat for the region,for Israel and hence for the world.IRAK under S.HUSSEIN's dictatorship was under UN(beloved liberal "big government") sanctions and it began nuclear activities with the help of FRANCE...Nuclear power station "OSIRAK" was bombed by ISRAEL in 1981
3/IRAK location(near IRAN and SYRIA...)is strategic and its oil is also strategic....
So there were obvious "good reasons" to attack IRAK after AFGHANISTAN in order to impulse a serious change in that part of the world...
It's a hard and long task and it will take years ,decades...because of an old "shock of civilisation" re-emerging since the end of the "cold war".
In the "western world" (with judeo-christian roots)the lost soldiers of the failed big leftist revolution found in islam and with the muslim frustrated crowds a new "ally" in their lunatic/hysterical fight against their own societies.US's enemies can then try to weaken and divide the western world and firstable the american society and they do it with some success(terrorist attacks in SPAIN just before elections,subtle dance to push for Obama's election(changing iranian diplomacy with softened words in order to win time and avoid an attack before US elections)

The war in IRAK which began 5 years ago has till today several positive achievements the birth of democracy(even if it is weak)in a region where it DOESN'T EXIST,the drastic weakening of Al Qaeda on the battleground and in people's minds,the pressure put on IRAN as a neighbour...

PS.: The tale of the WMD so-called "lies" is a big lie.How does the lunatic anti-war will explain that all the international leaders thought that IRAK had WMD in 2003?They explain nothing but only whine,shout...

Natalie:" Brendan, I do kind of disagree with you on Iraq. I think that we went into Iraq for a good reason: Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States and was very close to have WMDs. He admitted this to an FBI agent, George Piros, while in captivity. I just recently saw an interview with Piros in which he said this."

Natalie, I 'do kind of feel' as if you have been living on a desert island for the past eight years. Where have you been? Every justification offered by the Bush administration for its invasion of Iraq has been fairly proven to have been based on false intelligence and blatantly contrived disinformation. In short, George W. and the gang lied their Arses off to acquire the Congressional and public support it needed to justify declaring war on the Nation of Iraq.

Please keep the following points in mind Natalie:

• As of date, NO weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq; though many excuses have been found to explain why.

• Saddam Hussein's Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 911 2001 attacks on the world trade centre, the Pentagon, and the 4th hijacked plane which went down as a result of the heroic intervention of its passengers. So of course The Bush administration, at the behest of its NeoCon puppet masters decided to invade? al-Qaeda planned its attack on the US from its base in Taliban controlled Afghanistan. The fight is, and has always been there rather than the middle east.

• Saddam Hussein had absolutely no connexion to al-Qaeda whatsoever, and the terrorist organisation had no presence in Iraq, nor would any have been tolerated by the Bathists. Saddam Hussein was aggressively secularist, and thus hated and condemned by Osama bin Laden as a blasphemer and enemy of Islam. These two 'gentleman' were hardly sitting down together over tea and Cous Cous discussing the downfall of the great Satan

• By 1990 Saddam Hussein's Iraq didn't pose an effective threat against even its much smaller neighbour: the un-democratic Emirate of Kuwait, after its (Iraq's) crushing defeat within days of United States military intervention in that gulf oil state. Iraq didn't even remotely have the technology nor the will to pose an even mildly credible threat to the American homeland. So of course the Bush administration decided to invade.

George Piros? You mean the FBI agent sent by a group of desperate, pathological liars to interrogate Saddam Hussein after his capture? Uh, why would I assign him any particular credibility? With all do respects to special agent Piros, his word carries little weight with me or much of the world. Where is the verifiable evidence to support the supposed transcripts of Saddam's gaol house confessions? Were video cameras and tape recorders unavailable in 1990's Iraq?

Here are some online resources to bring yourself up to date on the Bush Administration's litany of lies used to justify the US invasion of Iraq:

1) Iraqwar.org
2) Mother Jones-Iraq war timeline
3) Common dreams

Best regards,

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

The Western resolution of the recent Balkan Wars is eerily reminiscent of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference and the 1947 Nuernberg Trials. Serbia, Serbian minorities and former Serb military and political leaders have been subject to a fallacious victor's justice.
 
Western powers have congratulated themselves in avoiding the 1930s policies of isolationism in the United States and appeasement in France and Great Britain - held responsible for permitting German aggression in 1939 - which contravened the principle of "collective security" that emerged from 1919. However, they have clearly ignored the second principle from the Paris Peace Conference - national self-determination. Indeed, the Second World War arguably began due to the contravention of both of these principles. Moreover, Western interventionist policies in the Balkans have served only to deny national self-determination to Serbian minorities and even to Albanians, as Kosovar Albanians seek union with their compatriots in Albania, not an independent state.
 
And as specific failings enabled a "perfect storm" to come to fruition in Germany, so too will these same variables ensure that Balkan bloodletting is anything but history.

Brendan, I do kind of disagree with you on Iraq. I think that we went into Iraq for a good reason: Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States and was very close to have WMDs. He admitted this to an FBI agent, George Piros, while in captivity. I just recently saw an interview with Piros in which he said this.

Ultimately though, I do think Iraq will be a failure. I firmly believe that Islam and democracy are ideologically incompatible, so it's pretty pointless to hope that Iraq will become democratic and somehow make the whole Middle East democratic, too. It's just not going to happen as long as Islam persists.

Marcfrans:"You do NOT advance your 'argument' by making a nonsensical comparison in your last paragraph. None of the entities you cited (US Administrations, the UN, the International Court of Justice, the ICTY...) have deliberatedly pursued massacres nor ethnic cleansing."

Really? I can imagine the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and Children who starved to death as a result of US state department, UN endorsed economic sanctions imposed against Iraq in the years preceding operation desert Storm might disagree were they able. It doesn't matter what you call it, death is death. The strategic design of an Iraqi famine in an attempt to provoke a civilian uprising against Sadam Hussein qualifies as a crime against humanity, certainly of greater proportion than that of which Karadzic may be guilty. At least outside the double standards fairy tale land of the International community.

Marcfrans:"And whether Karadzic is arrested or not, has absolutely no bearing on the reality for survivors of past massacres in Ruanda and of ongoing massacres in Darfur (or elsewhere)."

If I were a Darfurian, I might wonder why the pursuit of Radovan Karadzic by the international community would take precendence over coming to their defence against the genocidal campaign of ethnic cleansing being conducted againt them by the ethnic Arab Janjuweed with the endorsement and complicity of the Khartoum government. What exactly is the purpose of the United Nations with its thousands of millions per annum budget other than promulgating globalist legislation such as the law of the sea treaty which infringes upon the sovereignty of members states. Shouldn't intervention in situations such as the ethnic cleansing programme in Darfur be a UN priority?

Marcfrans: "And, yes, whether you like it or not, and whether they are capable of appreciating it or not, the 'liberated people' of Iraq have been liberated from an unspeakably-cruel and evil regime, and are now heading for their 4th general elections."

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I would suggest it is yourself who has a tenuous grasp on the realities of Iraq. Do you really believe anyone but the American's hand picked puppet will ever be permitted to assume the Iraqi presidency irregardless of what the Iraqi electorate may wish? And how many Iraqi civilians were liberated from life as a result of the American military's campaign of 'shock and awe' directed from an heroic 800 kilometers away in the Persian gulf from the command center of some aircraft carrier during the initial phase of operation desert storm. I respectfully suggest it was the Iraqi's responsibility to relieve themselves of their own tyrant. The world is full of tyrants. Why was this particular madman so deserving of Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair's special attentions? I think many of us realise the answer to that.

END.

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

Marcfrans: "Your view on Balkan history and societies is, to say the least, a one-sided one."

Absolutely; are the liberal, globalist-multiculturalist, world without borders types any less myopic?. I view everything with even a hint of the political through the prism of a Nationalist independent's perspective which, if you'll forgive me, I am comfortable in asserting provides a more realistic assessment of reality than the hopelessly skewed perspective of the typical liberal whose views are mostly predicated less upon any reasonably informed grasp of the human condition than on a blind, almost messianic faith in their own irrational spoon fed belief system which is demonstrably out of touch with reality.

Marcfrans:"And some of the language that you apply to various peoples suggests a lack of minimum respect that all people(s) deserve."

You are referring no doubt to my contemptuous attitudes towards the descendants of Europeans who collaborated with the Ottoman invader that carried off tens of thousands of our Christian Children and women into abject servitude, and mercilessly oppressed a greater part of the Balkans for 400 years? Yes, I will never hesitate in applying language which implies a minimum respect for a people who elect, even now, to persist in the ways of their alien conquerors. Bosnian Muslims are people -and as such are deserving of basic human rights - but they are not 'a people'. Serbs are 'a people', and Bosnian Muslims are merely the descendants of Serbs who adopted the culture and religion of their Turkic masters. This pseudo-ethnic distinction should not entitle the Bosnian Muslim to an independent state carved out of the Republika Srbija.
And before you respond that I am unreasonable in holding modern Balcanian Muslims accountable for the deeds of their ancestors; tell that to the Germans.

Marcfrans:"While I am certainly supportive of well-understood civic nationalism."

I am in no way a proponent of Western European civic (statist) Nationalism and its relentless EU driven impulse towards the establishment of some technocratic, federalised Police State busily preparing itself as