EU Elections in France – The Anti-Zionists

Dieudonné, the famous and infamous comedian who has built a career around his visceral anti-Semitism, and "philosopher" Alain Soral, who has built a career around his... visceral anti-Semitism, will be running together in the European elections, on a ballot for Ile-de-France, which includes Paris and its environs. This, of course, is the region of France most likely to cast votes for their party – the Anti-Zionist Party or PAS.
The news of their collaboration and electoral ambitions has caused oceans of ink to flow at all the websites, and has spurred some to call for a ban on the party. Others are opposed to such a ban since it would only help the cause of the PAS by granting it instant martyrdom. Ivan Rioufol, a journalist with Le Figaro, writing at his blog earlier this month speaks of the possibility of banning this new party from the elections:

Personally, I have always felt that a democratic debate was not improved by silencing scandalous opinions or realities. For this reason, I have always opposed the Gayssot Law that penalizes Holocaust denial. It seems to me that the best way to victimize Dieudonné and his friends, who are eager for victimization, would be to ban the public expression of their anti-Zionist obsessions. [...] You cannot smother out dangerous ideas. Rather, you fight back in public discussions and in the voting booth.

The PAS would have the remotest chance of succeeding were it not for the Muslim presence in France. The Muslim presence is now coming to the aid of those anti-Semitic elements that lie dormant waiting for their hour to come. The Muslim presence has brought together the Left and Islam and the anti-Semitic Right in a coalition fit for hell. Dieudonné and Soral, but especially Soral, hold hybrid positions on various issues, mixing socialism, tradition, nationalism, anti-EU-ism, multi-culturalism, etc... thus disseminating even more confusion, but at bottom, for these two men and their Muslim-led party, Israel (and by natural extension all Jews), are the cause of all the evil in the world. This is the "traditional" point of view held by the congenital anti-Semite.
Last March, Le Monde announced that Alain Soral had accepted Dieudonné's invitation to join him on the ballot:

Addressing him as "my dear Dieudonné", Soral, former member of the French Communist Party and one-time adviser to Jean-Marie Le Pen, affirmed that he heard loud and clear Dieudonné's "vibrant appeal for a union of all those who refuse to submit." And that he was in favor of "opposing Zionism and denouncing the ever more conspicuous and weighty interference by the French pro-Zionist lobby in the affairs of our country." […] Soral has added a few other points to his humorist friend's political road map: "The fight against the rise of commercial globalist totalitarianism which is what the European Union is in reality; the defense of French workers and their rights against the plan for the destruction of our industries, public services, and small businesses by globalized capitalism, hence by the European Union; the return of the State to all large economic sectors, or a well-reasoned protectionism"

Europe, France perhaps more so than other countries, has reached an explosive point in this Jewish-Muslim war on European soil due to the massive, government-sponsored invasion by Muslims and Africans. Another cause is the deliberate blurring and mixing of issues, achieved by playing upon the general public's indoctrination into egalitarian absolutism: all men are equal, all religions are equal, all cultures are equal, and all hatreds are equal. Thus anti-Semitism, a centuries-old European obsession, is in no way different from the completely justified fear of Islam, conveniently tagged as "Islamophobia." I have no doubts that Le Pen, Dieudonné and Soral are all completely aware of this, and are enjoying every minute of their game with European bureaucrats, so pompously offended by the presence of a group of Jew-haters and Jew-baiters. The same European bureaucrats who prepared the terrain long ago for this very eruption of insanity. Louis Pasteur said, "The germ is nothing, the terrain is everything".
Riposte Laïque, a website fiercely devoted to preserving laïcité (the separation of Church and State decreed by the 1905 law), takes definite sides on the issue of Muslim immigration and its effects on French society, denouncing the Dieudonné-Soral partnership on many grounds, and insisting that the PAS must not be banned, but discredited:

The media have pointed out that what is so unusual are the disparities in the list of names [on the so-called "anti-Zionist" ballot]. There are names of people who come from labor unions; a former leader of the Front National for Youth; a film-maker claiming to have belonged to the LCR (Revolutionary Communist League); Ginette Skandrani – accused even by some pro-Palestinians of being a fellow traveler in the club of holocaust deniers – and who even managed to get herself excluded from the Green Party; Maria Poumer, a university professor who supports Chavez and claims she wants to reconcile Christian and Communist cultures but who was reproached by her colleagues for her complicity with holocaust denier Roger Garaudy; a mystical guru-psychosociologist and psychotherapist from the extreme-center(!); a republican who wants to kick out all those who don't love France; two traditional Catholics; the token Muslim woman with a veil; and even one individual who is pro-European Union!

There is also one ultra-orthodox anti-Zionist rabbi on the ballot. A motley crew, if ever...

During the press conference, one could see the important role played by the Zahra Center in creating the ticket. Dieudonné and Soral were seated between Yahia Gouasmi, a shiite Muslim of the Hezbollah, and a veiled woman who never spoke. The image was revealing. Yahia Gouasmi is both president of the Anti-Zionist Party (PAS) and the Zahra Center. Recently he took part in a demonstration by the Party of Muslims of France, demanding the abolition of the law against religious signs in schools. Riposte Laïque has been interested in the Zahra Center, in the north of France, that openly advocates the disappearance of Israel and does not hide its links with Iran. During the 30th anniversary of the Iranian revolution, Jean-Marie Le Pen had accepted an invitation to attend the ceremonies in Paris, and granted an interview in which he praised the revolution and the ayatollahs. We have also been interested in the remarks of Yahia Gouasmi, who cannot mask his hatred of Jews behind rhetoric that condones the eradication of the State of Israel.
The press conference made it clear that if Gouasmi held the purse strings (the only comment he made was to say that "there is no financial problem"), it was Alain Soral who was the boss, the composer of the music played by Dieudonné, in the provocative key that is his alone. […]
We mustn't underestimate Soral-Dieudonné-Gouasmi. They've done good preparation. And it isn't by chance that they are running only in Ile-de-France – that is where the terrain is most fertile. They participated in the Gaza demonstrations, [...] they were present at the UOIF convention (Union of Islamic Organizations of France which is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood) where they spoke at length with Tariq Ramadan. Soral, in the aftermath, gave a joint lecture in Bordeaux with Tarek Oubrou, grand mufti of UOIF. [...] One shudders at the "national republican reconciliation" that the trio promises us, behind their anti-Zionist rhetoric.

While Riposte Laïque condemns ALL religions, except insofar as they are completely separate from the State, we have seen that certain Christian and Jewish religious leaders and "intellectuals" welcome Islam – the Catholics on grounds that Islam restores spiritual feelings and "saves" Europe from hedonism, Jews on grounds of multiculturalism, which they perceive as a safeguard against persecutions. Both Christians and Jews who belong to the Socialist line of thinking (i.e., Vatican 2, multiculturalism, anti-racism, etc...) regard anti-immigration movements as "racist" or "despotic".
And so the confusion of values, the adoption of harmful ideas by those most entrusted with the job of clarifying and opposing those values, continues to poison the public discourse and provide grist for the mills of men like Alain Soral, keen enough to adopt enough "good ideas" and to carefully mix them with noxious ideas, thus attracting both Muslims and some nationalists who couldn't care less about the consequences of such a mixture, but who just want to get rid of Israel.
For now, it is not likely this party will win many seats, but the mere fact that it is there and growing, as the number of Muslims increases, either through immigration or through large families, is ominous. Robert Spieler, head of the Nouvelle Droite Populaire (NDP), a new party formed by those members of the Front National who had had enough of Le Pen, attempts to see this as a kind of bad joke. He cites the old Jewish legend of the Golem, a creature made of clay that comes alive and spreads terror in the ghetto of Prague:

And so the creature has escaped from those who had deluded themselves into thinking they were its masters. The emotions are intense, indignation howls from all quarters. What? An anti-Zionist ballot? Can we ban it? Claude Guéant, chief of staff of Elysée, for whom anti-Zionism means of course anti-Semitism, declared on the radio: "Dieudonné is an anti-Semite 100% of the time." To which Alain Soral replied, "Even Adolf Hitler, when he patted his dog, had reduced anti-Semitism. In his bunker, Adolf Hitler was only anti-Semitic 97% of the time." And Soral, always the provoker, added: "What is Bernard-Henri Lévy complaining about? Look at our ballot – it's white, black and Arab. We have accomplished what he wants."

Unfortunately there is some truth in this and confirms that Jewish Socialists, such as Bernard-Henri Lévy, who fancy themselves "philosophers" should be exposed as the collaborators of the anti-French Establishment that they are. Using anti-racism as their pretext, they rush to the defense of those who would destroy France. This problem exists in Israel as well as in America and Europe – pundits, sophists, talking heads fill the TV screens every night, attempting to control the way people perceive events.
Spieler wonders if the EU Parliament, having modified its regulations in order to ban Jean-Marie Le Pen from presiding over the first session of the body after the election (assuming he were elected), will now ban a Golem, even if he is black. Jean-Marie Le Pen, 81, could have, in certain restricted circumstances, addressed the opening session of the new Parliament by virtue of his status as senior member. The EU Parliament changed the rules to assure it would not happen.
Finally, to add to the confusion, the media now call Dieudonné an "extreme right-winger". But they give that label to Philippe de Villiers as well!


Thanks. By the way, following yet another night of 'Dr Cameron' ( NOT David Cameron) for parliament fantasies, this morning I found myself at a place they call Tory-Totty Online and there it claims that Geert Wilders has grabbed 15% and second place in European elections in the Netherlands. Or, was I dreaming this too?

Note to electorate: Beware of all, even the most alluring, imposters:

Common sense (2)

The polling booths are closed and the British people have spoken. Let us now wait and see what they had to say. 

Common sense (3)

Yes, Atlanticist: St. George and England! If you go over to An Englishman's Castle blog, you will see that the Englishman and his commenters favor UKIP. Best wishes!

common sense vs virtue

Although I don't find Brendan's explanation of his views necessarily objectionable, I must say that I'm rather disappointed to hear the same old tiring and irrational Anti-Zionist rhetoric all over again. Apparently some folks are entitled to their state but the Israelites are not. I have met people with similar ideas in Flanders who are very supportive of Flemish independence, declare themselves to be nationalists, support Basque independence, but make an exception when it comes to the Jews whom they like to depict as the most abominable people on earth, and accuse them of being the root of Western decline and decadence. I have not and will not ever support hypocrits who are too proud to admit that the decline of their civilization and the Christian faith is due to their own people's lack of discernment and liberal inclinations. As far as immigration is concerned, it doesn't make sense to oppose immigration EVERYWHERE since there are fine examples in the New World which demonstrate that not all immigration is wrong by definition. It is more of a question of whether immigrants are willing to become fully American, Chilean or, for that matter, British or French. I don't mean to say that European nations should be as open to immigration as the countries in the New World. Quite the opposite, since what I'm trying to point out here is that immigration can be as much as an issue of tradition as anything else. And when it comes to the European nations, immigration must be severely restricted, especially towards those whose cultures and ethnicities are entirely different. Nevertheless, I believe that in our approach and attitude towards foreigners, we must be sane. We must be sane because we must live up to our claims that our civilization is superior. And let's not forget that if it weren't for Jesus Christ, we would all be just as savage as some of the peoples that we have allowed to invade our nations. If it weren't for Christianity, we might today have been Muslims. Hitler himself appears to have wished that were the case. So for all this rhetoric by some on the Far Right about "Christianity", let's not forget that the Christian is the person who genuinely believes and lives by the Faith. I will never support those who display a strong affinity toward a return to pre-Christian pagan European ideals. I would rather go live among people of color who are truly Christian instead. In sum, I am a political conservative, not a hardcore nationalist.

@ pale rider

I think your curious response to my post reinforces my contention that Zionists have successfully accomplished a desired mindset in which Anti-Zionism is equated with antisemitism. Even after providing a detailed explanation as to why I will not formally avow my support for Israel, you insist upon making critiques which in no clear way reflect the actual content of my message. What injustices or slanders have I revisited upon the Jewish community other than reserving my support for Zionism upon the contingency that Zionists support British Nationalism? If it is your theory that I should support Israel regardless of whether Israel supports me, I reject your theory in no uncertain terms and without apology. If my neighbour declines to board my cat whilst I am on holiday in Bermuda, I will not be inclined to take in their Parson Russell during their weekend getaway to the Cotswolds. I believe in Quid Pro Quo. And from a spiritual aspect: I am a protestant, but not an Evangelical Christian; so I feel no misbegotten scriptural obligations towards the Jewish State.

Do I begrudge Jews a National homeland? No. Neither do I begrudge Basques a homeland in the Western Pyrenees; but I'll not actively defend them; in their case: because I do not approve of the manner in which they pursue their political objectives. As a Nationalist, I do indeed support the drive towards independence, full sovereignty and self-preservation for all National groups the world over; I simply refuse as a matter of personal protest to declare my support of Israel, which would be only symbolic at best anyway. Other Nationalists may have different views, and may respond to the issue of Israel and Zionism quite differently from myself, - We aren't, after all, part of a myopic, blindly conformist ideological collective as are Social and mock 'Christian' Democrats. I am permitted my own personal opinions outside the hive. But frankly, as a British Nationalist, I do not consider the affairs of Israel and the Middle East any of my concern so long as events there do not threaten British interests or security. I am of the firm opinion Britain should not interfere in Israel's internal affairs or seek to inconvenience her diplomatically under pressure of any lobby foreign or domestic, and by the same token, Britain should remain neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict offering neither condemnation nor support to either party. They must decide for themselves what price they put on the lives of their own children, and respond accordingly. If America wants to be Israel's 'Bitch' that's America's privilege, but Britain must be a bitch to no one, including the US. And Blaire was Bush's fluffy white poodle in heat.

As for a Nationalist Mea Culpa? I have no sins to confess. I am a newly minted National of the modern era with no baggage to check at the service counter of unexpiated guilt. I am a tabula rasa free of any past associations with the old British Nationalist movement, and have certainly never engaged in anything remotely bordering on antisemitic activity, unless you'd insist my posts here qualify as such. It is not my job to make apologies for other nationalists. I am responsible only for my own actions. I am of the New British Nationalist movement, and I think, by far, more representative of the average Nationalist than the media promoted jack booted thug or neo-Nazi caricature of the 80s. But of course a Nationalist is a Nationalist is a Nationalist to those with their own liberal laissez faire agenda; usually based on self-centred personal interests and base self-indulgence rather than the common good of a larger community. But I respect yours and KOs informed opinions, obvious intelligence, and willingness to engage despite our often irreconcilably opposing view points; rather than invoking the 'no platform' exit strategy employed by others here who put up the iron curtain once they hear something they don't like and offends their sensibilities.

Brendan Scarborough

RE: @ pale rider

Brendan, you're most certainly entitled to your views and as I have said in my earlier comment, I don't entirely disagree with your views. In fact, even though I may disagree on some issues, I do respect you. My comment was a rant against the anti-Zionist and hypocritical views I have witnessed all too often among self-declared nationalists and defenders of the West as a whole, but it was not meant to be a personal attack. I have witnessed anti-Zionism to be either a result of anti-Zionist indoctrination at school by biased leftists multi-culti history teachers, or as an outward expression of inward Antisemitism that soon surfaces after certain of the people secretly holding such views have had a few too many. So please don't tell me that my mindset was created by Zionist propaganda or by the Evangelicals' obsession with Israel which renders them unable to criticize the Jewish state or basically anything Jewish.

If anything, I have arrived at my support for the Jewish state's right to exist by my own critical research, and I have always supported it by matter of principle, having to argue my point in school and elsewhere at various times whenever the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict emerged. On all those occasions I found myself to be the only one supporting Israel's right to exist and being able to argue against the anti-Zionist point of view, which is the sentiment created by the mainstream media in Islam-apologetic Western Europe.

For those reasons, I am unwilling to actively support any organization, political party or people - of whatever persuasion they might be - that downright oppose Israel's very right to exist, especially if they still claim to be 'nationalists'. Call me stubborn, but to me it is a matter of principle. I will say that I have no respect left at all for delusional people who claim modern-day Jews are Asiatics, seek to blame the Jews for Western decadence, and like to spew all sort of hateful Protocols of the Elders of Zion-style conspiracy theories. You might not hold to that kind of views but I know many in the ultranationalist camp that do, and the BNP and the FN were pretty much among these groups until recently when they gave up on these views. Officially, at least.

Nevertheless, that does not mean I don't have my criticism of Israel, Judaism or Jewry, and I don't have any problem with rational criticism of Israel so long as it does not ultimately resolve around its right to exist, which I have witnessed to be the case all too often, no matter whether I was dealing with Marxists, moderate nationalists or crypto-Facsists - they all spoke the same delusional language. The Jews have been part of Europe for centuries and to me they are a nation of people like all peoples, with good and evil people among them. They have a right to happiness and self-determination in their traditional, religious and historical homeland which is none other than the land of Israel. If supporting Israel's right to exist (and by that I do not mean supporting everything Israel does, or every single Jew) is unpatriotic or anti-nationalist according to some, fine, but I think it's exactly the opposite.

Best regards.

Common Sense vs. Virtue (2)

Brendan has explained that his only objection to Zionism is the lack of reciprocity he sees between Zionists and other patriots and nationalists. If they honor our aspirations, he says, we will honor theirs. Fair enough. I have previously commented on that position.

Please don't disregard the providential and divine origin of nations, and don't believe that Christianity requires you to disregard that essential structure of human existence. Nations exist, peoples exist, and have a divine sanction as the element in which we live and serve God and pursue our destinies. Natural law--i.e., divine law--requires recognition and preservation of these basic structures of reality, but also humane flexibility in doing so. Specifically, Christ does not require the self-destruction of nations by mass immigration, rather he forbids their self-destruction.

RE: Common Sense vs. Virtue (2)

Where did I ever suggest I disregard nations? You're putting words in my mouth. I am a conservative so that implies that I believe in the importance of the nation, ethnicity, shared history and traditions. If you'd check my biography you'll see that I'm not anti-nationalist and if I were then I wouldn't have registered on this site in the first place.

There also is no such thing as a lack of reciprocity, there is only a lack of willingness by hardcore nationalists to admit that their own race has embraced immorality and leftist self-hatred. Rather than admitting their own fault as mature and civilized people do, they will blame global Jewry. Anti-Zionism is irrational and I stand by that.

I am not an ideological nationalist precisely because it is not merely ethnicity and the nation as some kind of living entity that have shaped Western civilization. My call to sanity is not about giving in to Islam or apologizing to immigrants, but a call to preservationists of all persuasions to display civility and thereby demonstrate that our civilization truly is superior because of its Christian morality.

@ Pale Rider

Thank you for your reply. I misunderstood the basis of your comments and responded to the purportedly Christian transnationalism one frequently encounters. I also oppose anti-Zionism, and consider lack of reciprocity as a weak basis for it. I agree that nation and ethnicity are part, but not all, of what we are. Best wishes!

RE: @ Pale Rider

No problem, thanks for the reply!

@ All aka no offence (2)

I can see how it could be argued that if you are a passenger sitting in a window seat on the starboard side of an aircraft, you are  actually positioned "on the left", if by "the right" you are referring to the aircraft's starboard wingtip, but  I don't believe it's  an argument most passengers would subscribe to...


As for the rest of Mr S's defence of his party's policies and its leader, I'll leave you to decide how you feel about that.  

Common sense

Mr. S and Atlanticist probably share the robust common sense of virtually all peoples in all ages, which is that peoples exist and can and should try to preserve themselves. Those gentlemen also would probably agree that the British peoples can and should preserve themselves, and that the mass European and non-European immigration of recent decades is contrary to the survival of the British peoples. The difference of opinion seems to be in the degree of rigor thought to be desirable in discussing whom the British peoples consist of, and should consist of, or rather, how much flexibility should governments show in admitting and accommodating foreigners, given that the governments are committed to preserving the essential character of the nation. The first order of business, however, is to establish that given, when the opposite point of view, open-borders and multi-culturalist and necessarily anti-British, and especially anti-English, in orientation, has prevailed in recent times and is nearly universal in the cultural and political elites. To establish the given, all people of good will should unite under the patriotic flag, or else they will never successfully challenge the multi-culturalists, Europhiles, and Eurabians who currently rule. Therefore, I would say patriotic Westerners should defer resolution of their disagreements over economic policy and immigration policy until they are in a position to make decisions on those issues, which will not be until the internationalist-socialist-anti-Western multiculturalists have been defeated and discredited. Until that time, patriotic parties should find a way to support each other, or respectfully agree in a manner that promotes the patriotic movement, rather than tear each other down.

@ Mr S

Thank you for your question. Allow me to answer it by way of a question to you. In your vision for a future GREAT Britain, who gets to immigrate here, a white kappert or (shall we say), a less than lily-white Gurkha? While you are cogitating on that question, here's something else I'd ask you to read.


'There is a difference between selling out your ideas and selling your ideas. And the BNP isn't about selling out its ideas, which are your ideas too, but we are determined now to sell them. That means basically to use saleable words. As I say, freedom, security, identity, democracy.

Nobody can criticise them. Nobody can come at you and attack you on those ideas. They are saleable.

Perhaps one day, once by being rather more subtle we've got ourselves in a position where we control the British broadcasting media, the British people might change their minds and say, "Yes, every last one must go".

But if you offer that as your sole aim to start with, you're gonna get absolutely nowhere. So, instead of talking about racial purity we talk about identity.


Those are the words of Nick Griffin, are they not? Words spoken while sharing a platform with David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, correct? You have previously claimed that 'the modern Nationalist movement in Britain is not what it was even a few years ago, and has come a considerable way in distancing itself from, and renouncing the ignorant, outmoded attitudes which caused it to be perceived (as such)'. So, tell me, has Nick Griffin renounced everything he said in that conversation with Mr Duke? If so, please be kind enough to direct me to a speech of his in which he does precisely that.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to reading your considered response.  

@Atlanticist911 - The truth is no offence

Atlanticist911:Thank you for your question. Allow me to answer it by way of a question to you. In your vision for a future GREAT Britain, who gets to immigrate here, a white kappert or (shall we say), a less than lily-white Gurkha?

The answer is simple: No one gets to immigrate here unless they have the cure for cancer or the secret formulae for an inexhaustible supply of clean, renewable energy. Britain is not America, and not some colonial melting pot. It is the historical homeland of the Britons, an easily identifiable sub-group within the great family of the European ethnos. We English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh: though proud of our regional cultural differences; are all of the same Celto-Teutonic consanguinity superimposed over the most ancient of the old post-glacial European stock. A singular composite with unique - and I think desirable - inherent characteristics. Britons are European. We are not African, and we are not Asian; just as a Pakistani or an Ibo tribesperson from Nigeria would proudly tell you they are not European.

The whole institution of immigration should be abolished worldwide. If everyone who is dissatisfied with the conditions in their African or Asian homeland keeps running off to the West, there will be two inevitable results: 1) Nothing will ever improve in Africa and Asia, and 2) Africans and Asians will only transplant the failure and chaos of Africa and Asia to Europe ensuring uniformly global third world conditions and even more misery for Africa and Asia, and a new unprecedented adversity for us. A few Huguenots, Normans, or Vikings coming across the channel in dribs and drabs hardly qualifies Britain as an immigrant country. These are merely 1st cousins moving into town, and can hardly be compared with the contemporary wholly alien and unassimilable African and Asian invasion overruning Europe. The Huguenots and Bjarni Bloodaxe didn't build Mosques in Dewsbury or demand an equality for sharia law along side the Magna Carta. The British Nationalist defence of identity isn't about shades of skin tone. I don't want a million pasty faced Poles from the near abroad setting up housekeeping in Bristol any more than I want a million exotic Somalis from East Africa setting up shop in Brighton. They have a homeland. We want one too. why is this unreasonable to anyone but a barmy dyed in the wool open borders red Socialist? Liberals speak in abstract concepts; Nationalists speak from objective reality. Britain is not a better place than it was before the advent of multiculturalism, and it's people are not happier. Period.

As for Mr Griffin?

I certainly don't speak for Mr Griffin, and wouldn't presume to act as his personal liaison on the Brussels Journal. I could attempt to clarify his publicly stated positions if you were to specifically indicate the positions or attitudes to which you are alluding. I will say this: Nick Griffin and the BNP are no longer in favour with those ghastly American 'White Nationalists' (what the **** is a White Nationalist?) who constitute Duke's primary support base and audience. Primarily because the modern BNP under chairman Griffin has renounced the vilification of Jews as the panacea for all the world's ills, and has 'gasp!!!' welcomed British Jews into the party with open arms. Sacrilege in Dukeworld. Intellectual maturity and common sense to the progressive British Nationalist.

Brendan Scarborough

Upping the ante aka Pro- Zionist (5)

KO: Mr S's offer to fly over to Tel Aviv and shout the first round of drinks when prominent Jews stop calling Nick Griffin a Nazi sounds a reasonable offer. So, allow me to up the ante by offering the BNP a similarly genuine offer of my own. If by the time of the next Euro elections Nick Griffin has made those necessary changes to his party's constitution, and has also provided the British voting public with a reasonably detailed explanation as to why he hadn't felt the need to make those changes before the current elections, then (but only then) I will consider placing the BNP on my personal short-list of parties I would be prepared to trust with my protest vote. Does that offer sound (just as) reasonable to you?

PS In the spirit of reciprocity I'd like to change that title to Lowering the anti ...

@Atlanticist911 - Preemptive volley

If you could specify what these 'changes' to the constitution or 'policies' would be? As if I can't suppose. As a preemptive gesture, I will suggest that The BNP represents the interests of the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish people and will never represent the interests of Eurabia, the Euro-International, nor the third world horde threatening to sink GB to the bottom of the slimy multicultural ooze.

Brendan Scarborough


Let me repeat for (at least) the third and (hopefully) the last time, I don't always agree with Peter Hitchens (if I did, I'd probably have to be Peter Hitchens and I'm not), but...



Pro-Zionist (2)

KO: As I have previously stated, I don't always agree with Peter Hitchens, but anyone who is ignorant about the origins of the 'Zionist entity' and why and how we/they  have  reached the current state of affairs could do worse than read this gentleman's analysis. Take for example the following excerpt from one of his articles entitled 'Zionism: A Defense'.


"The projected "National Home for the Jews" endorsed by Britain in 1917 was never intended to be a nation ... Under British government, Arabs were not given the right to rule Jews, and Jews were not given the right to rule Arabs".

Before reading this quotation, I just wonder how many people posting their disparate comments on this topic at TBJ already knew that fact, and if they did, why they have chosen not to factor it in to the equation?


Full article available here:


Pro-Zionist (3)

Thanks for the very interesting link, Atlanticist. Mr. Hitchens is maddening in his intermittent concessions to PC but all in all he points in the right directions. Abolition of Britain was an important, excellent book in many ways.

The West should be Israel's ally. Unfortunately, Israel is its own worst enemy, suffering even more from suicidal, delusional liberalism than most other Western countries. We are fortunate to see Netanyahu and Lieberman sitting where we saw Olmert and Livni only a few months ago.

The Zioprop factor

Excuse me, but Anti-Zionism and antisemitism are not the same thing; although it is in the interests of the Zionists that we should consider them to be. For what better shield for a Zionist to hide behind than the impermeable armour of the well-cultivated Western European fear of the antisemitism taint. I am a reluctant Anti-Zionist, but I am not an antisemite, and I will explain why I can consider myself the former, whilst not the latter. Zionism is the ultimate expression of Jewish Nationalism. Zionism 'is' Jewish Nationalism. Zionists demand that we recognise Israel as the 'homeland' of the 'Jewish People' despite the 2000 years absence of a Jewish state on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. Zionists expect us to accept as reasonable, the declaration that Israel must remain ethnically Jewish by comfortable margins, and that whatever action or policy necessary to prevent Arabs from becoming a majourity within the borders of Israel is justifiable in maintaining this 'Jewish' Israel. Israeli schools are segregated ethno-religiously, and inter-marriage between Israeli Jews and Arabs is almost unheard of. All of this evidences a strong ethnic and even racial group consciousness among Zionist Jews, and a militant drive towards securing the biological and National self-preservation of the Jewish people.

OK. Here's my problem: These same Zionists are the most vocal and pro-active opponents of European Nationalism, and of the idea that the British, or the Swedes, or the Dutch have a right to an ethnically homogeneous homeland, or at the very least, to remain a comfortable majourity in their own countries. Why must Israel remain Jewish, yet Britain must become a multicultural, Americanised babel, where the indigenous people are denounced as racist for raising even the slightest objection over their exponentially increasing displacement by African and Asian migrants? Judaism must survive in Israel whilst Christianity in the United Kingdom becomes a farce; the Anglican church lorded over by an atheist dhimmi in the guise of the Arch- Bishop of Canterbury, and an African migrant Bishop of York; the pair more bureaucrat than cleric.
As a Nationalist, I cannot in good conscience support Zionism - which is Jewish Nationalism, when Zionists do not support the Nationalist aspirations of my people, and, in fact, decry Nationalists as racist and fascist for sharing the same desire for National, Cultural, and ethnic self-preservation.

I would like to see the Jews of Europe both fully embraced by and embracing the European Nationalist movement; because in it lies the common interests of European Jews and Christians alike, and the civilisation they have built together. The modern Nationalist movement in Britain is not what it was even a few years ago, and has come a considerable way in distancing itself from, and renouncing the ignorant, outmoded attitudes which caused it to be perceived - and perhaps rightly so - as antisemitic. Personally, I would welcome a new spirit of cooperation between the Jew and Christian of Europe in defence of Western Civilisation, and I will embrace any Jewish Nationalist who would embrace me, and also support wholeheartedly the Jewish Nation, when the Jewish Nation supports mine. But so long as the Jewish Nationalist opposes European Nationalism; then I must for the sake of my own self -respect and dignity remain an Anti-Zionist. But I reject the onus of antisemitism. I harbour no ill-feelings or resentments towards individual Jews; only the political and philosophical hypocrisy of so many within their community.

Brendan Scarborough


Brendan, I think you send a confusing message. Wouldn't it make more sense to couple your British nationalism (3 cheers!) with an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of all legitimate nationalisms? And secondarily, demand that all British subjects support Britain remaining Britain? And only thirdly, complain that there is no place in Britain for British subjects who support other nations but oppose Britain remaining British? Declaring yourself anti-Zionist out of a frustrated demand for reciprocity diminishes the national idea, making it a hostage to the actions of bad actors. I would find it more persuasive if you made specific allegations regarding the anti-nationalism of Britain-based organizations and individuals as part of a campaign to turn the British peoples against their opponents of all stripes, e.g., Anglican, Tory, Labour, Europhile, Eurabian, Moslem, etc. Why single out hypocritical Zionists when the whole establishment has the same hypocritical approach to British nationalism, supporting every nationalism but their own? It looks as though you were holding Jews to a different standard than everyone else. Why bother?

@ KO

As a Nationalist of course I support the idea that all peoples have a right to a secure, independent, sovereign homeland; but I also reserve my support for those who allow my own people this privilege. I only single out Zionists because the title of Tiberge's article is: 'EU Elections in France – The Anti-Zionists'. Not 'EU Elections in France -The Anti- Basque-separatists'. Tiberge is pontificating on a few individuals who aren't Israel enthusiasts. I wrote my thoughts on the matter from my own perspective, explaining why I myself am an Anti-Zionist; but could just as easily have explained why I am an Anti-Islamicist, or an Anti-Europhile.

That the respective National governments of Europe are anti-Nationalist and high treasonist is a given. That significant percentages of the European people are auto-ethnocidal morons and willing automatons to the EU police state is also a given, and so I didn't find it necessary to expound on these other oppositional factors with which the European Nationalist movement must contend. When prominent Jews stop calling Nick Griffin a Nazi, I'll fly over to Tel Aviv for Yom Ha'atzmaut and shout the first round of drinks at Moshe's dead sea pub.

Brendan Scarborough

Pro-Zionist (4)

Brendan, thanks for your reply. I can't for the life of me understand why you would in any way align yourself with the kind of "anti-Zionists" described in Tiberge's article. Go BNP! Go YB!

PS: Here are some Zionists who do not oppose the national existence of other Western peoples:

@KO 2

Other than describing myself as an Anti-Zionist, how have I aligned myself to the subjects of this article? I really know nothing of them beyond what I have read in Tiberge's piece. Both myself and Ken Livingstone have raised newts at one time or another; beyond that, be assured we have NOTHING in Oh, and mine were not 'red' bellied newts.

And I most definitely mirror your cheer: Go BNP! I predict at least one BNP MEP going to Brussels and Strasbourg: Nick Griffin. Who better to ruin Sarkozy's day? And who better to regroup ITS? I won't sleep for the next 48 hours to be sure.

Brendan Scarborough

@ pvdh

If it's not too much trouble, I'd appreciate a comment about our comments from you.

Free speech (3)

I will join the condemnation expressed by others. 

Three additional remarks:

-- I hope that the words "preliminary reading" imply that this 'aberration' wil not come to pass, and that the democratic system of checks and balances can prevent short-termism to override the long-term interest of Israeli society.

-- Israel is a 'besieged' state and society, and it is surrounded by states that play by very different rules (in the sense of moral restraints/constraints) than Israel itself.  So, this mistake is understandable, but not exusable.  What is not 'understandable' (both in a positive and a normative sense) is that much more comfortable Western societies, which are not (yet) besieged, have taken the same bad road earlier.

-- It is realistic to assume that any state, including a genuine democratic one, can and will put 'free speech' rights on hold on a temporary basis and in extreme circumstances (like an actual physical ongoing war on its own territory).  It is marginally debatable whether Israel is in such a situation right now. I do not agree that it is, but I do not live in Israel.  It is not debatable that Europe and America are NOT in such a situation today.    

Free speech does not exist in a vacuum

I view this proposal as an inevitable consequence of Israel's left-liberal utopianism. Free speech and self-government are only possible where there is sufficient unanimity in the population regarding the fundamental identity and direction of the country for speech to be oriented toward determining how a people can successfully live together. Israel does not have that. Instead it has a large section of the population that is hostile to the existence of the country as presently constituted and particularly to the presence of Jews within its borders. That is not a situation in which democratic self-government and open debate can function. Israel tolerates the presence and the political participation of a hostile population because it is left-liberal and egalitarian in its basic political philosophy. It is inevitable that, having gone down the utopian path of cohabiting with enemies, it would be forced to restrict political rights such as free speech.

Any people that wishes to survive must outlaw treason, and at some level sedition is also a mortal danger. The more a people has endangered itself by tolerating internal hostility, the more it will eventually be forced to clamp down and restrict people's rights. That is why liberalism inevitably leads to tyranny.

The history of the West shows that even differences as fundamental as religion can be set aside when people urgently want to go forward together. There is no reason to believe that people can go forward together if they do not want to go forward together.

Free Speech (2)

My preliminary reading of this proposed legislation is clear, it undermines the very concept of free speech in a democratic society and plays into the hands of the enemies of Israel and for these reasons alone I am opposed to it. Next question?

free speech in the only democracy of the middle east.

"The Knesset on Wednesday morning approved in a preliminary reading a bill introducing one year in prison for anyone speaking against Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state, should the call contain a reasonable possibility 'that it may lead to acts of hatred, scorn or lack of loyalty to the State or its government authorities or law systems which have been established legally.''


I'd like to have some comments about this from all these self proclaimed free-speech advocats of the BJ.


@ pvdh

I have no problem whatsoever to condemn this piece of legislative terrorism.

Clear enough for you?

Infringement upon liberty

So do I. Such legislation is a threat to individual liberties, and should not have been passed. What did you expect? Some of us may be sympathetic toward Israel but they would not betray their beliefs owing to this sympathy.

Poor France!

As a French citizen, I am most concerned by those recent developments. Whilst I am in favour of letting Dieudonné's list run for the EU election, I believe it is likely to harm the left by taking away many Muslims (a rejoicing prospect, as it were). It is not a threat to right-wing parties (or rather supposed right-wing parties), perhaps it could even lead to some awareness amidst the population as to the underlying anti-Semitism of many Muslims. (Who else do you think this list will cater to?) As for Jean-Marie Le Pen, he has proved himself prone to encouraging Muslims to join his party by cracking some fishy jokes about the Holocaust (which he branded "historical detail"), or openly proclaiming the 09/11 attacks were "an incident". Philippe de Villiers has been much less swerving in his defence of French identities and has never demeaned himself by indulging in such nonsense. He seems much more concerned by the drastic increase in the number of Muslims living within our realm, and has been stauncher in his attempts to obtrude mosques from being built up. Besides, his economic policies are not as socialistic as those of most parties in France. I am going to cast my ballot for him as far as I am concerned.