Viktor Chaim Arlosoroff ( 1899-1933) was the first person to use the phrase National Socialism in his book 'Der Judische Volkssozialismus' in 1919.
The Canadian Library has a copy of the book here to download ;
http://www.archive.org/stream/derjdischevolk00arlouoft
The book was published in 1919 the same year that Hitler joined the German Workers Party, and we can see now that original manifesto of the GWP, called the 25 points, were based on what Arlosoroff wrote.
The manifesto of the Zionist Nationalist movement began by Arlosoroff was called 'The Manifesto of the Jewish National Socialist Party'.
Sounds familiar doesnt it !
A translation of some of the book into English is here ;
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.archive.org/stream/derjdischevolk00arlouoft/derjdischevolk00arlouoft_djvu.txt&ei=q0GQSfiuNIS2jAeN7Pm7Cg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=8&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dder%2Bjudische%2Bvolks%2Bsozialismus%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX
We can see that Hitler nicked all of the ideology of National Socialism that he put into Mein Kampf from Arlosoroff.
I wonder why it is that none of the millions of documentaries and books we have read on the Nazis have ever stated anywhere that Nazism was based on the ideas of a Jewish Zionist Nationalist ?
It makes you wonder what else the so called 'historians' like Kershaw have been lieing about doesnt it.
What is absolutely hysterically funny is the fact that modern Neo-Nazis are proponents and followers of a Jewish Zionist ideology !
Even funnier is the fact that AFA and Anti-Fascist Action are fighting against a Jewish Zionist Ideology !
Ever get the feeling you have been fed bullshit and lies all your lives !
13 comments:
The driving force behind both zionism and German National Socialism was the awakening of nationalism in the late nineteenth century. The Jews of central Europe and Russia, that amalgam of slav,and semite either adopted their own nationalism ie zionism or fought against the various European nationalists ie by becoming Bolsheviks as the native nationalists were a threat to their existence. Action followed by reaction.
Now the bulk of European Jews live in the US and Israel they still have the same political leanings.
I do not understand the reasoning behind this article. It is factually incorrect and so the author must have an ideological or personal reason in wanting it to appear as fact.
Therefore, is the intention to embarass or ridicule those who argue for a National Socialist ideology?
Or is it to actually 'cement' a kind of ideological reasoning for the undesirable and opportunistic posturings of the Griffin-led BNP to cosy up to Israel and its Zionist regime?
If the former this article is not academic and is simply a polemic with little to base its argument on. To try and put down those neo-Nazis or sympathisers of National Socialist ideas by trying to equate them with having its origins in a Jewish Zionist ideology is not history and neither is it intellectual honesty.
If the latter it fails because the whole basis of the argument is fundamentaly flawed, irrespective of the fundamentally anti-nationalistic posturings of the BNP in support of the terrorist state of Israel.
I can find little similarity between 'The Manifesto of the Jewish National Socialist Party' and either Mein Kampf or the manifesto of the German Workers' Party.
Any similarity is due to the commonality of the ideologies expounded by both the German Nationalists and the Jewish Nationalists who were fighting for their own homeland in Palestine. This is what one would expect for an ideology that promulgamated a national state for a national peoples and self-determination. It does not necessarily mean or imply a copying or mimicry, on the level of some sort of evolutionary tree.
It would not be unexpected during this period of turmoil in Europe when there were so many natioanlist groups and ideologies dominanting the political and cultural scene for there to be similarities in both ideologies, policies, goals and programmes.
To claim that Hitler 'stole' the Jewish nationalist manifesto is both ridiculous, historically incorrect and a political mistake.
A brief enquiry into the origins of National Socialism as expounded by Hitler quickly overturns the pronouncement that the DAP/NSDAP manifesto was copied from the Jewish Zionist ideology as expounded by Viktor Chaim Arlosoroff.
It was on January 5, 1919, that the party that eventually became the Nazi Party was founded under the name German Workers' Party (DAP) by Anton Drexler.
The party was renamed the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) on February 24, 1920, against Hitler’s choice of Social Revolutionary Party, hence giving the lie to the earlier suggested pronouncement.
Although Adolf Hitler had joined the Nazi Party in September 1919, and published Mein Kampf in 1925 and 1926, the seminal ideas of National Socialism had their roots in groups and individuals of decades past which included the Völkisch movement and its religious-occult counterpart, Ariosophy.
Adolf Hitler, then a corporal in the German Army, was ordered to spy on the fledgling DAP in September 1919 after much of the German Army was being demobilised in the aftermath of Germany's defeat in the First World War.
In so far as the naming of the NSDAP is concerned the name was borrowed from a different Austrian party active at the time (Deutsche Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei).
This party had been established in Austria in 1903, and a party congress proposal to change the name to the National Socialist German Workers' Party was blocked by the Bohemian groups, who did not want to copy the name of the Czech National Socialist Party.
This Czech Nationalist party was established in 1989 and the first party platform of the German Nazi Party was in many cases an almost identical copof the Czech party's platfor. So if at all, it was from a fellow European nationalist party that the NSDAP got its ideology and programme from - not a Jewish Zionist one.
The National Socialist programme was first developed in Vienna, at a German Workers Party congress, and was brought to Munich by Rudolf Jung, who was expelled from Czechoslovakia. Josef Pfitzner, a Sudetenland German Nazi author, wrote that "the synthesis of the two great dynamic powers of the century, of the national and social idea, had been perfected in the German borderlands [i.e. Sudetenland] which thus were far ahead of their motherland."
The socialist aspects of nearly half of the programme's demands show clear evidence the working-class origins of the party, and not having been simply copied from any Jewish Zionist party, ideology or programme. They all have their roots in the peculiar and unique circumstances of Weimar Germany and the predominance of both socialist and volkish elements that made up the embryonic NSDAP.
Later on several other of the Points within the Programme were revised to take into account the realpolitik of the national situation.
The thesis as expounded in the article simply does not hold water and is more polemical than historical. If the object was to somehow distance the BNP from National Socialism ideogies (which does not need to be done as there are few roots there), or to distance the BNP from neo-Nazis than the effort has been futile and will simply lead to doubt and suspicion regarding the more factually-based or inspirational ideas and research that the author is known for, and in which he has excelled yourself with some amazing Blue Sky Thinking.
Mr. Potter,
you seem to be under a misunderstanding here. I said that the ideas Hitler put in Mein Kampf, and the pronouncements that National Socialism was 'Germannic' were first plagarised and secondly false.
The basis of Hitlerism National Socialism were stolen from Zionism.
The politics of national socialism were simply Marxism and nationalism, which had existed all over Europe in the form of national or socialist movements.
But in Germany the first national socialist movement was a JEWISH one.
eg
the aryans = the jews
greater Israel = Germannia
The chosen people = the Aryan race
Zionism and national socialism are mirror images of each other - therefore Hilterian national socialism derived from Zionist roots.
Czech national socialism has nothing to do with Germany, Aryans and Germannia - these were influences that derived solely from Zionism.
Zionism was also a working class movement, and in Mein Kampf Hitler states that he spent most of his time pre-politics learning from and
listening to Jews who were having political debates on building sites he worked on.
It was there I suspect he encountered the ideas of Jewish national socialism.
As for the issues of the volkish strands and occult strands in Nazism - if you do the research you will find that all the volkish groups were closed by Hitler and those that sought to retain their independence from the Hitler Youth were put into concentration camps.
The occult groups, such as the Odinists, were similarly thrown into concentration camps.
In fact the Odinist religion was banned by Hitler as a way to ensure his Positive Cchristianity could be imposed on the masses.
Rosenberg proclaimed 'Odin is dead' and Hitler mocked the Odinists and Himmler who spoke about Odinism.
Point 24 of the 25 point programme of the NSDAP states that 'the party
stands for positive christianity'.
Thats pretty uneqiuvocal.
Nazism tuned against the very people that sought to save the German environment, who were German romantics and who were struggling to bring back a native Germannic religion.
Hitlerism, as national socialism came to be when it became a dictatorship, was neither nationalist nor socialist.
Hitlerism sent the German romantics of the wandervogel to die in Russia, France and Italy.
Hitler invaded and conquered european nations and he also allowed the reactionary upper class landowners and rich to become the main beneficiaries of his rule.
The workers were put into uniforms and sent to kill fellow european workers, whilst the rich industrialists, financers and landowners all grew richer from the war.
He imported in millions of immigrant slaves into Germany to do the manual work in Germany whilst German workers were sent to die on the Eastern Front and die fighting in european nations against other european workers.
The only people who peddle the idea that Hitlerism was basedon Odinism are radical Jewish groups who attack and denigrate any form of our native religions arising again, and christian fundamentalist groups who want to hide the fact that the crimes of the third reich were done in the name of Jesus, not Odin.
All the best,
Lee
Yep,let's take one theory, shoehorn it, make it as the sole truth and blame Hitler's national socialism on the jews.
Let's not take into account other major influences such as Henry the Fowler, Wagner, Nietzsche, Marx, the Jesuits, rampant European anti-semitism, Hitler's own experiences in WWI, the Islamic religion and American "progressives" of the late 19th Century.
As always it's the Jews, case closed. That's why retards such as Mr Potter make assinine statements such as "Israel is a terrorist state". He's too blined by hate or stupidity to see that Israel is in fact surrounded by terrorist states.
It really is a pity that this blog is now obsessed with the jews yet the jews throughout history have never been anywhere near as barbaric as the muslims who pose the biggest threat to us right now. It would make a nice change to hear the muslims criticised on here in the same way the jews are.
Cheers
Chris.
Mr Potter said...
"Or is it to actually 'cement' a kind of ideological reasoning for the undesirable and opportunistic posturings of the Griffin-led BNP to cosy up to Israel and its Zionist regime?"
The BNP does is not cozying up to Israel, and anyone who follows Lee barnes' blog or the BNP website will understand exactly the distinction the BNP makes between the Jewish race and Zionism as a political entity. Simply revewing some previous articles and the comments from this blog will exaplin this position if you are unaware of it, as you seem to be. Anyways, the BNP position with regards to the Israel / Palestinian problem is that it is nothing to do with the BNP, I hardly see how that position would suggest a cozying up to Israel! Moreover, I would suggest that from the tone of your comment you would classify any position which is not stridently opposed to Israel to in fact represent a cozying up to Israel, therefore you position is obviously an extreme position.
The BNP does not accept anti-semitism, as that is simply the blind and moronic race hate of Neo-Nazi's, and is therefore completely at adds with the principles of the BNP.
Chris,
Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
As i pointed, and so did mr.potter, national socialism had many roots and one of them was Jewish national socialism.
As for Islam I criticise Islamists, not Islam.
Islam is a meme, a set of ideas, that cannot do anything unless someone acts in the name of Islam.
Therefore attacking Islam is like attacking a ghost - it doesnt exist until someone does something in its name.
I attack those who act in the name of Islam, not the meme.
Bush made the same mistake when he made his farsical 'war on terror' - there is no such thing as a war on terror as 'terror' doesnt exist as an living entity to be attacked.
What the idiot should have done is launched a 'war on terrorists' - and I wage my war against Islamists.
Attacking a meme is about the dumbest thing a human being can do.
A meme has no power until someone acts in its name.
You need to read The Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom and get to grips with reality on this issue,
read the book , read the section on memes and then get back to me after you realise how bloody stupid it is to wage a war on memes.
Lee
Good debate on this blog!
One of the good things about the Lee Barnes Blog is that readers are allowed to post comments and (if reasonable and not libellous or personal) are posted. That is what I call freedom of speech.
Al least Mr Barnes sees free speech when he speaks of it, unlike many other individuals, groups and websites I can name.
Unlike others who blog he tests his ideas and then either rejects them, modifies them in the light of new evidence or argument, or sees them strengthened. So respect is due where it is due!
It is a positive experience to see novel ideas and views discussed and dissected, and I must admit that in the past some of my earlier views and arguments have had to be abandoned or revised in the light of Lee's arguments (even if a certain Chris proffers the term 'retard' to anyone who dare question the all-encompassing satanic enemy of Islam and the sacred land of Israel - tough Chris, some of us do question it).
I agree with Lee that National Socialism had many roots and that one of those roots WAS Jewish.
Where I would take issue with him is the exact nature and extent of that influence. Of course, such a preposition that the National Socialism of Hitler and Nazi Germany was in some way derived from Jewish Zionism is anathema to some. But we must not get caught in rejecting something just because it may sound heretical or contraty to what we are led to believe. All preconceived ideas and notions should be judged according to evidence and argument and hot to what we have learned or what we may want to believe (or not believe as may be the issue).
Personally, I have no vested interest so can recognise that Jewish Zionism was a meme that was current in Germany in the early part of the 20th-century and so influenced the development of Germanic nationalism.
I would not disagree with Lee in his claim that the first National Socialist movement in Germany was Jewish.
What is needed therefore is a detailed study of the origins of Hitler's National Socialist beliefs and also how the DAP/NSDAP acquired a National Socialist programme.
Unless evidence can be found to the contrary I would consider that the origins of the German National Socialist programme was first developed in Vienna, at a German Workers Party congress, and was brought to Munich by Rudolf Jung, who was expelled from Czechoslovakia. The Czech National Socialist Party was created in 1889. These central European parties existed within a cultural and political Zeitgeist that embodied many influences, but there is no evidemnce to suggest that the Jewish Zionist influences were central, let alone important. as I have stated the Germanic development was derived largely from Czech sources.
"Zionism and national socialism are mirror images of each other - therefore Hilterian national socialism derived from Zionist roots."
This is a far too simplistic statement. Merely because there are similarities between events or ideas does not necessarily mean that one is derved from another. In the same way, there are pyramids in both Egypt and Central America does not mean that this is a case of Diffusionism or Extraterrestrials. Similarly, Wallace discovered evolution at the same time as Darwin. Did one copy the other? No, it simply means that at a particular time in history when certain things are in place certain individuals can think of a reponse or an idea that is appropritate to that time.
"The basis of Hitlerism National Socialism were stolen from Zionism."
This is quite an assertion to make and if this claim is to be properly judged it needs the evidence to back it up with.
I would agree that Hitler spent time speaking with Jewish workers as in Vienna he was a worker himself and history recounts his dealings and political debates at the time. It is quite possible that Hitler absorbed some Jewish Zionist views and ideas at the time.
But I would maintain that the bulk of his views were derived from the patriotic sentiment that he was feeling after his demobilisation and why he was in such a state at the time with little money, and he was seeking explanations for his developing Weltenschhaung (World View). This took on some Marxist ideas, partly in opposition to the dominant Marxist ideas current within the German Communist party and the Social Democratic Party.
You are right in your statement that the volkish influences were expunged. But this was done after 1933 and was more to do with removing all traces of dissent or rival power bases. In the same way many of the Nazi's occult and volkish supporters found themselves banned. But the point is that these volkish and occult elements played a very significant role in creating and determing both National Socialism and Hitler's own views and political development. You cannot discuss the origins and development of Nazism without discussing the viatl role played by both Germanic volkish groups, the environmental movement and various occult strands (for instance, the Thule Society - an occult organisation - actually created the DAP in an attempt to spread its influences to the working-class).
Again, I would agree with Lee that the Nazis essentially dissembled the whole basis of any cultural or religious system or ideas that they saw as a potential rival.
That meant baning occultism and astrologers, and it meant banning Odinists.
Contrary to the neo-Nazis and the blind followers of those who worship Hitler, Hitler was a traitor to the nationalist cause. His aim was simply the aggrandisement of Germany and racial totalitarianism, which he knew could only be achieved through lebrensaum and war, and with its racial genocide and colonialism. All this wa sto be achieved through his will, which he saw as the tool for a higher spiritual creation to manifest its on will on earth.
Nationalists were amongst the first victims to be purged, similar to Hitler's twin shadow, Jeosef Stalin, who purged his own rivals and threats and fellow communists.
Odinists and those who shared parallel beliefs to National Socialism were purged, incorporated into national institutions so that they could be controlled, or were sent to camps.
Any nationalist who follows Hitler for his Nationalist ideals is a fool and a blind idiot.
It is true that Hitler mocked the Odonists, as he did Himmler and his occult ideas. Quite simply, Hitler had no time or use for them. His business was power and the co-ordination oif the national life to achieve not only supreme somination but to do it in such a way as to make Germany and himself as one, so as to carry out his will. Anything else was just a game and immaterial and of no consequence to him.
But your emphasis on Hitler's 'Positive Christianity' is too simplistic. In his early days Hitler was a Christian and Professor Guenter Lewy, author of "The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany" quotes Hitler as saying that he "... regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of our national life." But by 1940 it was well-known that Hitler had abandoned the advocation of Positive Christianity for Germany.
Hitler saw the Catholic Church as as something to be copied and used to manipulate the masses with. But his main regards was again power. He knew that if he acted too fast against the Church its power could be used against him. It is known that if Hitler had won the War then Hitler would have implemented steps that he had prepared to curtial the Church and to eventually ban it.This is supported by Nuremburg Trials documents released in 1988.
Do't be misguided by what Hitler was saying in public. His support for Christainity was merely superficial and he knew he had to get the conservative Christians and the social elite on his side, hence his emphasis on Christianity.
Before 1933 the Nazi efforts were successful in enlisting teh support of many Protestant Christians.
But in private Hitler was negative about Christianity -all well supported by eyewitness testimony.
Hitler was a religious individual but saw Christianity as a symptom of decay. He was morev of a pantheist and even had a soft spot for Islam, seeing it as more compatible than Christianity. He preferred the religion of the Japanese with its emphasis on sacrfice to the Fatherland.
But although Hitler was opposed to state atheism he wanted a religiously neutral state, and tolerated a range of religious views. His concern was simple: toleration for those who supported the Nazi state.
Perhaps what we now need for today is a Europe based on its indigenous Christian and pagan traditions following in the footsteps of the kind of views promoted by the Strasser brothers.
Keep up the good work Lee,
Mr Potter
Chris says,
"Yep,let's take one theory, shoehorn it, make it as the sole truth and blame Hitler's national socialism on the jews.
Let's not take into account other major influences such as Henry the Fowler, Wagner, Nietzsche, Marx, the Jesuits, rampant European anti-semitism, Hitler's own experiences in WWI, the Islamic religion and American "progressives" of the late 19th Century."
******* Agreed Chris, these factors - and more - do need to be taken into consideration. The whole issue is one heavily mined by academics and historians and despite this there is still much scope for debate.
I can see why you feel rather upset at Lee's article as it seems to be blaming the Jews for everything, even their very nemesis!
Chris also says,
"As always it's the Jews, case closed. That's why retards such as Mr Potter make assinine statements such as "Israel is a terrorist state". He's too blined by hate or stupidity to see that Israel is in fact surrounded by terrorist states.
It really is a pity that this blog is now obsessed with the jews yet the jews throughout history have never been anywhere near as barbaric as the muslims who pose the biggest threat to us right now. It would make a nice change to hear the muslims criticised on here in the same way the jews are."
*******Why would a person be a 'retard' simply for expressing an opinion (based as it is on overwheming evidence as it happens) that Israel is a terrorist state? It would seem that you are the one who is blind who cannot see that the actions of the Israelis over the last 50 years is not the work of a terrorist state (and to think that the Jews who suffered so terribly at the hands of the Nazis with their ghettoes and destruction of Jewish property, and disproportionate attacks would now have the same blindness as you who are now doing exactly the same to their fellow Arabs?)
I would suggest that it is individuals like you who are "blinded by hatred and stupidity" who see every Arab and every Muslim as a potential terrorist. Yes, Israel is surrounded by terrorists and states that want to se it destroyed. But that does not give Israel any right to be a nation, or to treat its neighbours with such terror and ill-treatment - all supported by the US of course.
As to your comments criticising the Blogger Owner for never criticising Muslims, if you have read this blog every day since its inception you would have realised that that statement is totally false. The Blog Owner has often criticised Muslim terrorists and the threat of Islamification many, many times.
Perhaps you should stop focussing so much blind hatred to Muslims and start looking at the real issues: Not Jews. Not Muslims. Not Immigrants.
It is a System of Memes that operate on individuals and which can manifest in whatever nation, race, ethnic group, religion or economic system devised by man.
Andrastre says,
"The BNP does is not cozying up to Israel, and anyone who follows Lee barnes' blog or the BNP website will understand exactly the distinction the BNP makes between the Jewish race and Zionism as a political entity. Simply revewing some previous articles and the comments from this blog will exaplin this position if you are unaware of it, as you seem to be. Anyways, the BNP position with regards to the Israel / Palestinian problem is that it is nothing to do with the BNP, I hardly see how that position would suggest a cozying up to Israel! Moreover, I would suggest that from the tone of your comment you would classify any position which is not stridently opposed to Israel to in fact represent a cozying up to Israel, therefore you position is obviously an extreme position.
The BNP does not accept anti-semitism, as that is simply the blind and moronic race hate of Neo-Nazi's, and is therefore completely at adds with the principles of the BNP."
I appreciate the comments Andrastre, they help clarify a few points.
However, I am sure that you will realise that what Lee writes on his blog are not official BNP policies or cannot be taken as the official BNP line and are his own personal views.
I am glad that you suggest that anti-semetism is not tolerated by the BNP (which would seem at odds with the self-styled publication 'Who Are the Mind Benders?' and other anti-semitic statements made by at least one current senior BNP official in the past), but I put the question to you, "What has anti-semitism got to do with opposing the actions and policies of Israel?". You confuse the terms 'Jew' with 'Israel' and 'Israeli'.
And if that is the case why does the BNP in its official stance is so virulently anti-Muslim? Nothwithstanding the terminology of the legal definitions of race hatred and racial groups it could be construed that such a vurulent stance (whether justified or not) is on the same level as anti-semitism?
Your comments reveal a confusion which, if you are a spokesperson for the BNP, shows a distinct poor reflection of its stand. For isntance, if the BNP makes a clear distinction between Zionisma nd Jews ( as it should do), then why is the BNP supporting a Zionist government and a Zionist state ie Israel? The issue has been made clear cut in the BNP's stand for Israel. The issue has got nothing to do with Jews. But the reasoning of the BNP's stance is clear - and that is to support a pan-global opposition to Islam, partly for ideological reasons and partly to secure funding and backing from powerful vested interests at home.
Your suggestions that any position which fails to oppose Israel is extreme is inaccurate. Why should criticising a state that engages in war and state-sponsored terrorism be considered extreme? May I suggest that your stand for the present actions of Isarel be construed as 'extreme'?
Your support for a terrorist state leads me to question how and why a party like the BNP has now become a Zionist-supporting one.
And if you are not even aware of your own party's support for Israel then perhaps you should investigate a bit further and see the statements put out by both it and its Chairman, to the extent that the BNP is now regarded by most commentators as one of the more Zionist parties in the UK.
As it is your statement that Israel has nothing to do with the BNP is correct - and that should be the policy and stance. Israel/Palestine etc have nothing to do with Britain (despite the fact that we had the Palestine mandate in the 1920s and our policies contributed to the situation that we have today). So having said that then maybe the BNP should act accordingly, and not seek to comment on either side?
Mr Potter said...
"I am glad that you suggest that anti-semetism is not tolerated by the BNP (which would seem at odds with the self-styled publication 'Who Are the Mind Benders?' and other anti-semitic statements made by at least one current senior BNP official in the past), but I put the question to you, "What has anti-semitism got to do with opposing the actions and policies of Israel?". You confuse the terms 'Jew' with 'Israel' and 'Israeli'."
Firstly, what has occured in the past is exactly that - what has occured in the past. Political parties develop and so do people - no-one should ever be denined the right of that! so the actions of the past cannot be hung forever around the neck like an albatros. Otherwise that would be a bit like one of those annoying arguements where you are trying to explain your view but the other person, obviously intellectually out of the depth, resorts to that old emotional tactic and just keeps saying: "Yeah, but last year you said...".
Anyways and more importantly and coming back to the point that you think I am confusing the terms 'Jew' with 'Israel' and 'Israeli' you seem to have already forgotten what you wrote previously when you asked:
"Or is it to actually 'cement' a kind of ideological reasoning for the undesirable and opportunistic posturings of the Griffin-led BNP to cosy up to Israel and its Zionist regime?"
So, you see you mentioned Israel and "its Zionist regime" and stated Mr. Griffin was in someway attempting to "cosy" up to said regime, and the inference you make is obviously that the BNP policy with regards to indifference to Israel, specifically it's recent attack on Gaza and Hamas, was somehow supportive of the "Zionist regime" in Israel... therefore I simply stated the BNP position and that I failed to see how such a position indicated support for Israel's "Zionist regime". Now you have completely diverted the question which you raised and an answer which I gave away from its original preminse so that you now are asking how I somehow confused the terms 'Jew' with 'Israel' and 'Israeli', and I think if you re-read my comments you will discover I succinctly answered your question - a conflict of terms never arose.
Then, you said...
"And if that is the case why does the BNP in its official stance is so virulently anti-Muslim? Nothwithstanding the terminology of the legal definitions of race hatred and racial groups it could be construed that such a vurulent stance (whether justified or not) is on the same level as anti-semitism?
Your comments reveal a confusion which, if you are a spokesperson for the BNP, shows a distinct poor reflection of its stand. For isntance, if the BNP makes a clear distinction between Zionisma nd Jews ( as it should do), then why is the BNP supporting a Zionist government and a Zionist state ie Israel? The issue has been made clear cut in the BNP's stand for Israel. The issue has got nothing to do with Jews. But the reasoning of the BNP's stance is clear - and that is to support a pan-global opposition to Islam, partly for ideological reasons and partly to secure funding and backing from powerful vested interests at home."
Most importantly the BNP does not support a Zionist government, and however you reached the conclusion that I stated such in my comments shows that either you are so intent on reading something in what I am saying that you actually create it in your own mind, a delusion, or you deliberately diverted away from the point again so as to peddle your own agenda. Whatever the reason for your feeble reasoning that is not important, what is important is that you now re-read my comments and see that in no way did I write or even suggest that the BNP supports a Zionist regime.
As regards the BNP stance on Muslims, and I speak for myself here (not being a BNP spokesman, nor ever claiming to be as you bizarrely introduced, however)... The indigeneous British folk, our traditions and cultures are under a threat, and this is an existential threat - therefore we react accordingly. Remove the threat, we do not react. Cause and effect. You would have to be an ostrich to not realise that we are in a state of cultural war, a war which has been put upon us by the Marxist-Fascists of the Lib/Lab/Con triumverate. Therefore, our instinct is for survival, any true British person who denies their instinct for survival is so messed up as to not warrant saving, i.e. Lancaster UAF to name but one deeply self-loathing and delusional organisation. As regards funding of the BNP, I would not know... but the fact that you make that assertion tells me that you believe that to be the case.
Then your said, which is a classic...
"Your suggestions that any position which fails to oppose Israel is extreme is inaccurate. Why should criticising a state that engages in war and state-sponsored terrorism be considered extreme? May I suggest that your stand for the present actions of Isarel be construed as 'extreme'?"
You seem to have dissappeared up your own arse... what? How did you interpret that from my comments? I said...
"Moreover, I would suggest that from the tone of your comment you would classify any position which is not stridently opposed to Israel to in fact represent a cozying up to Israel, therefore you position is obviously an extreme position.
Your support for a terrorist state leads me to question how and why a party like the BNP has now become a Zionist-supporting one."
That's pretty easy to understand, ain't it? Ok, I'll rephrase it to make it easier, sheesh... From your comments I believe that you believe that anyone who does not oppose Israel is supportive of the Zionist regime. Therefore, that tells me two things, firstly, you are rabidly anti-Israel because, as you have stated, it is a "Zionist regime", secondly that you cannot accept positions which differ from yours even slightly, as this you would also classify as supportive of the "Zionist regime" - therefore I believe that you have an extremist position which regards anything to do with Israel.
And when did I mentioned I supported the "terrorist state", I wrote that we, and I took the liberty to promote BNP policy at the same time, are not bothered either way about Israel... so how did you read that I stated support for it? Another example of your extremist position in my view.
Please get back to me, I am interested what new gross distortions you make of my comments (which actually only serve to reveal your own underlying beliefs), please, fire away.
Andastre
Thank you for your comments which help clarify certain matters.
I agree with you that political parties - and individuals - can and do change. Therefore I withdraw this argument as being irrelevent (although as far as the current Chairman of the BNP is concerned this may indeed be relevent as it so far appplies to him alone as even a cursory review of his rapidly changing political views and positions show him to be a political chameleon and opportunist).
Andastre said,
"Now you have completely diverted the question which you raised and an answer which I gave away from its original preminse so that you now are asking how I somehow confused the terms 'Jew' with 'Israel' and 'Israeli', and I think if you re-read my comments you will discover I succinctly answered your question - a conflict of terms never arose."
Agreed.
Andrastre said,
"Whatever the reason for your feeble reasoning that is not important, what is important is that you now re-read my comments and see that in no way did I write or even suggest that the BNP supports a Zionist regime."
Agreed.
Andrastre said,
"The indigeneous British folk, our traditions and cultures are under a threat, and this is an existential threat - therefore we react accordingly. Remove the threat, we do not react. Cause and effect. You would have to be an ostrich to not realise that we are in a state of cultural war, a war which has been put upon us by the Marxist-Fascists of the Lib/Lab/Con triumverate. Therefore, our instinct is for survival, any true British person who denies their instinct for survival is so messed up as to not warrant saving, i.e. Lancaster UAF to name but one deeply self-loathing and delusional organisation."
Spot on.
Though to be fair I was not actually attempting to pretend that there was no Muslim threat and certainly was not even suggesting that the BNP ignore the threat. Far from it! It is not really necessary here to say that the threat of Islamic fundamentalism presents a grave danger to Britain and the survival of our culture. Of course, the BNP - and ideally all parties - should need to address this threat. What I was trying to say was that it is not just the Islamist threat and that it is equally the problem created by the Left-liberal cosmopolitans who have used Islam as a weapon to destroy this nation and to enact their own cosmopolitan policies. I was also suggesting that Islam is being used by other Western groups and interests to effect their own agendas, and that we may not be aware of the inner workings of the BNP leadership as to be able to judge exactly WHY the kind of strategy we are witnessing is taking place. It may be purely political but there may also be other influences which are guiding this policy and that is something that needs addressing, and not dismissing out-of-hand.
Andarstre said,
"From your comments I believe that you believe that anyone who does not oppose Israel is supportive of the Zionist regime."
Apologies due to you. It is wrong for the label of pro-Israel to be used on someone who is not "attacking" Israel. The litmus test should be if that party and/or its members are proactive in their support for a nation which engages in the sort of activity that we have recently witnessed.
My concerns are primarly concerned with how and why Griffin is manoeuvering the BNP to the point that even Ruth Smeed of the Board of Deputies of British Jews revealed that ‘The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web - it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel’.
I realise that Lee Barnes is an independent thinker but as an officer of the BNP he in the summer of 2006, came out openly in support of Israel’s bombing of the Lebanon.
Having a position of opposing the Zionist state of Israel and its actions is not the same as being anti-semitic (although I recognise that in some individuals the two are easily compatible). British Jews have every right to be respected and they should be encouraged to support Britaina nd to serve Britain's interests. The trouble lies in the Jewish leadership and their Zionist political cliques who masquerade as being represenative of British Jews but are actually only in teh pocket of outside interests.
The BNP can have a strong and viable anti-Islamist platform without sanctioning Zionism. That's the essence of the point - apologies for any misrepresentation of you made earlier.
This entire argument is nonsense. Jews have never, and I repeat NEVER, created anything. They are parasites.
Post a Comment