Yet another infantile moron who chooses to live in the West but never stops complaining about the evils of human rights, democracy and modern standards of living.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at June 28, 2006 9:46 AM

I have said it before and I will say it again.

I am pleased that such hateful no-marks have the opportunity of free speech in the UK.

I do not want his words or music banned or supressed giving, them some underground cred.

I would like the records played on national radio, reviewed and discussed on prime-time television and the bitter little toe-rag cross-examined live, so the population can be given some understanding of where such arrogant hatred comes from.

Come on.....lets be having it Jeremy Paxman. Do your stuff!

Posted by: Turbinehead at June 28, 2006 10:07 AM

So he compares Bin Laden to Che Guevara? How appropriate to compare scum to scum. Here's hoping Osama meets the same fate as Che. MUERTO!

Posted by: Proud Infidel at June 28, 2006 10:07 AM

Well, this is a question of freedom of speech. And by voicing these opinions he may help in opening the eyes of others to exactly what is going on in Muslim 'youth' culture in this country. The 7/7 bombers swam in a sea of at least tacit approval. From my memories of his earlier work, it was always deliberately provocative and rooted in identity politics in the manner of Public Enemy.

Of course, any attempt at a response in kind - say a well funded documentary on the life of Mohamed would receive far more criticism than this will, along with the threat of violence.

Posted by: QueeQueeg at June 28, 2006 10:25 AM

Jeremy Paxman is a time server. A mere performer.He plays the game of and perpetuates the illusion of challenging and confronting but never really delivers a single punch to dissemblers.He's there to reassure and mollycoddle the viewer into thinking that the BBC can contest---but it's all cosmetic. Nothing shifts. He's just a presenter. He's a dhimmi.

Posted by: johndoe at June 28, 2006 10:30 AM

D - d - d - duh - duh - deport the Muslims

Duh - duh - duh - deport the Muslims

It's the least we can do. Plus, you can dance to it. Any Islamic Enlightenment must come from concentrating them together without any western support.

My next song: Sympathy for the Parasites

Posted by: Beagle at June 28, 2006 10:50 AM

Du'a dhimmi, dhimmi dumb, dhimmi do.

Posted by: Shinoliite at June 28, 2006 10:56 AM

I can't quite work out what the tie in is with Nation records and Beggars Banquet as Nation records are not part of the Beggars Group mentioned on their home page. The label started 25 years ago with a mainly punk reportoire. I think G-had must be a bit of a shock to the system for them. Fields of the Nephilim he ain't.
But I agree with Turbinehead, this is an ideal opportunity for some consciousness raising (as we said in the 70s) about Islam, although I nominate Tony Parsons to do it, he being more knowledgeable about both music and Islam than J Paxman.
Here is the latest on a current consciousness raising project.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 28, 2006 10:58 AM

I nominate Tony Parsons to do it, he being more knowledgeable about both music and Islam than J Paxman.

Or his ex, Julie Burchill, who certainly tells it like it is about Islam.

Du'a dhimmi, dhimmi dumb, dhimmi do.

Dhimmi dhimmi dhimmi a man after midnight.

Posted by: Interested at June 28, 2006 11:07 AM

Just been doing a little googling in a field of music unfamiliar to me.
Aki Nawaz set up Nation Records himself. One of the few acts I recognise is the earliest work of the Asian Dub Foundation, who if I recall correctly are a mixed band with a few Hindu musicians. They have gone to to bemuch more sucessful since they left Nation. I wonder why they split? We need an expert in the field, I would value Vikrant_kamberleykar's opinion on this.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 28, 2006 11:18 AM

Boycott the record. Boycott any store that sells the record. Boycott any station, or any advertiser on a station, that plays the record. And make known that boycott in advance. And while you are at it, start changing your ways. A taste for curry? Make sure you buy the ingredients, including the chutney, from Hindu-owned companies. Indian restaurants and take-aways? Ditto. And take it from there.

Posted by: Hugh at June 28, 2006 11:24 AM

I would value Vikrant_kamberleykar's opinion on this.

So would I. Sadly he no longer visits this site, and has stated on Pickled Politics that this is because of the BNP apologists/supporters who comment here.

A loss, I think. Hindus have a lot to tell us about Islam.

Posted by: Interested at June 28, 2006 11:28 AM

Du'a dhimmi, dhimmi dumb, dhimmi do.

Posted by: Shinoliite

LOL :-) Manfred Mann

Posted by: Celsius at June 28, 2006 11:50 AM

Ah well Hugh, that counts out most of my favourite Tandoori restaurants. Does this mean bye bye to Chicken Tikka Masala? Still, there's always South Indian food, which is great and guaranteed to be Hindu

Posted by: johndoe at June 28, 2006 12:26 PM

Maybe the Brits will include the song in Anglican Church services. Proposed intro:

"Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Infinite Acceptance.

"Let us make room for those who intend our humiliation.

"Let us ignore our heritage and accept subordination.

"Let us hasten the day of Muslim elevation."

Was Churchill the last gasp for these people?

Posted by: StillBreathing at June 28, 2006 12:27 PM

"G-had and suicide bombers: the rapper who likens Bin Laden to Che Guevara,"

Actually, Bin Laden and Guevara are a lot alike. Both were a rich boys who got their heads stuffed full of notions of revolution for a bad cause; and both ended up as bloodthirsty goons. Hopefully, some of the people Bin Laden thinks he's "liberating" will call the local gendarmerie when they know where he is and watch him get shot to rags--or, better yet, to get taken alive, handed over to the USofA, tried, and sentenced to death. He'd look good in an orange jump suit and lying on a gurney.

Posted by: Kepha at June 28, 2006 12:39 PM

Boycott the record. Boycott any store that sells the record. Boycott any station, or any advertiser on a station, that plays the record.

Quite easy actually considering the state of British Music broadcasting. Leaving aside the jihad lyrics a rap record might just get on to the very small playlist for BBC Radio 1 which caters these days only for teenagers of limited taste.
It would be played on the specialist stations, rap, hip hop, clip clop, houseie houseie or whatever the kids call it,(I have turned into my Mum, this only took 30 years to achieve) which only specialist enthusiasts listen to. The mainstream commercial stations would not touch it with a 10 ft pole, even without the controversial words.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 28, 2006 12:52 PM

The bin Laden / Che Guevara connection in this rapper's mind (not to mention the mind of Castro himself from what he has said and done in the past few years) is yet another indication of the still incipient and inchoate nebula wherein elements of ultra-Leftism, Communism, Leftist Trotskyitism & anarchism mingle with elements of ultra-Right Trotskyitism, white supremacy & neo-Nazism, and some or all of the aforementioned mingle with Islamic jihadism. To the extent this still amorphous and uncrystallized nebula should catalyze, it would follow the logic analyzed by Alexandre Del Valle in his essay on the "Axis of Red/Brown/Green" (Red = ultra-Left; Brown = ultra-Right; Green = Islam).

Posted by: Television at June 28, 2006 1:07 PM

This crapper G-Had says it's about his freedom of expression. 'Ya think he respects the freedom of expression of those who drew the infamous Mohammed cartoons in Denmark? Will we see large demonstrations from the dhimmi British against his freedom of expression like we saw against those Danish cartooninsts?

The hipocrisy of Muslims and dhimmis knows no bounds.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at June 28, 2006 1:34 PM

I'm sad to see from Granny Weatherwax's above link that the Islam Expo at Alexandra Palace in London is timed to coincide with the anniversary of the 7/7 bombings.
Truly appalling and downright provocative. How do they get away with this? Why was this allowed?

Posted by: johndoe at June 28, 2006 2:31 PM

I'm sad that Vikrant is gone. For a while, he was a lone voice of Hindus here. However, despite disagreements about the BNP, it's no reason to leave this site - I've never seen anything that suggests that R,H&R support them. One is always free to either disagree with pro-BNP posters, or ignore them altogether. And like I've said before, despite their thin coverage of India, J/W and D/W do a better job covering Jihadi and Dhimmitude activities in India than do most of the mainstream Indian media.

Interested

I have counted a handful of Hindu posters here, although Vikrant was probably the only Brit-based Hindu posting here. There's Arjun, tjwork, Razdan, thehindu and a few others, including myself. Other than what you know from your Hindu neighbors, feel free to ask us what you want to know about Islam vis a vis us.

As for the music, where's our favorite rap star, Sheikh Yermani? I never found the lyrics to the 30-minute marathon "Global anti-Jihad".

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 28, 2006 2:37 PM

Unfortunately, I think things have progressed to the point that if given wide play in England this crap will be praised by all the "smart" people.

Deport this scumbag to someplace deep in the umma, say, the Sudan or Saudi Arabia, so that he can absorb even more of them Islamic vibes. Best place to drop him is preferably far out in the desert so he can do that "Dune" thing.

Posted by: GaryK at June 28, 2006 3:31 PM

I'm sad that Vikrant is gone. For a while, he was a lone voice of Hindus here. However, despite disagreements about the BNP, it's no reason to leave this site - I've never seen anything that suggests that R,H&R support them.

No, and all three have said on different occasions that they do not support them. An unequivocal ex cathedra condemnation of this white supremacist party would have been helpful, however, and this was not forthcoming.

Vikrant was understandably exasperated by the boundless ignorance of some of the American advocates of the BNP, who know nothing of its history, or its agenda beyond the sanitised version on its website, which was believed rather too eagerly.

Hindus, but also apostates from Islam, who are nearly all non-whites, are almost certainly alienated by any advocacy of the BNP. Of course comments here are unmoderated, but it is the responsibility of commenters to think about the effect of their words on such key groups as apostates from Islam.

Posted by: Interested at June 28, 2006 3:44 PM

It's good to hear people soundoff who have lived under the muslim boot. I like to hear from the posters in India. They have a long history of dealing with them.

There was an egyptian, possibly Copt, who posted here a while ago. I'll bet there's some interesting stories there.

Posted by: squire at June 28, 2006 4:05 PM

Rappers in France are as bad:

"Currently, a Zaire-born black rapper, called Monsieur R, aka Richard Makela, is being sued for obscenity for depicting, in a video, naked women writhing on a French flag. The lyrics of one of his CD tracks, from a 2005 collection called Politikment Incorrekt run: "France is a bitch, don't forget to fuck her - to the point of exhaustion. Like a slut, she should be insulted." The case, carried out in the southern Paris suburb of Melun, is the 12th incident of French rap music being tried in the courts for insulting French identity."
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002240.html

Vikrant: please come back!

Posted by: Silvester at June 28, 2006 4:17 PM

Vikrant: please come back!

Maybe he has other things he wants to do right now. There are several other Hindu posters here, anyway, and they'll doubtless help with anything they have specialist knowledge about.

Posted by: Yojimbo at June 28, 2006 4:30 PM

The Islam Expo has been "allowed" because Ken Livingstone the Mayor of London supports the project, believing that it will "build bridges"
Advertising for it is very low key at the moment, a few listings on some event, university and Islamic websites, a photo of a taxi on same. Nothing on the tube, nor on the events pages of the better papers. Flyers from the blog are makingtheir way around London and hopefully will have an effect.
From little acorns do mighty oak trees grow.

Silvester - the exam season has only just ended.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 28, 2006 4:43 PM

I wonder if there will be large posters advertising the "Islam Expo" placed at major London Transport Underground and bus terminals?

Posted by: MP at June 28, 2006 4:59 PM

Maybe he has other things he wants to do right now

No, that is not the reason - the BNP supporters should not escape so lightly. Vikrant has explicitly stated, in no uncertain terms, that he will not visit this site because of them:

i’m no longer associated with JihadWatch those imbelic BNP supporting rednecks...Most posters there are down right racists. JW these days sounds more like LGF and FR…

Posted by: Interested at June 28, 2006 5:07 PM

I doubt it now. It opens in a week and will run for 4 days. Most of the posters up on the underground now are advertising events for August.
What I do expect are some reviews, especially in the Guardian, and some fluffy news items on the regional magazine programmes.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 28, 2006 5:07 PM

Hindus, but also apostates from Islam, who are nearly all non-whites, are almost certainly alienated by any advocacy of the BNP. Of course comments here are unmoderated, but it is the responsibility of commenters to think about the effect of their words on such key groups as apostates from Islam. Posted by: Interested

Why is it a responsibility of the commentators to post gingerly so that group X or group Y doesn't get offended? Using that logic, people who are turned off by Sal, John Howard or even Naseem could move on. Or so could people who don't like Kafir Nonbeliever's advocacy of gay rights. Or those devout athiests who get turned off by copious quotations from Biblical passages.

As for the BNP, I recall Vikrant once saying that the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad, or World Hindu Conference) had officially endorsed the BNP in UK. Anybody knows the background behind that? I know that Labour is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Jihad, but has there been a lot of things the Tories did to turn off Hindu support? Or was it simply John Major's snub to LK Advani in 1992 after the Babur mosque got demolished by VHP supporters?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 28, 2006 5:13 PM

QED

Posted by: Interested at June 28, 2006 5:38 PM

Hi folks.

I'm a Hindu poster currently based in Buffalo. I don't post much as I'm too lazy and usually things I'd like to say are said by other posters anyway. Just announcing my presence. As regards Vikrant, he had interesting things to say but I agree with Infidel Pride. I loathe the evangelical-types here who heap scorn on Hindus for opposing dubious missionary activity and indulge in taqiyya and jihad-type disinformation perhaps unknowingly (case in point: Informed Christian). But those are few. Naseem provides comical entertainment.

Thats it for now.
Ciao

Posted by: Tushar Saxena at June 28, 2006 5:42 PM

Tushar - good to hear from you. You live in the USA, not in the UK. Are you aware that, if you did live in the UK, the BNP would support your "voluntary repatriation" on the grounds of your skin colour?

Posted by: Interested at June 28, 2006 5:47 PM

Personally, I enjoy hearing from all sides on a forum like this. I'm not very religious, but welcome hearing from folks with other viewpoints. One of the great advantages of the internet is the (current) ability to debate with others, or ,like Tushar Saxena, sit back and check things out. Actually, I find posters who disagree with my own point of view to be extremely engaging. It's always good to have your beliefs challenged. Occasionally, I'll (gasp) even change my mind.

Posted by: MP at June 28, 2006 5:51 PM

As someone said above, a comparison to Che Guevara is not that out of place. Its amusing that we are expected to see such a comparison as positive.
My take on this.

Posted by: Popovich at June 28, 2006 6:38 PM

Good point. I wonder whether Commies will be flattered by the Che Guevara comparison.

Or for that matter, Mohammedans.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 28, 2006 6:40 PM

Personally, I prefer the G-spot.

If this Islamic Imperialist pismire despises the West so well, the Brits should repatriate him to the infidel-free, Sharia utopia of Mecca, and let him sing the fulsome praises of clothing laws and the religious police.

To whit, (my reply to his drivel):

"MEKKA FUKKA"

"O', da shortz dat I wuz wearin', yeah, got me smacked upside da haid
By the ministry of holy stuff's policemen who den said:
'Yooz a noisy little cretin, and we do not like your rappin',
So puts socks inside your yap, dear chap, or you'll end up just crappin'
In those self-same pants of infidels that we do not allow'.

Hell, I thought I would find paradise, instead, I laid a cow."

Don't argue with this daft doofus in the U.K. media and accidentally promote his nihilistic puke to the naive knee-jerk 'rebellious' "yoot" of England, -but just fly him to where he wants to be-

Rotating around a smooch-smudged meteorite with women dressed like hefty bags.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 28, 2006 6:59 PM

"Me, I miss dem slutty womens! Me I miss dat Burger King!
Me, I want dat big tv screen, indoor plumbing,Everything!

Posted by: MP at June 28, 2006 7:13 PM

Robert> this kind of "music" should not be legal
Robert> in Britain: we are in a war

Because, of course, if British citizens cede whatever remaining rights to freedom of expression they may still enjoy to their government, it will all get better. (But like they have much of a choice anyway.)

Come on, Robert; you're smart to realize by now that Western governments are enablers in the spread of Islamofascism, not inhibitors.

Posted by: Mike Schneider at June 28, 2006 8:46 PM

YEAH INFIDEL PRIDE I AM GAY

Big deal. Such a shock, is it? I don't care who likes it and who does not. It's who I am. Why is it that it bothers you so much? Gays are human beings too.

RE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES

As for the comment about Christian missionaries in India, you Hindus need to realize that Christians consider you heathens. However, they are not violent like Moslems. But that doesn’t change the fact that they would like you to change your religion to theirs. I don't care what your religion is so long as it doesn't adversely affect me or society, like Islam.

RE G-Had

This is certainly pushing the limits of free speech. I gave this a lot of thought today, and I have to say I believe it is best to allow it to be sold with one proviso. The media needs to jump on the opportunity to point out what the Sharia is in detail, including the provisions relating to music. The Telegraph did that to a certain extent, but much more needs to be done.

In addition, I wholeheartedly agree with Hugh about boycotting companies that sell this product.

MORRISEY

By the way, I was reading Slate magazine the other day (one of the ones I frequently read). I came across an article about Morrissey. See: http://www.slatetv.net/id/2140918/?nav=navoa
Apparently Morrissey, an artist I had long admired for his years in the Smiths, wrote a song glorifying a disturbed Pakistani young man. I have not actually heard it, but if true, I would be very dismayed.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 28, 2006 9:26 PM

The BNP is the only political party in the world today that would address islam in the way it needs to be addressed. For that, they get my full support even though I don't live in Britain. If some non-white wants to run away from that, crying racism, then they might as well jump in with Galloway, the ACLU, and the rest of the Left who make the exact same hue and cry. Race, or someone's aversion to YOUR race is not the paramount consideration here. Stopping islam is the paramount consideration. Being accepted and liked for who you are, is nice, but not necessary, and is indeed, undesirable, if it gets in the way of combating islam.

The BNP, or some other fascist-type party is exactly what is needed. Fight fascism with fascism, fire with fire, terrorism with terror. That is my approach. And that is the only approach that the islamic world fears. That is the only approach the would work with them. Step on them, crush their organizations, burn the mosques, terrorize their jihadists, and they will flee faster than a bullet flees the barrel of a gun.

It would be nice if there was a Churchill in this fight, or a Patton, or at the least, a Goldwater. But there isn't. Your choice is Tony Blair or the BNP. Choose your weapons, people. Tony Blair isn't much of a weapon.

Now the liberals argue that it does no good to replace one evil with another evil. Sophistry. One evil wants to convert your religion, put a burka on your wife, rape your daughter, destroy your art and history, burn your libraries, and kill your dog. The other "evil" wants to do none of that but makes the trains run on time, and close the immigration borders to people it doesn't like. I know which "evil" I choose. And if anyone here can't stomach that terrible "evil", even if it means getting rid of islam, then I say your liberal ideology is more important to you than the fight against the greatest threat the world has ever faced. That is a principled position, but it is also the principles espoused by the Left. Choose the side you want to be on. I chose my side a long time ago.

I think there are some on this board, who may come here because they are feminsist, or they are gay, or they are Hindu, and as such, islam offends them, but ultimately, they are instrinsically liberals at heart, and as such, the right-wing also offends them and therefore can never support the right-wing draconian measures required to defeat the menace of islam. That's too bad, because everyday islam creeps a littler closer and one day soon those people will have wished they had chosen the lesser of the two evils.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 28, 2006 11:09 PM

"I think there are some on this board, who may come here because they are feminsist, or they are gay, or they are Hindu, and as such, islam offends them, but ultimately, they are instrinsically liberals at heart, and as such, the right-wing also offends them and therefore can never support the right-wing draconian measures required to defeat the menace of islam."

-Above

Do you really think that's the reason those sorts of people come here - Islam offends us? Come on now. There is more than simple offense here. Does our presence here bother you? If so, why? Fascism is hardly the solution. It is as simplistic an answer as Islam is to its followers.

BTW, the Torries did not have anything to offer in the last election. I watched the UK election coverage for months while I was overseas. There was Howard, whose father came to the UK as an illegal immigrant from Romania, now calling for an end to immigration. Credibility zero. In addition, the Torries backed Labor on Iraq. You call the BNP an option, but it is a racist organization. Racism is a cancerous scourge. Racism would adversely affect innocent Britons, not the Islamists. Wake up.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 28, 2006 11:25 PM

The BNP are Brownshirts Lite, trying to re-tool and make their craziness look less looney by concentrating on one aspect of their rancour- Muslims.

Using them to fight Islam is like hiring a child molestor to evict a pimp.

You don't end up with anything better once you have 'won'.

The real allies we need are ALL those who love life, relish creativity, stand for broad-mindedness, TRUE tolerance and REAL freedom of conscience, intellectual liberty and an open future.

Not merely the illusory advantages of the timely trains of the fascists or the broad autobahn avenues of the stormtroopers.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 29, 2006 12:42 AM

Somethingaboutislam

I'm a feminist and have many gay friends. I'm not passive or blind on this issue. You may recall that I recently actively supported your site against Google's apparent censorship.

I also believe that SOME strict measures against islamism are necessary and am supporting such steps in New Zealand. However, you won't find me supporting racist anti-gay parties, and I don't think that will be necessary. Even the BNP now realises that they need to become more mainstream and their policies are edging away from open racism. Their website keeps proudly mentioning their Jewish member! Yes, I check out their site quite often, because the developments there are pretty interesting.

Don't lose hope of the whole 'liberal' population - we are waking up. Keep the information coming and give Nawaz and similar idiots enough rope to hang themselves with. Let them use free speech to condemn themselves, except for actual statements encouraging violence. Let's not underestimate young people: I don't think any modern girl would be keen on lyrics that condemn mini-skits (with the whole sick concept that western women dress 'immorally'), nor will any non-muslim enjoy being called a dog and parasite. Yes, the lyrics might whip muslim youth into a frenzy - and if they start acting on it a backlash could result.

Let's start thinking about ways some strict measures could be made palatable to people who want to protect human rights. After all, some human rights organisations are providing very honest information about FGM and other abuses.

If even the Netherlands can start scrutinising and 'informing' immigrants, other countries can surely start similar measures without much outcry. Have you tried to contact gay groups to inform them of islam's threat to gays? I'd be interested in their response.

Posted by: Lili at June 29, 2006 12:44 AM

The BNP are Brownshirts Lite, trying to re-tool and make their craziness look less looney by concentrating on one aspect of their rancour- Muslims.

sing them to fight Islam is like hiring a child molestor to evict a pimp.

You don't end up with anything better once you have 'won'.

This is just rhetoric, the kind the left uses to disparage those that will fight the good fight. The same rhetoric that we usually mock here. Of course, indeed, you will have something better after you have won. You will have a society free of the tyranny of sharia law and the backward culture it brings.

To equate that with the right-wing is hyperbole of the worst kind. That is like Nick Berg's father equating George Bush to Zarqawi. Moral relativism is the enemy of the west, and when I read it here, it proves that I am right on the money about there being people here who are care more about "enlightened liberalism" than ridding the world of islam. Those people need to take sides. There is no middle ground as some of you believe. If you are not willing to squash islam under a jackboot, because you don't like jackboots, then you might as well drop out of the fight now because that is what it comes down to. I will squash them under my jackboot, if you give me one, and you can thank me later. The feminists, the gays, the Hindus, all those that wish to remain morally above the dictates of the situation. Thank me later.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 29, 2006 1:17 AM

"I would value Vikrant_kamberleykar's opinion on this"

"So would I. Sadly he no longer visits this site, and has stated on Pickled Politics that this is because of the BNP apologists/supporters who comment here. "
Quote:
"i’m no longer associated with JihadWatch those imbelic BNP supporting rednecks...Most posters there are down right racists. JW these days sounds more like LGF and FR…"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That is a pathetic reason if I ever heard one.

I am no BNP supporter but if they ever decide that only Islam IS the enemy and act accordingly I do doubt that we are so far ahead in this war that we can reject them as allies.

With due respect to each individual having his own agenda I am sure that I can disagree with the stance of probably 90% here if we go into the detail but that is NOT why we are here . We are here to be united versus islam and to discuss our concerns.

Erudite or not his decision to leave is akin to a childish "spitting the dummy" tantrum and it is obvious to myself that Islam is regarded by him as a lesser threat than the BNP, which is total rubbish.

By this standard the UK should have declared war on the USSR when it invaded poland as well as Germany which would have been military suicide.

I considered leaving this site also for what was, upon reflection, just as childish a reason and in my opinion Vikrant should grow up and realise that not everyone has to agree with you, here or elsewhere and that YOU CANNOT ALWAYS CHOSE YOUR ALLIES in what is ultimately a war of extermination as if the west falls India will be back on the agenda.

Posted by: Zathras at June 29, 2006 1:45 AM

When I said I would value Vikrant's opinion I was thinking that he would be more familiar with the "music" (I am a classic rock/folkie dinosaur - I know nothing of rap) and the ramifications of the record labels, likelihood of the label folding due to withdrawal of sponsorship, how genuinely popular Aki Nawaz is etc.

And in his absence I am not going to talk about him behind his back.

But consider this. Lets turn the BNP round for a moment. I have lived all my life in areas where the BNP are active, before them the National Front (who raised their heads again recently), the British Nazi Party under Colin Jordan. I have seen and heard them all, on the street corners of Brick Lane, Walthamstow High Street, the pubs opposite the football grounds. In the 30s the racism was directed against the Jew and my parents had stories to tell of Mosley and his Blackshirts. My father was in the demonstration against them that became known as the Battle of Cable Street in 1936. During the 50s they turned on the most prominent wave of immigrants which were the black West Indians. During the 60s we had a wave of Asians from East Africa, thanks to Idi Amin. Those Asians were quiet hard working people, while some West Indians were perceived as having a role in the rising crime wave.

Now imagine if the BNP, when they decided in the 90s, after the NF fell into disarray, that the way to reinvent themselves for the new millenium was to ally with Islam against the Black Africans and West Indians. The prejudice is there in the Koran. We have all seen the references here, and know of what is happening in the Sudan. It could have gone that way, quite easily.
I heard it said often "I can handle Pakis, they keep quiet and run their handy shops, but its them b**** n** n**s causing all the trouble"
At the moment they are anti Islam and so sanitised they have a Jewish councillor (in Epping, just on the Essex border to east London) and 2 or 3 Sikh members in the Midlands.
But if, make that when, it suits them they would, will, turn.

Which is why we have to get the information about what Islam really means out to the general public ourselves. I continue to invite any UK readers to visit this site and copy and paste the text of the flyer they see there, dated Monday 19 June, into a handbill for distribution wherever they think would be useful. You don't have to stand on a street corner handing them out. Pop one on your seat on train or bus as you sit down. Leave it noncholently behind as you get off. Slip one into the courtesy newspaper in the cafe. Leave a dozen in the leaflet stand in the libary.
I think the author has plans to adapt the flyer for general use once Islam Expo(sed) is over. The comments are interesting and hopefully will develop further.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 29, 2006 4:11 AM

Granny, when the Bulgarians and the Italians turned against their former ally Germany the USSR and the allies were quite happy to accept them.

So, while the BNP are antiIslam I see no need to condemn them nor to like them although their credentials are a little slimey. However you do not have to go and kiss their babies,nor shake hands with them and if they turn pro-islam then they will become the enemy once again.

I just think that we are in no position to bicker over why someone is on our side. This is an old argument here and one which drove not a few agnostics and atheists away from this site because of the evangelical needs of some posters.

I see no difference between his attitutude and theirs and if he did not wish to be discussed here he should never have posted here, nor said what he said, which is quite OTT and a total exaggeration IMO.

The air around high moral ground is very rarified and everyone who thinks that he should be on its pinnacle is often alone, without allies or friends.

Posted by: Zathras at June 29, 2006 4:50 AM

For that, they get my full support even though I don't live in Britain.

You don't live in Britain and know nothing at all about the BNP, their real agenda or their history. But as with the other American BNP supporters, your ignorance does not stop you pontificating about them.

If you don't know about something, you should keep quiet and learn from somebody who does. Granny W in particular has a great deal of first hand of experience of these fascists, and should be listened to. I would not dream of talking through my - er - hat about some American political party that I knew nothing about.

Still, carry on, why don't you? Alienate yet more Hindus, Sikhs, black Christians, Jews and ex Muslims, particularly over here, where they know about the BNP.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 5:12 AM

Morrissey, an artist I had long admired for his years in the Smiths, wrote a song glorifying a disturbed Pakistani young man. I have not actually heard it, but if true, I would be very dismayed.

More to the point, Morrissey and the Smiths were crap.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 5:24 AM

That's right interested, you make a great argument there. The old argument of 'why don't you shut up and listen to me'. I don't need to live in Britain to understand the concept of the lesser of the two evils. If you want to pontificate that the right wing in Britain is a bigger threat than islam, you are out to lunch as much as Michael Moore. Or should I say that you don't know anything about Michael Moore because you don't live in America?

Obviously, you have an issue with the BNP that seems to far exceed the issue that everyone here has with islam. That is your problem with which I can not sympathize nor respect because it lacks logic and it motivated by a personal hatred of the right.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 29, 2006 6:06 AM

At least you realise that the BNP are evil.
We are trying to do what the BNP has been doing, to raise consciousness among the British public of the evil of Islam, without resorting to the evil of colour prejudiced racism that is the BNP.

I'm not arguing any more, I have people who still think Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by extremists to talk to.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 29, 2006 6:25 AM

Being fussy about allies means that one is not serious about winning and this is a variant the same old ethical discussion(the high moral ground) that we have had before.

The whole point of the war vs Islam is to win after that you can go back to hating your former ally , be he protestant, catholic, Sikh, Jew, Hindu, atheist or agnostic. I repeat that Vikrant might be intelligent but he is being very myopic with his stance and it is attitudes like this which WILL destroy us.

Beat the COMMON enemy then hate each other.

Posted by: Zathras at June 29, 2006 6:40 AM

The fact that you refer to the BNP as "the right wing", as if they were Tory ladies, shows, if further proof were needed, that you know nothing at all about them.

If you know nothing about something, then it is wise to keep quiet and learn from those who do.

As with all American BNP supporters, ignorance is compounded with arrogance. It would not occur to me to tell you to vote for any American political party, as I realise the limits of my knowledge of the American political system, and it is none of my business. Go figure, as you say over there.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 6:55 AM

I don't have a problem with the BNP, or any party that wants to shut the immigration doors or any other "racist" policies. I'm all in favor of that. Those are my politics by nature any way. In addition, it will also put the boot to the islamic menace. I wish we had a political party like that in my country. But we don't. In canada, we have left, far left, and center. And the center party, wouldn't dare have a single bad word to say about Islam. I would give my right arm for a political party to say, "islam is crap, muslims are a menace, third world immigration is a disaster, kick them all out, and close the borders for good." Any party that has that as a platform gets my support. When such a party also wants to behead me for being a Christian, or cut my daughter's clitoris off, or kill my dog, or enslave women in a burka, then I will reject that party as surely as I reject islam.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 29, 2006 7:31 AM

I don't have a problem with the BNP, or any party that wants to shut the immigration doors or any other "racist" policies.

Again, you show that you don't know anything about the BNP. Stopping immigration is one thing - UKIP wants this too. But the BNP supports repatriation of non-whites. Yvonne Ridley, a Muslim, would have nothing to worry about. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, black Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and so forth would be out on their ear. In a city like London, this would mean ethnically cleansing a huge proportion of the non-Muslim population.

But you're fine with that?

Seriously, do a little research and think before you post.

I was not aware of the information about Canada that you have just given. But note that I did not hold myself out as being in the know.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 7:55 AM

To be fair, to my knowledge, the new current BNP leadership have not, or not recently, endorsed this sort of thing. But on the strength of his face alone the BNP would have this man, Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York who has said some very sensible things about we English, the meaning of Englishness, and our history, on the next boat out.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 29, 2006 8:09 AM

The BNP may want to crack down on non-whites, because that seems to be where the social problems these days come from. Immigration from non-white countries is always problematic. There is no divorcing the issue of race and the issue of social problems like islam represents. Even in the United States, the mexicans have refused to assimilate and have shown strong marxist, anti-american, even pro-islamic tendencies. The demonstrations in the US recently illustrated this. This is not just an issue of islam, it is an issue of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism started this whole thing in the first place.

I have long ago given up any pretenses to political correctness in this matter. Race is a factor for the west. Naturally if I was a Hindu, I wouldn't want to support the BNP. But therein lies the problem. They put their racial solidarity ahead of the menace of islam to Britain. If Britain has to kick them ALL out, to be fair to ALL, then the Hindus should go as well, for the greater good. I have no problem with that. Then again, I am not Hindu. Do I understand the BNP correctly, now?

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 29, 2006 8:46 AM

Interested I think the point is that the BNP for all of their Past History are not a real threat to the stability nor the survival of the west.
Islam is such a serious threat.

So it makes no real difference whether they are for or againsrt islam. However, seeing as they currently are against Islam then they are an ally. Yes,a disreputable ally, but an ally nonetheless and people who reject allies in times of need must be very assured of success or hell bent upon defeat.

IMO Hindus who are more antiBNP than anti-Islam should read up on their Indian history as the BNPs body count is almost nonexistent by comparison. To compare them is PC at its most excruciating worst and stupidity at its most suicidal.

Posted by: Zathras at June 29, 2006 9:05 AM

Zathras, please take the trouble to read and consider what Granny W has posted from her extensive knowledge and direct experience of the BNP. She has extensive knowledge and direct experience which you do not have.

It is not sensible to post about something that you know nothing about. Nothing at all. What direct knowledge or experience do you have of the BNP? Go on, tell me, for I would love to know.

Your last paragraph was particularly fatuous. Of course the BNP body count in India was non-existent. Their body count in ancient Rome was not very high either. But their mentors, the Nazis had a pretty poor record, now didn't they?

So they claim to be anti-Islam as a way of getting votes. The fact that they would re-patriate non-whites, including Muslim apostates, doesn't bother you? Read Granny W's post carefully, if possible without moving your lips.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 9:26 AM

There is no divorcing the issue of race and the issue of social problems like islam represents.

Thanks for your honesty.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 9:28 AM

They put their racial solidarity ahead of the menace of islam to Britain. If Britain has to kick them ALL out, to be fair to ALL, then the Hindus should go as well, for the greater good. I have no problem with that.

What a surprise.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 9:29 AM

Interested you can sneer as much as you like and it does change my main point which you conveniently ignore.

Are the BNP running a world jihad?
Do the BNP infiltrate other states with the aim of outbreeding the native population?

etc., etc., etc.

Whatever you think that I know or do not know of the BNP they are miniscule as a threat by comparison with Islam.

My point, and I daresay you will ignore it as you already have above, is that in war you cannot pick your allies and to do so is fraught with danger.

NO ONE WANTS THE BNP AS ALLIES...but that is besides the point....they ARE currently for whatever reason and that is the point.

Why does the detail of Granny Fairweather's post matter. yes I did read it , Yes the BNP is unpleasant. But do you really think that if islam is defeated then their views will be important and considered relevant?That the BNP will get what they want in the end. How fatuous is that? If victory occurs they will be back in the gutters and ignored by the mainstream once again.

For all of the posts you make this is the most stupid. I am NOT defending the BNP I am simply saying that in a war you do not reject allies no matter how unpleasant they may be. In WW2 the US made large use of Mafia connections in Sicily, Calabria and even in Rome. But then we know that the Mafia re nowhere near as bad as the dreaded BNP.

Why dont you read my posts in toto before you answer then you will not make a fool of yourself?

Posted by: Zathras at June 29, 2006 10:19 AM

I see a lot of claims about the BNP from opponents here, but no actual evidence to substantiate those claims. Any time evidence is requested, the reply is, "you should know they are evil -- you must be either blind or evil yourself for even daring to request such evidence." If you expect people who don't know about this alleged evil of the BNP to recognize what you recognize, at least provide some evidence. The onus of evidence is on the people who make condemnatory claims.

Granny's posts above do not constitute evidence; they are anecdotal, conflate other groups and other previous decades with the present, and are intermixed with "could be" and "must be" types of locutions.

Don't insult my intelligence by berating me for failing to fall into submissive line with your condemnations of a group without evidence.

Posted by: Television at June 29, 2006 10:22 AM

I am NOT defending the BNP

That is precisely what you are doing, with no direct knowledge and experience of them whatsoever.

Granny's posts above do not constitute evidence; they are anecdotal, conflate other groups and other previous decades with the present, and are intermixed with "could be" and "must be" types of locutions.

Unless you believe Granny W is lying, then her posts are evidence.

The "evidence" that the BNP are OK comes from their own website which a depressing number of Americans are very eager to believe. I'd like to put this down to ignorance and arrogance, but I suspect the truth may be more sinister.

Don't insult my intelligence

That would be difficult, as I've yet to see evidence of it.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 10:34 AM

What would make eye witness accounts of what BNP members, some of them senior in the party have been seen to say and do cease to be "anecdotal" in your eyes?
Would you like me to submit affidavit evidence, as would be acceptable in a court of law to Mr Spencer?
Because I could. I have already given Mr Spencer the details of the names, their position within the party, the time and date, the places and what was said and done. If I don't post it here it's because I don't want unwanted visitors to attend at either my home or the homes of my friends and family.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 29, 2006 10:36 AM

I thought this was going to be a thread about the rapper Aki Nawaz rather than a discussion about the BNP. Thank goodness that Granny Weatherwax has provided some common sense in relation to the BNP based on her long experience. I wonder if she and I have ever unknowingly seen each other in the past as I too have memories of the National Front meetings in Brick Lane (and on the corner of Bethnal Green Road) and the earlier Mosley-led Union Movement soap-box meetings in adjacent Cheshire Street on Sunday mornings. I entirely agree with Granny Weatherwax. American supporters of the BNP who comment here appear to know very little about it beyond what the US-based Friends of the BNP publish there. At the moment it is not going to win a national election and not going to 'solve' the problem of the creeping Muslim takeover of England/Europe. It isn't only Muslims who are capable of deception strategies. However, I'd like to get back to the subject of this thread: the rapper Aki Nawaz. This loathsome overweight character was interviewed on the BBC TV morning programme this morning and to say he had an easy ride from the two interviewers, Sian Williams and ??, would be an understatement. Nawaz (who for a singing jihadi strangely has no beard, or even a moustache, but has lots of long hair a la Che) was not asked - unless I missed it - what he thought about the Danish cartoons or his attitude to white power Blood & Honour songs/rap but was instead allowed to witter away about his right to free speech. Any evening now I expect to see a cosy interview with him on Channel 4 (London) TV News. Finally, yes, I too miss Vikrant and hope he will come back.

Posted by: moris2 at June 29, 2006 10:49 AM

Sorry - my fault for derailing the thread.

Coming back to the rapper, a really brave, really anti-establishment rapper would do an anti-Muslim song.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 10:56 AM

Interested.. quote:"That is precisely what you are doing, with no direct knowledge and experience of them whatsoever"

Rubbish!!

How did you deduce the above from what I posted?
I was discussing a general case scenario and fitting in the BNP into it and you deduce from this that I am defending them, whereas I am defending their right to be our allies and our right to see them as such unpleasant or not. Then you sneer about how little I know about them as if this was some vital point. I know enough to know that what I say is valid, whereas you just keep nitopicking.

My general point is quite valid but, of course, you ignore it and then tell me what and how I think about the BNP I had no idea that you were a mind reader. You have no idea of my politics, nor my views on any political group and yet you can know my mind.

I suppose by your standards we should reject China and Russia as erstwhile allies vs islam as I think that their track record is a little worse re human rights than that of the BNP.

Answer that one please if you reply

No futher discussion with you is worthwhile as you will only snipe at the odd point and disregard the main point. That is no way to debate but it obviously suffices for you.

Posted by: Zathras at June 29, 2006 11:07 AM

nitopicking

Well there are just so many nitos to pick.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 11:11 AM

How clever of you to comment on the typo and disregard all else. However I am not surprised
although I am disappointed in you, but that was my own fault for expecting too much.

I am sure that the BNP represent a far greater threat to humanity than Islam is and communism ever was. I am convinced of this by your constructive argument and your sound debate.

BTW Granny I do not disagree with anything that you say about the BNP, nor do I sneer at your knowledge. But that detail was totally irrelevant to my point which I shall not bother to repeat.

Good Night All!!

Posted by: Zathras at June 29, 2006 11:48 AM

Unlikely allies: Churchill 'n Stalin

Posted by: MP at June 29, 2006 11:52 AM

Yes, people make dubious alliances in time of war, Churchill and Stalin being an example. But there was no question of Britain becoming communist. Had the communist country been a greater threat, Britain might have allied with a fascist country against it, but would not have become fascist.

The BNP, on the other hand are an enemy within, though not as significant a threat as Islam. As Moris says above, however, they are no use in the fight against Islam and are intrinsically nasty.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 12:05 PM

Hi Moris, yes we do seem to have experiences in common. They also used to hand out their leaflets at the top of Walthamstow High Street on a Saturday afternoon when the market was on.

Following what you said about this rapper I didn't imagine him to be overweight. You expect them to be lean and hungry down on the mean streets. Still anybody who hangs around with Ian Astbury is going to be a little strange.
To lighten the atmosphere a little I do have a soft spot for things and people named Morris, and this is the type of rapper I prefer.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 29, 2006 12:32 PM

Apparently a typical British activity is "Morris dancing to Morrissey".

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 12:44 PM

RE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES As for the comment about Christian missionaries in India, you Hindus need to realize that Christians consider you heathens. However, they are not violent like Moslems. But that doesn’t change the fact that they would like you to change your religion to theirs. I don't care what your religion is so long as it doesn't adversely affect me or society, like Islam. Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

First of all, I didn't make any comment about Christian missionaries in India - I was referring to the posters here who cite copious amounts of the Bible. My underlying point, since you missed it, was that that was no reason to leave this site, as wasn't your being gay, as wasn't some posters here supporting the BNP.

Anyway, on that topic, since you brought it up, Christian missionaries, annoying as they may be, don't constitute an iota of a threat to Hindus in India that Muslims do. To pretend that they are even worth sweating over is ridiculous

The BNP is the only political party in the world today that would address islam in the way it needs to be addressed........I think there are some on this board, who may come here because they are feminsist, or they are gay, or they are Hindu, and as such, islam offends them, but ultimately, they are instrinsically liberals at heart, and as such, the right-wing also offends them and therefore can never support the right-wing draconian measures required to defeat the menace of islam. Posted by: somethingaboutislam

Oh, get a grip! Hindus are pretty much split down the middle, just like every other religious group. You think Hindus can never support right-wing draconian measures? Look at India - those parts where they run things. When Muslims rioted in Gujarat 5 years ago, they got a bloodbath. When they rioted in Bombay in 1992, the Shiv Sena had them strip-seached (to check for circumcisions, which out there only Muslims do) and "executed" accordingly. I don't pretend to know much about the BNP, but anyone who thinks they are the worst when it comes to dealing with Islam should look at the Sena. And while I am on record condemning Bal Thackeray's endorsement of the holocaust and his support for Hitler, his approach towards the Muslims is the right approach.

That is a pathetic reason if I ever heard one.
I am no BNP supporter but if they ever decide that only Islam IS the enemy and act accordingly I do doubt that we are so far ahead in this war that we can reject them as allies.
With due respect to each individual having his own agenda I am sure that I can disagree with the stance of probably 90% here if we go into the detail but that is NOT why we are here . We are here to be united versus islam and to discuss our concerns. Posted by: Zathras

That was precisely my point above. It's one thing to have disagreements with different people about a variety of issues. Like Granny, I don't want to berate Vikrant when he isn't around, but while it's any poster's prerogative whether they want to hang out or not, but to state that they aren't going to because supporters of party X or cause Y is there is simply pathetic.

You don't live in Britain and know nothing at all about the BNP, their real agenda or their history. But as with the other American BNP supporters, your ignorance does not stop you pontificating about them.
If you don't know about something, you should keep quiet and learn from somebody who does. Granny W in particular has a great deal of first hand of experience of these fascists, and should be listened to. I would not dream of talking through my - er - hat about some American political party that I knew nothing about.
Still, carry on, why don't you? Alienate yet more Hindus, Sikhs, black Christians, Jews and ex Muslims, particularly over here, where they know about the BNP.
Posted by: Interested

I agree with the part about not commenting on a party I don't know about. Other than one occasion where I took out stuff from their own website and pointed out how they didn't shine even by their own accounts of themselves. Like their refusal to take sides on Israel vs Iran on the grounds that the Zionists would be the beneficiaries (in this regard, calling them "Right-Wing" is ludicrous), or their statement that Islam is "simply another foreign mindset", implying that things that we condemn here globally daily are things that they oppose in Britain, but are okay with elsewhere.

Other than that, given how little I know, and how divided opinion here is among British posters about this party, I have generally refrained from either supporting or opposing them. That said, I do agree to a point with Zathras. We are not at a point where we can pick and choose those who carry our banner. If they are fake, they can be weeded out as soon as they start showing their true colours. In any case, they aren't going to come to power anytime soon, so discussions about their influence in Britain is like discussions about the Shiv Sena in India.

IMO Hindus who are more antiBNP than anti-Islam should read up on their Indian history as the BNPs body count is almost nonexistent by comparison. To compare them is PC at its most excruciating worst and stupidity at its most suicidal.
Posted by: Zathras

I actually agree with this. I cringe when I see expatriate Hindus making common ground with Muslims. It's even more galling to read about people like Steven Vikas Chand, who not only converted to Islam from Hindusism (okay, that's his personal decision), but what's worse (and inevitable for a convert to Islam) - his taking part in a Jihadi plot. If Hindus, split as they are, are going to make coalitions with Muslims, rather than native Infidels, then somethingaboutislam is correct - they too deserve to be sent packing.

Anyway, enough on all these peripheral irrelevant issues, including the G-Had rapper. Back to Kafir - aren't you gay?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 29, 2006 1:17 PM

Though the BNP issue is a subtopic, I'd just add perhaps as a last word on my part the following: I don't know Granny from Adam (or Eve). While I've read a few of her posts over the months and they seem as fine as the posts of any of the other intelligent people here at JW, her credentials as a person I should "trust" are not relevant to the necessity for a sufficient presentation of evidence so that rational appraisal of the claims can be made. Nor is "trust" in her in this context possible short of a non-prickly just-the-fact-ma'am presentation of evidence. Furthermore, I would expect that Granny and Interested must have evidence of the BNP's evil other than Granny's personal memories of this that and the other park, neighborhood association meeting, street-corner incidents, and overheard pub table talk. If so, I'd like to see it. If not, they can't expect me to conclude anything, let alone concur with their intense passions on the issue. A rational person cannot be expected to sign up to intense condemnations of a group based upon second-hand anecdotal evidence from relative strangers on an Internet forum. I never said I support the BNP. I simply am asking again for evidence. When a person comes to JW asking for evidence of the various claims we make about Islam, most of us here can relatively easily and quickly supply lots of evidence which the questioner can test and for which he or she can find usually more than one corroborating link. Why is it so bloody hard to do even a more modest version of the same thing with regard to the condemnation of the BNP?

Posted by: Television at June 29, 2006 3:29 PM

Try this Sky News video clip of Dr Phil Edwards the National Press Officer of the BNP, filmed just before the elections in May, in which he says that black children have low IQs and will grow up dysfunctional.

This is the website of the in depth BBC Panorama programme from a couple of years ago. I think this is the one where Nick Griffin was filmed holding up his wrist, pointing to the white skin and saying "this is what defines me"

An article from The Times in April this year comparing and contrasting the BNP and George Galloways respect party and finding them both abhorrent. More opinion than factual, but interesting nonetheless.

Also from April's Times, report of the outrage when Nick Griffin supported an election candidate of Christian Greek/Armenian grandparentage. "...the posting of his name among the party’s list of candidates has caused uproar among members who believe that the party must field all-white representatives."

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 29, 2006 4:12 PM

Television, re-read Granny's post in which she states that she has given names, times, dates, places, positions in the party. What do you understand by "evidence"? Evidence is what somebody says happens, when times, names dates, and places can be confirmed. Granny W could, if asked to in court, get fellow witnesses to corroborate her own evidence. That is how evidence is built up.

How do we know about the holocaust? From eyewitness accounts by survivors, which have been meticulously collated. An elderly Jew says she saw her husband shot. Anecdotal, though, let's dismiss it. How do we know anything about history? From what people say happened.

What other evidence do you want?

Where is your evidence that the BNP is squeaky clean? They say so on their website, and plenty of your fellow Americans, with all their inside knowledge gleaned by telepathy from the other side of the Atlantic, agree with you.

Very impressive, Dr Pepper, for it is you, is it not?

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 4:13 PM

Granny W, we are wasting our time. Three British posters with direct experience and knowledge say they are neo-Nazis. About five American posters with no experience or knowledge whatsoever, say they're fine and dandy. Ignorance and arrogance - a fatal combination.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 4:17 PM

"Back to Kafir - aren't you gay?"

-Infidel Pride

At least you have a sense of humor.

I had wanted to put all of those rumors to rest.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 29, 2006 6:25 PM

Infidel,

Have a look at this website: http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2002/marapril/pamphlet.htm

It decries Hindu nationalism (and the pamphlets that were distributed) following the events in Gujurat. More importantly, it provides us a copy of those pamphlets. A must read.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 29, 2006 6:30 PM

Kafir

Thanks for the link. I read it - it's another long winded document by Indian dhimmis. While I'm not a Hindutva advocate per se (because of other non-Hindus who live in India - Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Jains, Buddhists and Atheists), I will say this - the people of Gujarat have read Muslims the riot act as few others have. That is the right way that Muslims ought to be treated - violently during riots, and boycotted during peacetime. Outside that, I do support the rights of all religious and non-religious groups in India - including athiests, including gays (in case you're wondering), but not including Muslims. Does that satisfy your curiousity?

What I didn't get is where you are coming down on this. If you happen to agree with the "Combat Communalism" campaign that you cited (whenever you read "Communalism" in the Indian context, read "Hindu reactions to Muslim/Dhimmi bullying"), do explain how else Islamic triumphalism should be confronted. Or do you think they shouldn't be confronted at all?

The other thing that galls me about that pamphlet is its mocking reference to Gujarat as the "land of Gandhi". That would be like calling present day Iran the "land of Cyrus the Great", or present day Britain the "land of Oliver Cromwell". Despite Gandhi's origins, Gujaratis have a very sensible attitude when it comes to forces that threaten them, like Muslims, and don't take it lying down. That's why few Muslims mess with them.

Gandhi was an aberration. I have described several times how he was the worst person to deal with Islam, and it's the misfortune of both India and the Hindu community that he was born into it. Fortunately, today, India doesn't have anyone like a Gandhi or Nehru, so that despite the chaotic political situation, nobody could prevent the Hindus from retaliating the way Gandhi prevented them from reacting in 1947.

But enough about Hindus. Let's talk about you. I've noticed that you have a visceral hatred of all religious groups - Christian, Jew (re: your characterization of Israel's response as extreme), now Hindu, and who knows what else. You have a rational opposition to Islam, but extend that to cover all real religions. While Athiesm is a legitimate belief system in its own right, what I don't get is why, in your opposition to Islam, which legitimately threatens Gay Athiests like you, you are doing everything possible to turn off people who don't share your Athiestic views (let alone your gayness), but who are otherwise some of your few allies against Islam? Or do you already have the entire Gay Athiest pro-choice community united against the international Jihad, so that you don't need us anymore?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 29, 2006 7:20 PM

Kafir

Another priceless gem from the supposedly non-"Communal" advocates from the link you provided

We sincerely apologise to all Muslims, and to every one of our readers for reproducing the leaflet below titled ‘Jehad’. We do so with pain.

Ooops

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 29, 2006 7:38 PM

anyone Who thinks the BNP is the solution to getting rid of islam in the UK is really ignorant the BNP are Racist they hate blacks jews and hindus anyone whos not white. The leader of the BNP nick Griffin has denied the holocaust and hates jews

Posted by: Greek Gurl at June 29, 2006 7:52 PM

"But enough about Hindus. Let's talk about you. I've noticed that you have a visceral hatred of all religious groups - Christian, Jew (re: your characterization of Israel's response as extreme), now Hindu, and who knows what else. You have a rational opposition to Islam, but extend that to cover all real religions. While Atheism is a legitimate belief system in its own right, what I don't get is why, in your opposition to Islam, ymore?"
which legitimately threatens Gay Athiests like you, you are doing everything possible to turn off people who don't share your Athiestic views (let alone your gayness), but who are otherwise some of your few allies against Islam? Or do you already have the entire Gay Athiest pro-choice community united against the international Jihad, so that you don't need us an

-Above

I have nothing against reformed Christians. With respect to Israel, since when did criticizing the extreme actions of a state (Israel) make one a "hater" of Jews? I do not hate moderate Jews at all. As for your false assumption about hating Hindus, I have never said anything of the sort. In fact, if anything, Hinduism and Buddhism are in my opinion, the best religions on the planet. (if there are such things.) I think Buddhism comes even closer to perfection at least as far as man can create a religion.

That aside, the fact remains I am an atheist. Since I see no evidence that any deity exists, I leave open the possibility that someday there will be evidence to establish it. However, none has come my way so far. I do not dislike those who believe because I understand the sociological and psychological reasons why people seek religion. Having religion does not make one stupid. However, like many other before me, I have found that one can get along just fine without it. That is where I am in life. I feel contentment for escaping religion and growing without it. But that feeling does not mean I seek to belittle those who believe. I certainly hope you see nothing wrong in that.

Islam is a great danger for Western civilization (and Eastern Civilization). All of the things that Mr. Spencer and Hugh have said about Islam are essentially true, even if they are sometimes presented in a slightly exaggerated form. Nothing that has been said at this site if false. Knowing what Islam is; knowing that it is likely not reformable, brings me here, with you, and others, beating the drum against Islam. I am especially aware due to my ties to Europe. I hope Islam can be defeated. Knowing this know, are you still perplexed by my presence here? Isn’t that the purpose of this web site really, to alert more persons to Islam?

What I am saying often is that Islam is not the only threat. All of the world’s ills cannot be seen through Islam’s lens. There are others who are guilty of wrongdoing as well.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 29, 2006 8:48 PM

So what all this anti-BNP sentiment comes down to is that they are racist? I say so what? Islam is racist and murderous. If BNP racism helps to kick out the racism of the islamic commmunity, which ultimately wants to enslave the whole world, then a big improvement has taken place. But some people are stuck on white racism permanantly. They recoil more from that than they recoil from beheadings. That's a strange and uniquely western liberal psychosis of which much has been said on this forum.

The BNP may not be the most intelligent people, but right now, they are the only party willing to kick out islam from the west. The only party. And yet, for some "anti-jihad" people here, that is not good enough. It's good enough for me. And with each atrocity in Britain, it becomes good enough for a larger number of Britains. And you know what? That type of black and white absolutism scares the hell out of the islamic community and the jihadists in their ranks.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 29, 2006 9:17 PM

Granny, thanks for the links and I do appreciate the effort you've made to respond.

Unfortunately, I'd say tentatively that they are not sufficient to persuade me. I say tentatively because the only one of some substance is the first one on Phil Edwards, but alas my computer can't view video clips. I'm expecting to upgrade my computer soon, so I'll check that out when I can. I did take some time to Google Phil Edwards in relation to "blacks" and found a few different but still incomplete, apparently verbatim (one never knows on some Internet sites), quotes apparently from that press conference or whatever the Sky News clip was from. From what I gleaned so far, nothing Phil Edwards said about what characterizes the black community (particularly the younger blacks) in England is any different from what eminent non-racists such as former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, economist Thomas Sowell, and comedian Bill Cosby (the latter two American blacks themselves) have said. These non-racists notice the same data Phil Edwards apparently notices. It might well be that Edwards has different motives and different interpretations of that data. I can't conclude as such until I see some evidence of that.

Moynihan, a classical liberal of impeccable credentials, was given an inordinately rough time by trigger-happy people hyper-vigilant for any signs of "racism" for simply amassing and pointing out the data, which he thought was a constructive thing to do to ameliorate the disparities between blacks and whites in America. In a climate such as ours dominated by PC where someone of Moynihan's integrity can be suspected of "racism" (not to mention the abysmal record of the MSM in dealing with the Problem of Islam over the past few years), it puts into doubt most other analyses and opinion pieces by the MSN when they analyze and opine about people or groups who really could be racist. That's the fault of the PC-addled MSM, not my fault for doubting them. This makes solid and substantial evidence all the more necessary.

As for your second link, aside from the fact that it's also a video clip and I have to wait to see it, are you seriously asking me to watch an analysis piece by the BBC!!?? After all the evidence Robert has pointed out over the years showing how utterly derelict they have been with that giant mountain of news data called the Problem of Islam? No thanks. Secondly, you adduce from this BBC link the incidental kind of data of Nick Griffin being "filmed holding up his wrist, pointing to the white skin and saying "this is what defines me"" -- which is not the kind of evidence I'm looking for. I'm looking for solid substantial textual evidence. It seems the BNP has no paper trail at all -- what are they, Houdini magicians or something?

The third piece of evidence is an opinion piece by another dubious organ of the MSM, The Times.

Your fourth piece again from The Times relies on the reporter being accurate when he uses words like "uproar" in describing party members' reactions to Nick Griffin's support for an election candidate of Christian Greek/Armenian grandparentage. "...the posting of his name among the party’s list of candidates has caused uproar among members who believe that the party must field all-white representatives."

I mean, this is not nothing, but it's awful slender and flimsy stuff.

Posted by: Television at June 29, 2006 10:20 PM

And the eyewitness evidence, with names, dates, times, places, words spoken, witnesses for corroboration, you dismiss out of hand? The rest you are at pains to explain away.

What do you know of the BNP? What exactly? What is your evidence that they are OK? Nothing. Nothing at all. Yet you are so keen and quick to dismiss the evidence of those who do. What does that say about you?

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 10:34 PM

the incidental kind of data of Nick Griffin being "filmed holding up his wrist, pointing to the white skin and saying "this is what defines me"" -- which is not the kind of evidence I'm looking for

What is the kind of evidence you are looking for? What else could that possibly mean? Are you seriously, seriously suggesting that the BNP is not a white supremacist party when Nick Griffin, its leader says that?

Why not be honest and say you have no problem with a white supremacist party? You're not the first commenter on this website to say so and you certainly won't be the last. Why feel the need to hide behind a facade of being pernickety about evidence?

Who should we believe, Dr Pepper? You or our lying eyes?

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 10:44 PM

Interested....

My point was NOT about the BNP whatever you may say, read or think you read, and you can place the CP, the provisional IRA(who make the BNP look like children), or ANY group in its place.

It was simply that we are NOT in a position to pick and chose our allies just yet. Surely even you can understand that. Or perhaps you cannot.

You either have an agenda or are rather dense to distort everything that I say into support for the BNP and in addition I do not have to know much about them to know that compared to islam as a threat they are unimportant. Why do you insist that the detail is so important when within the bounds of my comment IT IS NOT.

How can saying that we are in no position to reject potential allies be taken as support for such an ally? I personally hope that China and Russia turn totally anti-islam also but I suppose by your logic this makes me a CP supporter. That is so stupid that you should be embarrassed.

I have no idea as to why you are unable to debate in a civilised way but then we all hve our problems but I feel that your obsession with the BNP has blinded you to the simple point that I was trying to make.
I don't care whether the BNP are white supremacists, black supremacists. the jesuits in disguise or a pagan rebirth group. It makes no doiffeence to my comment.

Had I come out in open support of the BNP as a group then I could understand. But that was only what you said I did not what I did. You take no notice of what is said and you jump to your own prejudged conclusion.

The lesson here is the old one for an someone like myself and that is that you cannot sanely debate with people who have agendas, who have an evangelical mode or who let their feelings about a subject overwhelm the truth as they are NOT interested just biased.

Posted by: Zathras at June 30, 2006 12:25 AM

When such a party also wants to behead me for being a Christian, or cut my daughter's clitoris off, or kill my dog, or enslave women in a burka, then I will reject that party as surely as I reject islam.

I'd happily cut off my daughter, rape the dog and wrap my clitoris in a burqa before voting BNP. Those people have issues. The only reason they haven't allied themselves with Islam is because they recognise it as a vehicle for Arab supremacism. For the most part there's little between them with regards to sowing hatred in general. People join the BNP form the same underlying reasons others become Islamists - they're all twisted. Anyone who thinks they're useful idiots should do a little Googling and Wikipedia-ing. Read what the BNP leadership have been writing and publishing, what most of their supporters endorse, for decades, before they took up the clarion of Islamic awareness. Read Griffin's pamphlet who are the mindbenders? - we all know the real mindbensers are the liberal media, the Islamists and dhimmi officialdom, but the BNP also fit the bill, exploiting our concerns to push their Nazism. Black pots and kettles.

What would the BNP's position be on the current situation in Gaza? Either total non-involvement or more likely condeming the Israelis with slurs about the Strip being a "concentration camp" and security fences being "Apartheid walls". The BNP and Islam are basically bedfellows, as long as there's at least the English channel between us'n'them, they'll be happy. If we accept that Israel needs our solidarity as the front line in the Jihad, then we have no ally in the BNP. They would ultimatley lead Britain down the sewer of Sharia law in less time than the liberals. They're smalltime. Jackboot-lickers. And not just figuratively....

Posted by: Animus at June 30, 2006 1:27 AM

...and any label publishing the likes of Mr Had should be stamped on by the Home Office. There's no shortage of "G-Hads" out there - industry chiefs should be more concerned about their legal responsibilities than profits. They smight find they're the ones accountable under increasing antiterror-legislation...

Posted by: Animus at June 30, 2006 1:33 AM

What I am saying often is that Islam is not the only threat. All of the world’s ills cannot be seen through Islam’s lens. There are others who are guilty of wrongdoing as well. Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

Kafir

While I doubt that anyone disagrees with that, we aren't here to discuss all the world's ills. None of us have all those interests, nor the time. Besides, importing such items to this forum also brings in points of disagreement that are more likely to pull us apart, rather than unify us against Islam. For instance, I am very interested in the flat tax, global de-regulation, solar and nuclear fusion energy, and uniform worldwide prosperity as a result of a global spread of pure capitalism. None of those items belong here, which is why I don't bring them here.

I wasn't trying to suggest that you abandon Athiesm (actually, given that Buddhism doesn't include any references to a God, it is as Athiesm-compatible as one can imagine, although I'd suppose it would be incompatible with the Ayn Rand school of thought) - I did say it's a legitimate belief system just like all the others. However, the tone of your posts generally leaves one with the impression that you think it's the only legitimate belief system out there. I'm glad to read that you have nothing against people of faith. While I can't speak for others, most of the people here, from what I have read, have nothing against people of no faith.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 30, 2006 1:40 AM

http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/uncovered/pg09.htm

This site is seriously off-track (mail them a comment if you have time), but provides the following snippet:

"Most of all, Griffins anti-Muslim stance is hypocrisy. In the mid-1980s when he was a leading officer in the National Front he openly cavorted with Islamic extremists. He supported the Ayatollah Khomeinis fundamentalist regime in Iran, and sought backing from Libyas Colonel Gaddafi"

Kissin' cousins.

Posted by: Animus at June 30, 2006 2:15 AM

Animus..this discussion escaped control when someone said that Vikrant's comments on G-had would have been useful. It then expanded into why he left here as it was because of the BNP support here.

I remember that discussion and it was a little OTT but if you are truly anti-islam (and that is MY only agenda) it should not matter who your allies are and so I though that although I could understand why he left, it was rather petulant IMO and ignored the bigger picture and that is that BNP might threaten but Islam kills and has done for 1400 yesr

This was not a comment on the ethics or otherwise of having the BNP as allies but a simple pragmatic politico-military viewpoint on what to myself is a war. We cannot be overfussy with regards to our allies in a war. That was all and I offered historical analogies to make my point.

Instead the comments(not debate) have been on how as I/we do not live in the UK how could I/we comment upon the BNP etc etc ad infin. Now some people seem to think that the BNP type is only confined to the UK and that no other country has its own extreme fascist group, which is patently absurd. (Romper Stomper anyone?)

In addition, my studies at one time included Germany in the 30s and 40s so I have no illusions about such groups. But, of course, I know nothing of the BNP.

It would appear that some people here see the BNP as a more dangerous threat to western civilisation than is islam which to myself apears quite a stupid line of reasoning. The BNP are certainly stereotypically fascist and quite unpleasant from what I know of them but they will never attract the numbers to be a real problem.

However IF western governments continue to do nothing about the Islamic hordes then it is possible that these fascist groups might. If this does hapen it will be interesting to see the comments here.

addendum

You also make the point above about how Griffin has apparently changed sides.So did Winston Churchill as did Italy Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary and Finland but I suppose that here once tarred never forgiven. If you can show that he still supports islam now then that might be relevant. I used to be a liberal once upon a time.

Posted by: Zathras at June 30, 2006 2:37 AM

sorry to wade in feet first, I also wish I could find any reason to support the BNP on their anti-Islamic stance, but the more I looked into it the uglier it looked. I'd have more hope for UKIP - especially after Robert Killroy-Silk had a bucket of pig-sh*t dumped over him by an enraged imam after he publicly aired his concerns. But UKIP's main platform so far has simply been Euroskepticism. Whatever, we can only hope it's a matter of time before honest discourse on Islam becomes a key voting point.

Posted by: Animus at June 30, 2006 3:01 AM

Animus

Without endorsing (or for that matter condemning) the BNP, I found the site you cited as yet another Islam apologist:

Ordinary Asians in Bradford and Oldham are placed in the same category as those terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Centre. “The question of whether or not our land will remain ours will be decided not in the mountains of Afghanistan, but in towns like Oldham and Burnley. Anyone who finds that hard to believe needs only to read the Koran to understand why”.

By getting support from Muslim haters in other ethnic groups, the BNP are fostering more division and race hate. These Sikh and Hindu BNP supporters represent only a handful of fanatics. They speak for noone but themselves.

The BNP has recently claimed that Al-Qia’da is the true form of Islam and that moderate Muslims who want to live peacefully with other religions are non-believers. This is clear incitement and distortion.

Of the above items

1. The BNP claim "Anyone who finds that hard to believe needs only to read the Koran to understand why" is correct, although inadequate. Just add to it the tafseer and the hadith, and throw in the entire history of Islam into the mix about how as countries got Muslim majorities, they adapted Shariah, and Infidels lost most of their rights.
   
2. Obviously, the "handful of Sikh and Hindu fanatics" feel threatened enough to join a party which doesn't allow them to be members. What does that tell one?
   
3. Ali Sina says the same thing in his site.

If a group claiming to be opposed to the BNP can't do it without dredging up this taqiyya about Islam, or slandering those who have genuine problems with Muslims, they don't deserve any more support than the BNP does.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 30, 2006 3:06 AM

IMO no one here really has much time for the BNP as even the pro-BNP comments are linked to its current anti-islam stance and had it not done this there would have been NO support here at all
(shreds of a long lost idealism still flutter in the wind).

That is the only good point. However from their track record although I would welcome some appropriate vigilantiisms, I would suspect that like their SA colleagues and their Muslim enemy they would head for the soft easy targets as opposed to the deserving hard ones.

However when the Muslim mobs start to wreak havoc in the streets of Upper muslovia(NW England) just maybe their tendency towards violence might come in handy.

Anyway, one can hope.

Posted by: Zathras at June 30, 2006 3:37 AM

...yes, you're quite right, that's why I said the site was off-key (I just mailed them the score, though I'me sure most others here could do a better job). I think the site's run by Gerry Gable, an old-school Socialist whose been the most vocal critic of the BNP since its inception. When Skynews recently gave Griffin airtime they let Gable counter his arguments, whereupon Griffin denounced him as a Communist etc.... petty bickering considering they're both subversives of one kind or another.

Griffin writes well. He now denounces racism. In contrast to his previous stance on "the mindbenders" he eschews antisemitism and says Jews do well 'cuz they're smart 'cuz thay've had a hard time (which is in itself objectionable but not to digress). What I would stress is that even if the general leadership all became whiter-than-white (pun) overnight, they would still be the legitimised face of the NF because they're the only viable outlet for British racists. The majority of their support will always be from the very worst of Britian's own, long established breed of Nazism, and any additioanl popularity they gain from talking straight on Islam will only boost the power and influence of some very unpleasant personalities. The cure would be worse than the disease - at least Moslem hatred is ostensibly fuelled by misdirected piety. For the NF fanatics who make up the BNP's core identity, hatred is the end in itself, disguised as Psuedo-Nationalism. As evinced by their historical fairweather dhimmitude.

Posted by: Animus at June 30, 2006 3:39 AM

Zathras - I understand the point you're making, which is that, though the BNP are, as you put it "unpleasant", they are allies in the fight against Islam. But are they? My point, reinforced by what Granny W and Moris and now Animus say, is that they are far more than just unpleasant, and that their anti-Islam stance is just a way to get votes. If they were to get into power, their true purpose, which is to rid Britain of all non-whites, would be made more explicit. White supremacy is and always has been their agenda. Being anti-Islam is a means to an end.

As well as being intrinsically nasty, white supremacists are no use in a fight against Islam - Islam is an ideology, not a race. It is people like the BNP that push Hindus into allying with Muslims because their skin colour is the same.

You make a rational point, but you are mistaken, and it is your lack of knowledge of the BNP that causes you to be mistaken. Again, therefore, you would be advised to take seriously the comments of those who have the knowledge and experience that you don't. I would certainly do this if the discussion were about a Canadian(?) political party.

As for Dr Pepper, if Nick Griffin and his thugs were to goose step down Oxford Street, siegheiling and singing the Horst Wessel song, he would say it was just "anecdotal".

Posted by: Interested at June 30, 2006 5:28 AM

UKIP's main platform so far has simply been Euroskepticism

Euroscepticism can only help in the fight against Islam.

One of the problems the UK faces in dealing with Muslims is that our hands our tied by a lot of "human rights" legislation that comes, directly or indirectly from the EU. We enforce this scrupulously, whereas countries like France and Italy, with their more "creative" approach to the law, do not.

Posted by: Interested at June 30, 2006 6:26 AM

I'd happily cut off my daughter, rape the dog and wrap my clitoris in a burqa before voting BNP.

Very funny, but my point is proved. Here we have another person who favors the atrocities of islam more than the protection of her own culture. Your hatred of white racists far exceeds your hatred of those that would kill your own family and enslave your people, your culture, your nation, your world.

Not me. There is no measure too strong to defeat islam. Including, yes, racism. Oh, that dirty concept. What a joke.

Remember what the Russians did to prevent any further kidnappings of their people by jihadists in the '80s? They kidnapped the son of one of the terrorists. Cut off his ear and filmed it. Gave the ear and the film to the jihadists and promised that his testicles would be next.

Result: They got their guys back pronto and they were never bothered again. Americans, however, were still kidnapped and murdered. They feared the Russians but had no reason to fear the Americans, or the British or any other westerner.

Conclusion: the only thing that works is fear. It is the islamic mind. It is so primitive only fear works. As of yet, I have yet to hear the BNP advocate such policies in Britain. For if they did, the terrorists wouldn't dare do anything, and the BNP wouldn't have to deport all the muslims, and therefore, you anti-racist liberals could rest easy, right? Chose your weapon. Ear amputation of kids, or deportation. Sounds to me like the BNP has chosen the more humane solution. Yet even that is too much for you bleeding hearts.

N.B. That was about 20 years ago. This new generation of terrorists wasn't around then. As a result, 4 Russian diplomats were kidnapped and beheaded recently because Russia has gone soft and abandoned those methods. The only methods that offered protection to their people.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 30, 2006 6:57 AM

One of the problems the UK faces in dealing with Muslims is that our hands our tied by a lot of "human rights" legislation that comes, directly or indirectly from the EU.

Their outlined policies seem just as effective as the BNP's but without the dodgy agenda. Image is everything though, and they could seriously do with a makeover. A bit of colour and some young blood...

Posted by: Animus at June 30, 2006 7:35 AM

Interested...Okay I do understand your point and in fact I have always understood your point but you do not understand mine. I do not care what the track record of the BNP is. I only care about them being on our side and perhaps you are right about their current anti-islam stance simply being a votepuller. But they are on our side and that is all that matters

You tell me about just how bad they are and that I possibly cannot know how extreme or bad this is but I have also said that I know how bad the BNP is. Not all of the detail, of course, but I am well aware of the anti-hindu, antiblack antijewish etc antieverything not white and I am also aware that your average fascist seems to be about as heroic as your average jihadist.

But you refuse to acknowledge my stance which I shall repeat once again albeit in extreme analogy: I would welcome the SA(Sturmabteilung) if they told me that they were on our side in the struggle versus Islam. However I do draw the line at the SS(schutzstaffel) totenkopfverband as they actually put the theory into fact.

Now perhaps that might explain to you just how dangerous and how desperate I see our position to be in the struggle versus islam. That is also why I have gone to the trouble here that I have to disagree with you despite your constant refusal to truly debate (until now) and your still present refusal to allow me even a valid opinion on the matter.

So I re-iterate; Islam is far worse than is the BNP and in fact even the SA, while compared with the SS totenkopfverband they are a long away ahead but, naturally did not have the advantage of the technology, and so are of the same class of total nondesirability at any level. Note that I do exclude the Waffen SS from the SS stigma here. As to whether I would welcome the men of the Waffen SS were a true and fully blown war to break out, that is a PhD thesis in politicomilitary history in itself and best not to comment here as it is so complex.

The BNP for all of their faults have not actively committed genocide, religicide or filiacide etc on any true scale( how close am I here? remember I know nothing.) Oh I am sure that they used to, perhaps even still do, promote it in theory but I doubt really that this went past the odd mugging out of control and that any killing was only rarely cold blooded and predetermined and in large scale, and that there was nothing like Islam's attempt to kill all disagreement literally. I do not agree with any of this at all but do see them as a lesser evil by far.

Let me finish up by saying that if ALL of the inmates in UK gaols decide to go actively anti-Islam and actually DID do so, and while the paedophiles, the rapists and the mass murderers would be hard to stomach, I would consider the acceptance of this as a distinct possibility. I feel sure that you would not. That is not a measure of my ethics, but a true measure of my fear for the future of mankind. I do not say western mankind as it is our technology which sustains humanity and if we lose I truly doubt that mankind will survive.

Posted by: Zathras at June 30, 2006 8:22 AM

But they are on our side and that is all that matters

They are not on "our" side. They are not on the side of respect for law, human rights, civilisation, freedom of speech. They are savages.

You have never actually seen any of these people close up, have you? Your ignorance of the BNP does undermine your argument.

As I said, I would not presume to pontificate at length about a Canadian or American political party, about which I knew nothing.

Posted by: Interested at June 30, 2006 8:34 AM

Very funny, but my point is proved. Here we have another person who favors the atrocities of islam more than the protection of her own culture. Your hatred of white racists far exceeds your hatred of those that would kill your own family and enslave your people, your culture, your nation, your world.

Apologies for the androgyny, I don't have a daughter, dog, or... but my point is that the BNP strengthens Islam by stigmatising vital rational debate on the subject - the majority will always veiw the BNP as the racists they are and so disregard their exposé of Islam as sensationalist race-baiting, and most of those who do support them share many of Islam's nastier sentiments.

Not me. There is no measure too strong to defeat islam. Including, yes, racism. Oh, that dirty concept. What a joke.

Look at the resurgent Nazism in Germany, Austria, Poland, France and England. Skinhead bovverboys protesting in support of Iran's antisemitism, denialism and revisionism. An unholy alliance if ever there was...

Tthe BNP has only switched sides now because Islam has made it so obvious they intend to Islamise Britain even these knuckleheads understand. And they're seizing their opportunity. They're that shallow.

Remember what the Russians did to prevent any further kidnappings of their people by jihadists in the '80s? They kidnapped the son of one of the terrorists. Cut off his ear and filmed it. Gave the ear and the film to the jihadists and promised that his testicles would be next.

Result: They got their guys back pronto and they were never bothered again. Americans, however, were still kidnapped and murdered. They feared the Russians but had no reason to fear the Americans, or the British or any other westerner.

Would you vote for a political party that endowed itself such powers? If a Western govt. should be allowed to do that, why shouldn't Saudi Arabia or Iran? What was it that we wanted to protect again? Something about equality, or something...

Conclusion: the only thing that works is fear. It is the islamic mind. It is so primitive only fear works. As of yet, I have yet to hear the BNP advocate such policies in Britain. For if they did, the terrorists wouldn't dare do anything, and the BNP wouldn't have to deport all the muslims, and therefore, you anti-racist liberals could rest easy, right? Chose your weapon. Ear amputation of kids, or deportation. Sounds to me like the BNP has chosen the more humane solution. Yet even that is too much for you bleeding hearts.

If we don't let them wage Jihad against us, if we stand up, refuse to capitulate and above all stop accomodating and enabling their tactics, if we show a little front, and say look, we hear what you're saying, we've read your "holy books", we understand your terms, now listen to us... we're the ones with the power to draw a line and make it stick. All we need is the will and the way will follow. If the West would only lay it on the line, Islam would have to lump it. We don't need to lower our standards, but raise them and apply them and stick to them.

I'm astonished you'd openly advocate racism here. Isn't that just capitulating to the aims of the terrorists? You seem to think you're strengthening your resolve against them, when in reality you're letting them win the battle of ideas, and adopting their values...

N.B. That was about 20 years ago. This new generation of terrorists wasn't around then. As a result, 4 Russian diplomats were kidnapped and beheaded recently because Russia has gone soft and abandoned those methods. The only methods that offered protection to their people.

Ahhh but you see that was the coalition's fault for not attaching a personal security detail to every half-witted Jihad tourist who wanders into the battlezone looking to fry their own fish... Besides why should Putin know anything about organising security outfits...

What were those "diplomats" actually doing there anyway?

Posted by: Animus at June 30, 2006 8:38 AM

quote"They are not on "our" side. They are not on the side of respect for law, human rights, civilisation, freedom of speech. They are savages".

As are the Chinese communists in their treatment of their own people, as were the improving Russians and as are the goverments of MANY third world non-Islamic countries.
You seem to TOTALLY miss the point ad infinitum.
THEY ARE NOT ON OUR SIDE ETHICALLY but are on our side politicomilitarily and that is what counts. It is a war!!!

Quote: "You have never actually seen any of these people close up, have you? Your ignorance of the BNP does undermine your argument"

How? I have aligned them and compared them with the SA. I suppose that you are tellling me that they are worse? As for not knowing about the BNP I could send you umpteen references but that just joins your attempt at a diversionary digression, as it makes NO difference. To myself they are an extremist, racist, fascist neonazi group. How much more do I need to know?

Interested if you answer, (and you are now being polite so I thank you for that) please read ALL of my post before replying as otherwise it wastes just so much of my time, not to mention your own. I can see your view quite plainly but either you cannot see mine or you wont.

Posted by: Zathras at June 30, 2006 8:55 AM

So I re-iterate; Islam is far worse than is the BNP and in fact even the SA

Absolutley, they're a more extant threat. I don't see though how supporting an organisation that represents the same kind of threat is anything but a capitulation to terrorism. We'd be giving in to our own fears if we accepted that we need fascists to prosecute our fight against fascism. Democracy and egalitarianism is the stronger ideology. Moreover it is just.

The only benefit I could see might be an 'innoculation' effect further down the line - if we had to actually endure a four-year term of fascist government we'd come out the other side all the more primed to oppose it. But the BNP isn't in any sense 'inert' or we wouldn't even be discussing them.

In reality, "fighting fire with fire" is a stupid oxymoron.

Posted by: Animus at June 30, 2006 8:58 AM

They are not on our side politically either. A tactical alliance with them, such as made sense in WW2 with Stalin, would not make sense here.

The BNP are a white supremacist party. That is all they ever were, and all they ever will be. Their opposition to Islam is an attempt to put a respectable front on a racist policy. What they really want is all non-whites out of Britain.

If they were nasty, but what they really wanted was an end to Islam, that would be one thing. But the anti-Islam stance is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is a means to gain power.

Their anti-Islam stance is no use to us unless they have power. Once they have power, the anti-Islam stance will drop out and their real agenda - that of white supremacy - will take over.

So no, they are no use to us, even tactically. Morally, you now seem to agree, they are repugnant.

In any case, as I said above, there is a world of difference between forming an alliance of convenience with a dubious foreign power, and letting those of dubious tendencies take power in one's own country.

Posted by: Interested at June 30, 2006 9:05 AM

This just goes round and round....all of you repeat the same thing, have the same ethical stance and totally ignore the fact that my stance has nothing to do with ethics.It is purely pragmatic.

The comment: " I don't see though how supporting an organisation that represents the same kind of threat is anything but a capitulation to terrorism".

There we go again: now having the BNP as an ally is the same as supporting Islam!! Please give me the references to all of the BNP's acts of terrorism, the body counts, the massacres, the barbarism etc ..no!! on second thought do not bother!! It is irrelevant.

So we let ethics dictate. Thus, we could refuse to accept the BNP as an ally, we could reject the Chinese offer of help when the gates of Vienna are once again threatened and we can criticise the Russians because of the human rights abuses as Eurabia evolves into fact.

The north african christians were also very ethical and are very extinct.

You do not win wars from the high moral ground.
you do not sneer at fulsome allies in wartime.

Unfortunately the west is in its current predicament purely on account of this sort of attitude and we will lose if it continues.

I for one want the west to win. I would like the high moral ground also, but I place winning first. Interested and Animus both place ethics before winning. That is why we will lose. That is also why all of the southern mediterranean is Muslim.

How much it take for you to learn even a simple history lesson? You only win wars from the same level NOT the high ground.

Posted by: Zathras at June 30, 2006 9:31 AM

Animus:"In any case, as I said above, there is a world of difference between forming an alliance of convenience with a dubious foreign power, and letting those of dubious tendencies take power in one's own country."

If this was a conventional war that point might have a valid possibility but it is NOT. It is a war of multiple 5th columns via immigration and of terrorism, backed by countries who pretend to be neutral or even allied but who have never been so.

There are no real historicaly similar wars that I can think of. But if you look at the the antinazi resistance in Europe and the resistance in the USSR to first the nazis and then the soviets you may get an idea.

This sort of war is DIRTY and far more dirty than conventional war which is bad enough.

As for the BNP taking over the UK I almost started to laugh: 200k votes, 0.74% of the vote and no seats. A real threat there!!

Please how can you be serious? As a political power they are useless. As an ally in the backstreets of Bolton they could be qute useful.

Sorry!! but although I can see why you say what you say, it is precisely attitudes like this that are helping to destroy us.

I honestly think that you have no idea of the seriousnees of our position in the west with regards to Islam. because if you did I would have been able to read tonight.

Posted by: Zathras at June 30, 2006 9:50 AM

Interested ..an addendum...you have made one valid point and that is that the BNP as an ally might be useless. I can agree with that as I really do expect them to be so. But that is no reason to reject them as an ally until it is known for certain.

Posted by: Zathras at June 30, 2006 9:53 AM

Interested and Animus both place ethics before winning

Not really. Both of us have also explained why an alliance with the BNP would be ineffective as well as wrong. Their opposition to Islam is - literally - skin deep, and takes second place to their white suprmacist agenda. Please read my last post carefully.

As an ally in the backstreets of Bolton they could be qute useful.

Bolton is where I come from. Unlike you, I know it very well. How would the BNP be of any use at all in the backstreets of Bolton? They would beat up any dark-skinned people, including women and children, regardless of their religion. These are not people who are interested in religion and ideology. All they see is skin colour.

They wouldn't attack white Muslims, though.

Yes, very useful. Very useful indeed.

Posted by: Interested at June 30, 2006 9:57 AM

Quote:"Both of us have also explained why an alliance with the BNP would be ineffective as well as wrong. Their opposition to Islam is - literally - skin deep, and takes second place to their white supremacist agenda."

You mean that you guess that it would be so as you have no direct evidence of their use, or lack of usefulness. As for the skin deep part that could be true but then you are denying that a political party cannot change its direction and its priorities and historically that is incorrect. Again you employ guesswork and you present it as evidence and in reality it does not undermine my stance here one iota. Please note the difference between surmise and fact.

Quote: "How would the BNP be of any use at all in the backstreets of Bolton? They would beat up any dark-skinned people, including women and children, regardless of their religion. These are not people who are interested in religion and ideology. All they see is skin colour.
They wouldn't attack white Muslims, though."

You are correct in one point and that is that I have not been to Bolton for over 20 years, but I picked it as I knew that it was your home town.
Again you are guessing that the BNP having changed stance will not change direction. I have to admit that there is a chance that they may not be useful at all. But they could be so and to reject them purely upon the past is very myopic. As you are simply guessing I will add some of my own: historically fascist parties tend to be angry parties and they always need a target group to focus upon and while they have shown themselves to be very good at bullying, they were always very useful as infiltrators and subversives within groups as well as at simple surveillance. The shifting of focus from a possible enemy(nonwhites) to a real enemy(muslims) could do just this and if the BNP did do this that is how they could become useful.

Is it likely? No idea. Is it possible? Yes!!

But do not reject an ally until his lack of use is proven that is was and still is my point.

When you can place some real fact as opposed to what is essentially your opinion then all of this will have some point to it.

Posted by: Zathras at June 30, 2006 10:36 AM

Equally, it is pure speculation on your part that the BNP has changed direction. Set that against now four British posters with direct experience of the BNP who know that they have not, to date changed.

You could just as easily say Islam might reform. The evidence of the past all points against it, but it could happen, just as an asteroid could crash into the earth.

You have no evidence at all that the BNP have changed, or are changing. All four British posters, and a British former poster, Vikrant, tell you from their own direct experience that they have not.

Who should we believe? You or our lying British eyes?

Posted by: Interested at June 30, 2006 10:43 AM

Quote:"Equally, it is pure speculation on your part that the BNP has changed direction. Set that against now four British posters with direct experience of the BNP who know that they have not, to date changed".

I do not doubt that the past history of the BNP has offended your 4 Brits and that what they say about this PH is probably correct but as they are not party to the BNP's action committee and its decisions then they cannot know what tack the party is taking currently and to say so is impossible.

However having said that, I fail to see exactly what this has to do with my stance of the not knocking the potential use of the BNP if they do become an ally as if they DO NOT become an ally, in fact, instead of in theory then it does not matter.

You must check up upon what I said about my postion. I have simply said that: we are not in the postion to knock or reject allies. You have then told me they are not allies. You,of course do not for certain but that does not matter. and it never has in all of your postings..

If the BNP do become allies then we should not reject them. However this would need to be concrete rather than merely verbal.

If they do not, then what is your point? To me the possibility of being an ally, however revolting, is their only possible redeeming factor and if it is not proven to be factual then we have not lost anything.

round and round we go.....

Posted by: Zathras at June 30, 2006 11:24 AM

they are not party to the BNP's action committee and its decisions

How recent is the recent past? Re-read Granny W's post at 10.36am yesterday:

I have already given Mr Spencer the details of the names, their position within the party, the time and date, the places and what was said and done. If I don't post it here it's because I don't want unwanted visitors to attend at either my home or the homes of my friends and family.

I was copied on this email. The details show unequivocally that she knows what the party is up to.

You are not party to the BNP's action committee and its decisions either. And you have no direct experience of it. So we are one up on you. We know what we are talking about. You don't. Yet you are prepared to give the BNP the benefit of the doubt. Why? It makes no sense, any more than it makes sense to give Islam the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: Interested at June 30, 2006 11:37 AM

Aside from the race issues, what about the BNP stance on gays?

Oh yes, you know full well what it is. But what about this lovely article where it was reveled that one of the BNP's chiefs made gay porn.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/11/nbnp11.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/11/ixuknews.html

COMMENT: This sounds so much like NAZI Germany, I have to laugh at anyone giving them support. I think it's an open secret that so many NAZIs (especially early NAZIs) were themselves gay (or latently so).

----------------

And what about the BNP stance on Israel?

http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/uncovered/pg08.htm

COMMENT: While I may criticize Israel for its sometimes extreme actions, I believe it has every right to exist and defend itself. The dispute I have with most of JW/DWers is about the creation of a Palestinian state. That is not the case with the BNP. I am sure that if BNP were to rise to power in the UK, you would see no support for Israel whatever.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 30, 2006 12:22 PM

OT. When I think of that BNP chief I mentioned above, I cannot help but think of our own rabidly conservative gay congressmen in the great state of California, David Dreir. For comic relief, read:

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/the-outing/1322/

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 30, 2006 12:26 PM

Interested,

“re-read Granny's post in which she states that she has given names, times, dates, places, positions in the party. What do you understand by "evidence"?”

In addition to names, times, dates, places and positions in parties, I would need to know exactly what she saw them saying and doing. Granny mentioned concern for safety in divulging her personal eyewitness accounts – but she can divulge at least what she saw them saying and doing (leaving out as much specificity as her safety requires but including enough to give me sufficient meat beyond vague assertions that the BNP are evil), and it is up to me to trust that she is both a) accurate in the reportage (not only of the content of words and deeds but also in the “names, times, dates, places and positions”) and b) not tendentiously coloring or filtering the data. This kind of trust is not reasonable to expect from a stranger on an Internet forum; the best I can do is give her a tentative benefit of the doubt, pending further acquaintance with more data in the future. But again, I need to know at least the content of her allegations – what specifically was said and done.

“And the eyewitness evidence, with names, dates, times, places, words spoken, witnesses for corroboration, you dismiss out of hand?”

“The rest you are at pains to explain away.”

I defended my position with an argument – something I’d like to see from you (you could for example present a conter-argument with respect to how my argument was “at pains to explain away” “the rest”), rather than unargued assertions, emotional outbursts, and ad hominem remarks.

“What do you know of the BNP? What exactly?”

Not much, beyond ever-present glimpses of the mountain of unargued, non-evidentiary assertions by anti-BNP critics that one sees at every turn on the Internet.

“What is your evidence that they are OK?”

Not much, except apparently frequent and consistent claims their senior members make protesting their innocence of the mountain of accusations against them. This isn’t evidence either, on the other side of the question. I never said the BNP are “OK”. My intuitive tendency leads me to suspect they are crypto-racist and have opportunistically given themselves a shave and a haircut. But I’d like to see evidence of these two intuitive suspicions.

“you are so keen and quick to dismiss the evidence of those who do.”

So far, I have not been dismissing evidence. I have been dismissing the characterization as sufficient evidence of what people are presenting in their case against the BNP.

“Why feel the need to hide behind a facade of being pernickety about evidence?”

Whether I feel the need to hide behind such a façade or not, this should not free you of the obligation of providing evidence of condemnatory claims you make, and of entering into a reasonable dialogue with a person who maintains some standard of what constitutes sufficient evidence vs. what falls below a threshhold of sufficient evidence. At some point, you might think your interlocutor is disingenuously quibbling; but merely asserting this is so without presenting an argument for it merely compounds your entire structure of unargued assertions.

Posted by: Television at June 30, 2006 12:38 PM

BTW that quote above from granny was NOT from this postline and hence I have not seen it before, and as it is possibly taken out of context(that is I do not know how and where etc) I have no intention of taking your interpretion as the ultimate truth and it could mean anything

However despite your attempts to draw me into fire from a postion that I have not defended IT does NOTHING to change my position. You must be indeed desperate to dredge up posts from elsewhere that are not relevant.

Even if you did find concrete evidence that the BNP has no intention of becoming anti-Islam, it does not undermine my point as then I no longer have one as they are not a potential ally.

Again, just incase you have forgotten or ignored it, my postion is: IF the BNP is willing to be an ally then we should not reject them out of hand.
This is irrespective of their past ethics and makes the assumption that they could be useful.
If they are not useful then it doesn't matter.

So what exactly is your point?

Seeing as it is granny quote day(my apologies granny as I mean no disrespect) here is one from this postline:

Granny quote"To be fair, to my knowledge, the new current BNP leadership have not, or not recently, endorsed this sort of thing."

Taken out of context assuredly but relevant as her next line is a projected assumption.

Your point?

You cannot persuade me by skill, nor convince me by fact nor browbeat me by insult. Hate the BNP and good for you.

I personally do not care one way or the other.

My position still stands as it did at the start.
It is totally secure. All you have done is amuse me by your attempts to assault it. It really is a waste of your time and mine.

I give you due credit for your tenacity and I do still see your point entirely and yes, I can respect it. But you have shown absolutely no respect for my view and that is why I will continue to answer you.

If you do reply, I cannot reply until the morrow as I must go to bed. I wouldn't bother if I were you but as you obviously have some need to continue and some illdefined point to make still so I guess this will continue then.

au revour/ciao/auf wiedersehen/cya

Posted by: Zathras at June 30, 2006 12:44 PM

Granny

“What would make eye witness accounts of what BNP members, some of them senior in the party have been seen to say and do cease to be "anecdotal" in your eyes?”

There are two separate issues that have to be unpacked out of your sentence I quote above:

1) what is the threshhold separating anecdotal suggestion of fact from evidence demonstrating fact
2) what exactly is the data to which you allude – i.e., what exactly have BNP members, some of them senior in the party, been saying and doing?

“Would you like me to submit affidavit evidence, as would be acceptable in a court of law to Mr Spencer?”

You needn’t go to that trouble: simply direct me to a few independent sources (via links) of a paper trail based on solid reportage that document the evils of the BNP.

You and Interested (and Animus and others) may or may not see fit to -- or may be unable to -- direct me to a few independent sources (via links) of a paper trail based on solid reportage that document the evils of the BNP. In the meanwhile, I might at some point in the near or far future take the time and trouble to do some more investigation of my own. It's an interesting question for me, but rather on a back burner in comparison to hundreds of other issues relating to the Problem of Islam as highlighted by Jihad Watch and similar Internet journals. It will tend to move toward the "front burner" of the Problem of Islam to the extent that mainstream politicians, news media and ordinary citizens in England continue to pussyfoot around the Problem of Islam while the BNP continues to issue public statements that are like cold fresh water to a Jihad Watcher dying of thirst. Add to that problematic dynamic another terrorist attack or two (worse in scale than 7/7) on English soil in the near future, and the issue will be pressed to emergent decisions. At that point, if the English consensus continues to whitewash, sugarcoat and pussyfoot, I say the English deserve the BNP.

Posted by: Television at June 30, 2006 12:49 PM

Dr Pepper, four British posters on this thread have talked about the BNP from knowledge and experience. Granny W has previously given as much detail as is safely possible for her to do on what was said and done on one particular occasion. She has given much more specific detail in an email to Robert. I have also talked about the assault by BNP supporters on my Jewish boyfriend, something you consider to be of no account.

Robert posts stories from the BBC and the Times which show Muslims in a bad light, as well as, in the former case, showing bias.

Presumably you believe the BBC and The Times when they show Islam and Muslims in a bad light. Yet these same sources are so tainted as to be dismissed out of hand when they show the BNP in a bad light.

The BBC is a very flawed organisation. However, its Panorama programmes are excellent. Recently they did an exposé of the Muslim Council of Britain. Were they lying then? So why do you assume that they are lying when they expose the BNP.

Nick Griffin is on film, pointing to his white skin and saying that is what defines him. He is the BNP leader, not some "rotten apple" in an otherwise blameless organisation. What more evidence do you need?

You persistently, with no knowledge, give the BNP the benefit of the doubt. In your eyes they are just "right wing" and that is OK. You peristently reject the testimony of those with direct experience of it.

As I say, ignorance combined with arrogance.

Posted by: Interested at June 30, 2006 12:54 PM

BNP has no intention of becoming anti-Islam,

Of course I can't prove that they have no intention of becoming anti-Islam. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that Muslims have "no intention of" reforming. We are both, here in the realms of speculation.

The difference between us is that I have seen at first hand what current BNP supporters do. Granny W has seen at first hand what party members say and do. The other British posters likewise.

I'm going out now, but until Robert closes comments, I'm not giving up. I'm not arguing for your benefit or Dr Pepper's, but so that any non-whites who come to this site, and who know what the BNP are about- and yes, that is British visitors, funnily enough - will come back and not be put off.

So far, Americans and Canadians think the BRITISH National Party is OK. British posters think otherwise. What does that tell you?

Posted by: Interested at June 30, 2006 1:03 PM

but so that any non-whites who come to this site, and who know what the BNP are about- and yes, that is British visitors, funnily enough - will come back and not be put off. Posted by: Interested

Interested

Of the non-Brit posters here, I've seen a mix of pro and anti-BNP posters. Any non-White who decides not to re-visit this site because some people are pro-BNP have no idea what these weblogs are about. Under that brilliant line of reasoning, those of us who are offended by John Howard, Abu America, Salahuddin, Khalid bin Waleed or even Naseem (for those who don't treat her posts as fodder for amusement) could stop visiting JihadWatch for the same reasons.

You also mentioned above that

It is people like the BNP that push Hindus into allying with Muslims because their skin colour is the same.

Any Hindus who ally with Muslims were Dhimmis in the first place, who put their racial and linguistic similarities above their religious differences - they can't be pushed into it. They are ignoring the same principles that you are so nobly pursuing - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They need to talk to their relatives in India (assuming they still have contact), and find out about the way Muslims in India are becoming more extreme.

Assuming of course, they care.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 30, 2006 1:35 PM

Mea culpa. I should have typed

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 30, 2006 1:36 PM

Of the non-Brit posters here, I've seen a mix of pro and anti-BNP posters.

You're missing the point. My point was that British posters tend to know about the BNP. British non-white posters know about the BNP, see commenters endorsing it here and it has the same effect that endorsing the Nazis has.

Americans and other non-Brits, by and large do not know anything at all about the BNP. Americans in particular, however, are not prevented by their ignorance from pontificating on it and saying that it is the best thing that could happen to Britain.

You are unlikely to get a British poster saying the Klu Klux Klan is the best thing that could happen to America. It's a potato/tomato thing.

You're also missing the point about Hindus allying with Muslims. The BNP, at the risk of repeating myself are white supremacists. They tar Hindus and Muslims with the same brush. This pushes them together.

If you're being beaten up by a BNP thug because of your skin colour, you will find little comfort in the fact that he is against Islam.

Now I've really got to go. But I'm not giving up.

Posted by: Interested at June 30, 2006 2:17 PM

Seems to me that Interested should start his own site. bnpwatch.org. He seems more concerned, even obsessed, with them than with the 1.2 billion killbots coming to get us. Let me tell you, I would resurrect Nazi Germany, itself, to save the world from Islam if it was possible - so spare us the caveat emptor about the lowly BNP. Even some notable Jews have recently said that the threat from islam is even greater than the threat from Germany in WW II. Perhaps Interested should be quoting THOSE people instead of some internet Granny when it comes to the issue of the BNP. We have a war to fight. And when the war is won, then we can go back to our politically correct liberal world where the bad guys are the usual British and Americans. You know, like in the movies.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 30, 2006 5:38 PM

Small problem. The Nazis got on beautifully with the Muslims, as illustrated by Mufti Husseini of Jerusalem.

Keep trying. Stalin, perhaps? Mao? The Thai dictatorship that cracked down on the South Thailand rebellions in the 70's? Too bad Comrade Slobodan is dead.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 30, 2006 6:54 PM

Stalin works for me too. Franco was cool. Il Duce, got to love him. Any strongman that can't be charmed by the pc elite or the muslims themselves, is what I want to see. Because right now, anybody else is powerless. Guys like that just do what needs to be done and they move mountains to do it. We don't see that anymore in the west. In the corporate world - yes, but not in the political world. But the time for such a man is coming again. The islamics are waiting for the 12th imam. I'm waiting for Il Duce. The question is: Which one of us is waiting for Godot?

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 30, 2006 7:30 PM

Seems to me that Interested should start his own site

I'm not a he.

Let me tell you, I would resurrect Nazi Germany, itself, to save the world from Islam if it was possible...Stalin works for me too. Franco was cool. Il Duce, got to love him.

Thanks for your honesty.

Posted by: Interested at June 30, 2006 9:11 PM

"Let me tell you, I would resurrect Nazi Germany, itself, to save the world from Islam if it was possible...Stalin works for me too. Franco was cool. Il Duce, got to love him."

-Posted Above

It's frightening how little humanity has changed. Fascism (like Islam) is an overly simple solution to complex problems. Once implemented, it brings about infinitely more problems to humanity than existed beforehand. A world war was already been fought to end the menace of fascism.

--------

"More to the point, Morrissey and the Smiths were crap."

-Interested

We can agree to disagree. After all, we aren't on an Islam forum to discuss pop music. But since you brought it up again, I’ll mention it again. I think the Smiths were tremendously influential and lyrically powerful.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 30, 2006 9:29 PM

A world war was already been fought to end the menace of fascism.

Not true. A world war was fought to stop Germany from raping the world and taking what did not belong to it. Their system of government was irrelevant. Their military conquests were the issue.

Spain was fascist under Franco and no world war was fought against Spain. That's because Spain was not a threat to the world, as Germany was. So fascism is not the issue, except when it comes to dealing with subversive elements that threaten to overturn that society. Like Islam. Islam is the very definition of subversive. And our weak-kneed political classes either can't see it, or refuse to address it, as this site continues to document.

The solution is simple. Put on a jackboot and kick them out. Or for our female readership here, put on a leg warmer and kick them out. Whatever suits you.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 30, 2006 9:43 PM

"A world war was fought to stop Germany from raping the world and taking what did not belong to it. Their system of government was irrelevant. Their military conquests were the issue."

And we didn't have to become fascists or nazistic to defeat the evil Axis powers. I think you're going overboard here. I understand your emotions and share them, but your conclusions are unnecessary. The Allied success during WWII proves that we don't have to become fascists or nazistic to defeat such an enemy. But we probably will have to do things like FDR's internment camps (pursued by FDR with immense popular support and ruled not unconstitutional by the Supreme Court) as well as the mass-killings of millions of innocent civilians (chiefly through fire-bombings and two A-bombs). We can muster the requisite brains and balls to do what needs to be done against our present enemy, and still not have to be fascists or nazis nor use them at all. But this is a separate issue from whether the BNP is what its critics say it is. One should note that the tendency of ultra-right white racist groups has been to be pro-Islamic (not decisively anti-Islamic as the BNP has consistently been): David Duke of KKK provenance; August Kreis of the Aryan Nation; David Myatt in England neo-nazi convert to Islam; and many more figures documented by Alexandre Del Valle.

Posted by: Television at June 30, 2006 11:00 PM

The reason why we didn't need to become fascist to defeat the nazis is because we fought them militarily. That is not an option when the people are already within your ranks. Nor is bombing Pakistan or Saudia Arabia an option. Nor is killing millions and millions of muslims abroad an option. That was the WW II option of which you speak.

Today, the only viable option is to implement social and political and law enforcement changes to defeat the subversive elements domestically. And those measures are routinely and almost exclusively considered to be "fascist" by nature, today. That is what I advocate. They would work.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 30, 2006 11:16 PM

Interested bores in again: " Of course I can't prove that they have no intention of becoming anti-Islam. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that Muslims have "no intention of" reforming. We are both, here in the realms of speculation”

Yes and you especially so. You have constantly tried (and failed miserably) to distort my stance into a proBNP one. I do wish that your hatred would not blind you so much as I have appreciated your wit in the past (not always)
However, you have disregarded my request for a truce and apparently your arrogance knows no bounds.

Before I continue, PLEASE read my posts in toto, then think for a second before diving onto the keyboard for an antiBNP rant based upon ONE line of my post and which TOTALLY disregards any point(s) that I was trying to make. This is elementary comprehension, I know, but I beg it of you.

It is quite obvious to me that you are so obsessed with the BNP and their effects upon your personal life (and my condolences to you and your boyfriend over his assault by the BNP...you have no idea as to just how much I hate bullies…but about that another day and again I can post some lurid detail of my experiences here) that this overwhelms all of your posts here.

You nibble at the heels of discussion growling "BNP!! BNP!! etc" and yet the BNP is simply an example in my point that even a repulsive ally is NOT to be sneered at if potentially useful. You can substitute: China, Russia, Serbia, Communist Party, Provisional IRA, Klu Klux Klan, Paedophiles united, KGB(or its successor)even North Korea if they came to the table versus Islam. However you blithely ignore this and just continue with your BNP vendetta rant.

You have made absolutely NO attempt to answer my points and constantly insinuate that I am a BNP supporter although you have absolutely NO idea as to my colour, my race or my once religion. I guess that in your eyes I am the standard pro BNP WASP. That is so funny!!!

Quote: :The difference between us is that I have seen at first hand what current BNP supporters do. Granny W has seen at first hand what party members say and do. The other British posters likewise. “

You take so much here for granted that you are on dangerous ground. You assume that I know nothing about the BNP as I no longer reside in the UK and then you imply that I can not know anything about similar . I have heard of parochial arrogance but this “takes the cake”. I am not going to tell you anything about me or my family and their experiences with fascism as that would make it too easy and in addition, it is private.. I am also not going to tell you what effect National Socialism has had upon my life and that of my parents and believe me, compared with the Gestapo, the SD or the SS totenkopfverband, the BNP are just noisy pussycats’ with a tendency towards violence.

In fact I compared them above with the SA and that is quite a good comparison although their numbers are far fewer and their effects far less relevant. But naturally according to you I can know nothing of them.

However, your whole paragraph is irrelevant and I have explained why on multiple occasions and I am sick of repeating myself just because you cannot or will not try to understand.

Quote:” I'm not giving up. I'm not arguing for your benefit or Dr Pepper's, but so that any non-whites who come to this site, and who know what the BNP are about- and yes, that is British visitors, funnily enough - will come back and not be put off. “

You are just being stupid yet gain and I am starting to wonder about your obsession.
If any non-white comes here and flounces off in high dudgeon because of what I have said then he has as many problems as have you and either cannot or will not comprehend my point, which is quite an old one from the POV of military and political history. However, what does 4k of recorded history matter when confronted with an obsession or ignorance?

The impression I gain from your continued attempts to bite through tungsten with your teeth is that you find the BNP more of a threat than that is Islam and that you hate the BNP more than you do Islam. If this is indeed correct (and you will NEVER admit to this although it copiously drips from your posts) then you are indeed in the wrong place.

The war with Islam is coming”to a head”. Sooner or later all of mankind is going to have to declare a side. Oh there will be opportunists who wish to fence sit and gain as much as possible for themselves, but everyone will be sucked into the maelstrom of conflict eventually.
Then, there will be only two sides and you will either be against us or for us. If then the BNP are for us I would accept them. Oh I would not trust them, but would carefully monitor their attempts and the results. If they proved useful, well and good, if they do not, it is no loss and not unexpected.. Let me see you try and twist this one into some proBNP rubbish as you constantly do.

Quote: ”So far, Americans and Canadians think the BRITISH National Party is OK. British posters think otherwise. What does that tell?”

It tells me that you are either a fool who does not read or cannot comprehend posts, or that you have an obsession which dominates you so much that it clouds your reason and makes you write stupid posts. You really are a waste of my time and your time and the time of everyone here who has to read this drivel.
I shall only answer if you continue this stupidity as I too, do not surrender
But is becoming rather stupid and quite a bore.

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 12:50 AM

One should note that the tendency of ultra-right white racist groups has been to be pro-Islamic: David Duke of KKK provenance; August Kreis of the Aryan Nation; David Myatt in England neo-nazi convert to Islam; and many more figures documented by Alexandre Del Valle. Posted by: Television

The reason why we didn't need to become fascist to defeat the nazis is because we fought them militarily. That is not an option when the people are already within your ranks. Nor is bombing Pakistan or Saudia Arabia an option. Nor is killing millions and millions of muslims abroad an option. That was the WW II option of which you speak.
Today, the only viable option is to implement social and political and law enforcement changes to defeat the subversive elements domestically. And those measures are routinely and almost exclusively considered to be "fascist" by nature, today. That is what I advocate. They would work.
Posted by: somethingaboutislam

I actually agree with somethingaboutislam here. None of the things that were done during WWII would work today. It isn't like you have a war between the US and KSA, with Europe, Australia, Canada, India, Thailand, Russia, Israel on one side vs Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Syria et al on another. Instead you have millions of Muslims of different ethnic groups, backed by Leftists of different ethnic groups. As a result, the WWII model, even with the Japanese internment simulations, is a false model.

Moreover, and this is a global problem, almost none of the Infidel countries I listed above has a mainstream (i.e. prospect of coming to power) party that has even the political foresight, let along the testicular fortitude, to do what it takes. Hence, it would take someone with a totalitarian outlook to crack down on Muslims in all these countries. TV thinks that mass internments, Japanese style will work. Given the millions we are talking about here (2m in the US, 20m in Europe, 130m in India, et al), that model doesn't scale from 1945. Instead, mass deportations are what would be necessary, and unfortunately, none of the countries involved have political parties that can come to power with agendas to implement these. As a result, what we are left with are fringe groups in some of the countries involved (BNP in UK, Shiv Sena in India, who knows what else where else) who could start riots against Muslims should the need arise. It's an unfortunate situation, but one that is forced by the PC attitude of mainstream parties everywhere.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 1, 2006 1:14 AM

somethingaboutislam and Infidel Pride,

I wasn't citing the specific actions we took during WWII as necessarily representing actions we should take now; I was citing them to demonstrate that the West can under extreme conditions do extreme, sometimes tragic and horrific things, and still not succumb to fascism or nazification. I wouldn't utterly rule out of consideration those actions, though I would tend to agree with you that they wouldn't work with the unique enemy we have now. Other measures, such as FDR's internment, however, are types of actions that should be on the table.

Of course, we live in a climate that has changed drastically since the WWII era: today, even actions that would fall (Muslim profiling) -- and that do fall (re: Gitmo) -- far short of FDR's internment would be, and are, branded as "fascist".

My point is theoretical, substantiated by history: the West can do what it takes to defeat this new enemy without succumbing to fascism. Whether we will do so, seems unlikely, unless millions of Westerners undergo mass-deprogramming from the PC multiculturalism they lapped along with their mother's milk and continue to lap from their liberal water bottles.

Posted by: Television at July 1, 2006 1:41 AM

Zathras,

" If they [the BNP] proved useful, well and good, if they do not, it is no loss and not unexpected.."

Assuming that the BNP are as bad as their worst critics allege, I'd like to know from you in concrete and specific terms what you think they could do that would be "useful" in our counter-jihad?

Posted by: Television at July 1, 2006 1:48 AM

Infidelpride...you are very correct in what you say above..unfortunately some or most people have NO idea as to just what a tsunami of blood will swamp humanity when the conflict comes into the light.

Open wars are bad enough but this will be a war of ideology, and a mixture of internal and external struggles and NO internal struggle is clean.

I said elsewhere about 20 years ago that the concentration camps and the Nazi genocide were NOT an aberration but an example of " the resumption of normal service" in the history of mankind. I was aware of the islamic problem then but little did I know it would foment into open conflict so quickly in my lifetime.

Until recently(late 16th century in the west) the standard way to conquer a territory was to kill all of the adult males and old or ugly women, to take the childrsn and the attractive women as slaves and to leave any remnants to starve or prostitute themselves to survive. Islam added one of its poetic twists by converting young christian children into fanatical islamic trops to kill their own kind (janissaries). The aim used always genocide and resettlement unless they meekly surrender. Then it is conquerors genes as they still enslave and kill but just in smaller numbers unless conversion occurs.

This IS a struggle to the DEATH. Make no doubt about it. Millions will be massacred on both sides. Ethics will be exploited as a weakness and only the strong and the determined will win.

We currently have NO leader who has the foresight and the willpower to do what is already necessary: DEPORT all Muslims.

Islam however has virtually hundreds, if not thousands of people who know EXACTLY what has to be done(kill or enslave us) and how to do it.

We are really in trouble and although I am proud of the western ethical trardition, it will destroy us.

Many forget that christianity and its concurrent ethics was what helped to undermine both Roman empires as the resistance to slavery and barbarism in christian Rome in particular weakened its affluence, its resolve and its military strength considerably
(Interested please note this is NOT and advocation for slavery to be re-introduced)

The whole BNP debate here is a storm in a teacup IMO as eventually we may even need such to survive.

I do understand interested's view but as she has never seen war close up her ideals run her and that is what is killing the west.

Televison...I have no idea as I am NOT a counterinsurgency expert but any ally is not to be sneered at, unless proven worthless and in this case as I have ALREADY said, it IS quite possible. However to attempt an answer I would guess at: fake conversion( a very good area s they LOVE converts), surveillance and a whole host of nonlegal( and hence impossible by government agents) but very necessary espionage tactics.

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 2:25 AM

television quote;"My point is theoretical, substantiated by history: the West can do what it takes to defeat this new enemy without succumbing to fascism. "

I do not see in any way how the accepting of the BNP as a possible ally can be construed as "succumbing to fascism".

By this logic the UK being allied to the USSR after june 1941 would have succumbed to communism.

I do not think that the British are stupid enough or ignorant enough to ever let the BNP ever be more than just a bunch of neonazi wouldbes *cringes*. ther are always peripheral groups like this around in the west and only extreme circumstances enable them to gain power and unless the western Europe does slowly crumble into Eurabia, it is very unlikely.

However, if eurabia does happen then you will see a very big swing towards such groups with the expected result.

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 2:46 AM

TV & Zathras

To pick up where I last left off, when I said I agree with somethingaboutislam on his second post, what I was endorsing was totalitarianism, but neither Nazism nor Communism. I do want to avoid endorsing a pre-existing totalitarianism whose credentials in dealing with the Islam problem is suspect. Both Nazism and Communism are not just inadequate, but have been allies of Islam, and therefore downright hostile to our goals. Similarly, given what an emotive issue the BNP is, aside from the fact that I don't live in the UK, I've avoided either endorsing or condemning them, particularly given that their credentials in combatting Islam itself has been questioned by Brit posters here.

Therefore, when I say that I believe that a totalitarian entity is the answer, I mean an entity whose existance is centered around anti-Islamic ideology. Under such an ideology, the Shariah would be turned around, and Muslims would be systematically discriminated against. Mass deportations would be one. Forced conversions of native Muslims (assuming converts, or 2nd generation Muslims) would be another. Pass laws that simply take Islamic recommendations on how dhimmis should be treated, and turn it around. If an Infidel girl dates or marries a Muslim male, either break up that marriage, or force the male to convert to the religion of his bride. If an Infidel converts to Islam, sentence him to death unless he recants. Have a discriminatory system that gives Muslim women only half the rights of infidels, and Muslim men only half the rights of Muslim women (turn-about and fair play)... See a pattern here? - You get the idea.

One of the things Interested mentioned above was that the BNP is useless unless they come to power. I wouldn't be so sure. Like I pointed out in my last post, there's no country that has a mainstream political party that recognizes Islam for the threat it is (I believe Likud in Israel, with Netenyahu comes close, but I'm not sure). As a result, none of the countries would take even half measures to counter the threat, and that itself is interpreted as a sign of appeasement (which it really is). All of us know what that leads to. War.

Except that this time, it will mean civil wars, or more likely, internal riots in almost every country. Not merely Muslims vs Infidels, but more likely Muslims + Leftists vs Infidels. This is where the BNP can be handy, just as in India, the Shiv Sena was handy in 1992. Following the demolition of the Ayodhya mosques, Muslims started rioting, and when that got to Bombay, the Shiv Sena rioted back, and after a few days of bloodbath, the Muslims backed off. The one thing the BNP can be counted on to do is riot. It's known that they're unlikely to come to power, so if they are simply posturing as far as their supposed alliance with non-White infidels go, it could limit any collateral damage to any allies the Muslims have. While I'm not endorsing them, that is the only scenario I can imagine where they turn out useful.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 1, 2006 3:58 AM

Infidel Pride...I can agree with most if not all of that post...However,what most people fail to recognise is that a truly 100% mobilised wartime country IS a relative totalitarian state anyway, whether democracy or otherwise.

All you have to do to see this is to look at GB in 39 to 44(by then she was much more relaxed) and even the USA in 42 to 43 and probably past that although I have not looked in detail.

If I remember correctly (always a risk) it is the suspension of habeus corpus which predetermines the onset of totalitarian status although I am really digging into the archives here and thus exposing myself to a barrage.

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 5:18 AM

I must add that I never really saw the BNP as a useful tool vs islam except in an undercover/ espionage role, but you have shown that even their violence can have a role and I never saw that, although I should have.

Again what is often unknown or forgotten was that the the SA's violence was initially in retaliation to the post WW1 communist/left wing inspired violence which tore postwar germany apart and that many of the early SA members were former FreiKorp members used to stamp out the riots in berlin and elsewhere.

This tradition of violence which served them well politically (and it DID) led to the Munich putsch but after that was toned down, pulled away from german authority and focussed upon a target group: the jews.

Having such a group around in a politcally spineless state(most of europe including UK) could be useful BUT only provided it did NOT have a charismatic leader who could draw other support groups in and give it a dominant role as then we would be back to the early 30s days. But as a minor party with physical disruption capacity(ie fighting back but NOT starting fights) they could have a role to play.

* aside: I must be crazy giving Interested another excuse for an endless rolling antiBNP barrage but which has no intention, nor capacity to actually hit a useful target*

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 5:47 AM

I do not see in any way how the accepting of the BNP as a possible ally can be construed as "succumbing to fascism".

By this logic the UK being allied to the USSR after june 1941 would have succumbed to communism.

If we ally ourselves with the BNP we are getting into bed with fascism, because they are fascists. It is as simple as that.

The comparison with the USSR is silly. This was a different country, and communists within the UK were not encouraged at the time.

A better comparison would be the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. By many this was seen as a way of defeating communism, seen then as the greater of the two evils. OK they had some rather dodgy views about Jews and gypsies, but we can't be fussy about our allies, can we? Got to fight fire with fire and all that.

I note that Dr Pepper has not explained why anything by the BBC and The Times that is critical of Islam, posted by Robert for example, is to believed, but anything by them that is critical of the BNP is to be disbelieved. Neither he nor any of the other BNP supporters - for that is what you all are - has explained the matter of Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, pointing to his white skin and saying "this is what defines me". This has been filmed.

Here are the alternatives:

1. The film was doctored by the evil dhimmi Beeb.

2. He didn't really mean it.

3. Well he's a white supremacist, but so what? Is that such a bad thing?

Somethingaboutislam has honestly come down on the side of Number 3. The rest of you BNP supporters and white supremacists - go on, don't sit on the fence. You won't get banned or anything. Have the courage of your own convictions.

Posted by: Interested at July 1, 2006 6:38 AM

Good evening Interested. Still cannot resist tarring and feathering everyone with the fallout from your obsessive antiBNP campaign here can you?

Quote:The rest of you BNP supporters and white supremacists - go on, don't sit on the fence. You won't get banned or anything. Have the courage of your own convictions

Back on the bandwagon and spraying it in all directions as per usual I see.
I could go on about just how you sound like a lost left wing radical who has tiptoed into this site to observe and then could not control herself over the unanimous and violent very proBNP stance here*sarcasm*. But I will not bother as you very obviously are omniscient and omnivident to such an extent that you know more about myself than even I do although I do find your obsessive projections insulting. However fact has nothing to do with your comments and I now know this. I am at the stage now of almost feeling sorry about your obsession and do hope that you recover soon.

your quote:If we ally ourselves with the BNP we are getting into bed with fascism, because they are fascists. It is as simple as that.

Ahhh yes, of course, that much is obvious.
But do we become fascists ourselves?
That was the pertinent implication of the primary source.I had no idea that it was contagious :)

If you just have a look at the countries in Europe with ACTIVE coalitions in their ruling government, you might have a shock about just who is in bed with whom, as apparently politicians can sleep with anyone( a metaphor btw) and NOT be contaminated.
So I strongly doubt that having the BNP as an ALLY in the war vs islam would do much at all except probably disappoint those with high expectations. They could be useful as only time could tell but we will never know in all probability.

Over to you for the next round of insinuation and insult.

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 7:34 AM

So I strongly doubt that having the BNP as an ALLY in the war vs islam would do much at all .

So why keep plugging them?

I'd be interested to learn from Americans and other arrogant foreigners who seem so eager to tell the English to embrace the BNP, what form they think this coupling should take. Are we all to vote for them? Are we, as some have suggested, to vote for them as a protest against the main parties? Or are we to encourage them to go and beat up Muslims - if they get a few Hindus in the process, that's just too bad - we can't be too fussy, now can we?

Posted by: Interested at July 1, 2006 7:58 AM

Interested, a quote:"So why keep plugging them?"

Because: 1) in a free society they have a right to exist whether you like them or not and on the danger scale they are miniscule when compared to islam .
2) because a certain unnamed individual here keeps making deluded or paranoid insinuations which I find insulting and who does this in the name of answering points of discussion..

Interested, a quote:"I'd be interested to learn from Americans and other arrogant etc etc ad infin."

That is precisely the point isn't it? you have a an parochial obsession with the BNP which drowns out your capacity to see the "big picture" where these thugs could possibly be useful in a war versus a much more lethal enemy: islam.

As you are so blinded by your obsession you feel that you have a right to condemn anybody who offers a comment on them about which you disagree, along with insults about how we are foreigners who know nothing.

Just how do you know that we know nothing? maybe some of us were born and lived there. Maybe some of us were bullied by BNP, the NF or the BNP as youngsters but still see Islam as a far greater threat.

I also find you calling someone else "arrogant" to be rather ironic as almost your every post oozes sarcasm and arrogance. However, even though you are very annoying and quite deluded about some things, I can see the humorous side of our interaction.

Over to you!! But do ease off during the football so I can, at least, watch it in peace :)

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 8:45 AM

in a free society they have a right to exist whether you like them or not

Indeed. And yes, they are not as much of a threat as Islam. But why plug them?

Islam and the BNP are two different kinds of fascism. We do not need the latter to fight the former.

Americans and other foreigners who, with no direct experience or knowledge, tell us what to do, get on my nerves. I don't tell Americans and other foreigners to get into bed with their own brand of fascism - it is not my place to do so.

If Americans and other foreigners do have direct experience of the BNP - for example they were present at a meeting and have heard them renounce their white supremacism - then I would be interested to hear from these foreigners. I would not assume that they were lying, as they assume about Granny W and myself.

Neither you, nor the other foreign BNP apologists have any comment to offer on the film of Nick Griffin defining himself by his skin colour.

I would be interested to know if you, the Americans and other foreign BNP fans find this acceptable.

Posted by: Interested at July 1, 2006 8:59 AM

Interested rssumes normal service:"Indeed. And yes, they are not as much of a threat as Islam. But why plug them?"

See above

"Islam and the BNP are two different kinds of fascism. We do not need the latter to fight the former"

Rubbish!! Comments like that will doom us as that sort of view will reject communism as an ally.
business

"Neither you, nor the other foreign BNP apologists have any comment to offer on the film of Nick Griffin defining himself by his skin colour."

What has that to do with anything that I have said? Your obsession continues while I could not be bothered to watch it.
If the Klu Klux Klan went antiIslam I would not reject this out of hand.

I hope that you can speak Arabic as you cannot see the islamic wood for the BNP trees and with allies like you God help us!!.

Circular motion... the act of returning to the same place constantly.
How about you answer your posts yrself from what I have already said as I am sick of repeating.It is like training a parrot.

But wait!! That is exactly what you want isn't it. The famous LAST WORD!!

over to you

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 9:19 AM

If the Klu Klux Klan went antiIslam I would not reject this out of hand.

OK, that's all I need to know.

I'm still wondering, though, how exactly we are to ally ourselves with the BNP, as you wise people from the other side of the Atlantic say we should.

Should we vote for them?

Should we go to BNP meetings and tell them to beat up Muslims?

What exactly?

Posted by: Interested at July 1, 2006 9:25 AM

The leadership of the BNP are gay or bi, including Griffin, yet they are homophobic. Their antimoslem campaign is just a very convenient way for them to whip up racist sentiment. They may seem like allies in that they take the same position as us on Islam, but we take that position from a point of higher moral ground. Many of those who's eyes are opened to Islam by the BNP's campaign will thus be bolstered in their beliefs that all non-whites are a threat to Britain's sovereignity.

Griffin says that, for example Black Britons should be treated with respect and equality, but that they should be offered incentives to relocate to Africa...!

My Black freinds and neighbors are British in every conceivable way. Their families have been here for generations. Some descend from slaves, others from immigrants from old colonies who in particular were responsible for much of the post-war rebuilding and refurbishment of our national infrastructure, our public buildings, schools, motorways, the tube system and railways etc. etc. Yet Griffin says they are no more British than a dog born in a stable is a horse! It's a common fallacious analogy that completely denies the fact our Black citizenery has done immesurably more for Britain than any member of the BNP or any of their precursors.

And yet, if we were to veiw the BNP as ideological allies, we would be allying ourselves with the notion that Black Britons are somehow less British than the rest of us, and that for the benefit of the nation they should be offered "repatriation".

I suspend the word "repatriation" because I believe if me and a fellow, Black, Briton were dropped in the middle of the savannah we'd probably die at roughly the same rate...

Likewise Asian Britons, by and large, are as British as I am. And Jews, SE Asians and every other non-caucasion Britons. All are threatened by the BNP's anti-Islamic "awareness campaign".

They're basically Nazis. Some openly admit that they worship Hitler like some people worship Christ. How can we lambast the openly Nazist aspirations and admirations of the Moslems in our midst, while condoning the Nazist-motivated anti-Islamic policies of our own de facto Nazi party?

Fascism is either right or wrong. No niggling, no exceptions, no compromises with evil, please! We're all decent right-thinking people, so lets not advocate an openly racist party. Islam is anti-everyone else, ANYBODY who isn't moslem is a target of this ideology, that doesn't mean they're all gonna be people we need to be supporting. A vote for the BNP is a vote for racism, intolerance and fascism... and perhaps above all hypocrisy.

Posted by: Animus at July 1, 2006 10:10 AM

sorry interested but you take NO notice of the points of debate.Nothing new there in 20 or so posts.

You read the posts so accurately and so comprehensively that you totally missed it when I mentioned the Klu Klux Klan several posts ago.
(12.50 am july 1st)
I was surprised then when you ignored the bait then, so i repeated it just for you.

So your timing is a little late.
But your rsponse was oh so predictable.

Admit it!! you dont really read the posts. you just glance at them and jump to your foregone conclusion already present due to your obsession.

Why do you have this dire need to accuse people ?
Have you always been this paranoid?
If you yourself( I know about yr jewish boyfriend) have been attacked by a BNP thug or KKK thug then I offer my condolences. But that still would not stop me from considering ANY group as an ally vs islam. You just do not get it do you?

you remind me of a bull and a red flag..no reason only blind instinct.

However I will still answer your rubbish.

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 10:12 AM

As I said in my last post - the one before Animus' eloquent criticism of the BNP - what form should our alliance take?

If I accept that we should form such an alliance, and after all, you Canadians and Americans know best, how, in practical terms, should we go about this? Should we vote for them? Go to their meetings? I'm not sure my boyfriend would be welcome there. Maybe I should ditch him.

Come on - a few practicalities, please. You know best, after all.

Posted by: Interested at July 1, 2006 10:23 AM

Interested it is only a theoretical discussion here and I have no idea of the practicalities or even if it is possible. All I meant was that I see our situation with islam to be so dire that we might be forced to ally ourselves with anybody to survive.

Because of your personal experiences(via yr boyfriend) you hate the BNP and I do totally understand that as I had a lot of bullying as a child(went to many different schools) and I also HATE bullying and I hate those who do it. BUT I would form an alliance with my worst enemy(including old bullies like jimmy Mclaughlin who put a cigarette out on the dorsum of my hand and I still have the 2 cm scar) if I thought it would help the war versus islam. that is how bad i think the situation is.

Now do you get it?

It isn't personal or racist or anything but simple politicomiltary pragamatism in what is a war to the death.

Do we have peace at last?

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 10:44 AM

@Zathras... and all BNP rednecks comming out of the closet:

No i'm not returning, i'm just here coz Granny mailed me...

First of all Zathras: You, your family, community has aboslutely no history of facing Islam. As a Maratha the hatred and suspicion of Islam is genetic in me. We've fought Muslims for over 800 years right from the brink of complete extermination. Even BNP cant erase that. The point is you dont fight Islam by commenting on blogs and forums. You dont fight jihad by educating ignorant rednecks. I dont agree, JW doesnt even make a dent on the dhimmitude that abounds in Western world. It is precisely because of people like you.

@Infidel Pride: So if you were in Mumbai as a Bengali would you vote for Shiv Sena??? Even tough i am a Maharashtrian i dont support this Maharashtrian flavour of BNP.

the Shiv Sena was handy in 1992. Following the demolition of the Ayodhya mosques, Muslims started rioting, and when that got to Bombay, the Shiv Sena rioted back,

Shiv Sena rioted only BECAUSE Maharashtrians were murdered by Muslims. You cant simply mass-murder Maharashtrians in the heart of Maharashtra and get away with it. Maharashtrian pride demanded it. To put it they would have started the pogrom even if it had been non-Muslims. It was our hour of madness...

Lastly for all its coverage, IP even 90% Indian jehad stories arent reported here.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at July 1, 2006 11:03 AM

Do we have peace at last?

OK. I don't agree with you, though.

Posted by: Interested at July 1, 2006 11:08 AM

Just looked in during half time.
Animus - eloquent indeed and I can't add to what you say.
Vikrant - the argument has gone way beyond my ignorance of currently popular musical trends and the standing or otherwise of Aki Nawaz in that field.
Otherwise I will continue to persevere with the flyer campaign, to inform public opinion.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 1, 2006 11:55 AM

The final analysis is that people like Interested are essentiallyt on the Left. Which is their right (pun intended). But it makes for an uncomfortable position when the fight of the 21st century is against islamic imperialism and the multicultural ethos that created this monster.

Being on the right, makes the solution so much clearer and easier. Kick them all out, return England to the more racially homogenous society it was for 1000 years and the problem corrects itself. This solution however, is not acceptable to liberals and especially not to anyone on the Left, or anyone who is Hindu, anyone who is black, anyone who once had a boyfriend who supposedly was punched. For those people, they have a personal beef against such a solution. And their personal beefs come first. If one was punched by a BNP supporter while still yet having to be punched by a muslim, then the muslim doesn't look quite as bad. Until the beheadings start. Then we must compare apples to apples.

Ultimately, for these people, simple solutions don't work because they don't take into account the nuances required to fight islam without stepping on the toes of other people, because to those people, respecting the toes of other people is more important than all other considerations.

In this clash of civilizations, however, I say the two considerations are not even close. We are going to have to step on the toes of lots of people to settle this in our favor. Fascism, however you want to define it, is just a tool, not an ideology. Like any tool, it can be used for good or bad. It's just a hammer. And the time has come to use such a hammer to smash islam domestically and the multicultural and legal ethos that empowers it.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 1, 2006 12:05 PM

Vikrant...the cavalry arrives :)..had you phrased your post somewhat differently I would have welcomed your return as apparently you are thought very highly of here.

But,although I agree about my lack of experience in combat with islam, I have had some little elsewhere and while I compliment you on the tenacity of your group in surviving in the face of Islam, do you really think that turning up to just snipe and run will help?

I made a comment about you and I will repeat it:

Firstly your parthian shot as posted by someone:

"i’m no longer associated with JihadWatch those imbelic BNP supporting rednecks...Most posters there are down right racists. JW these days sounds more like LGF and FR…"

Then my comment:

That is a pathetic reason if I ever heard one.

I am no BNP supporter but if they ever decide that only Islam IS the enemy and act accordingly I do doubt that we are so far ahead in this war that we can reject them as allies.

With due respect to each individual having his own agenda I am sure that I can disagree with the stance of probably 90% here if we go into the detail but that is NOT why we are here . We are here to be united versus islam and to discuss our concerns.

Erudite or not his decision to leave is akin to a childish "spitting the dummy" tantrum and it is obvious to myself that Islam is regarded by him as a lesser threat than the BNP, which is total rubbish.
..................................................
Now that was my opinion then and it still is now.
However just how you deduce that I am a BNP supporter because i am a pragmatist is beyongd me. But then so much of the debate here about what I have said about the BNP however indirectly seems to be based upon emotion not upon fact or even logic.

I do resent being called a BNP supporter or a cryptofascist or whatever variation you wish to use. However it is obvious to myself that I and my opinions are worthless in your eyse(have you read all of my posts?) and so why should I give a care what you think or say? Why do you think that being of nonwhite descent gives you a right to call those with whom you disagree, racists? we don't all look down upon our fellow man, nor do we mistreat or insult him.

I am amazed at the haute pique of some people who think that as only they have been exposed to racism and only they have been insulted by members of other races that they can go around calling anyone who does not agree with their view of life, a racist.

From what others have said here it did initially seem a pity that you left JW but now I am exposed to your contempt and your insults I am glad that you have gone and I do not care why. In fact with an attitude like yours we are doomed.

My whole position has been that we are NOT winning the war versus islam and right or wrong it is my OPINION that we cannot reject any group who offer to fight with us no matter what their past and that includes the BNP.

BTW if we do not cover Indian jihad stories here we should..please forward an English site which does do this.

Interested...I did not expect you to agree with me and I wasn't even trying to convince you to do so. I was merely trying to explain my view, incorrect or not, to you. Thank you for accepting the olive branch.

So while you are here, are there anymore insults that you would like to throw at me before you go?
I do expect no reply.

I only bother with all of this as I think it important but the attitude of some of the people I have been dealing with here really frightens me as does their interpretation of my almost basic english and neither of these comment have anything to do with race, colour or religion.

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 12:13 PM

I made a paragraph mistake!!(football on TV )
Mea culpa and apologies

Interested... the paragraph directed at you should have been on the bottom. please disregard those underneath it as they are directed at Vikrant.

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 12:17 PM

are there anymore insults that you would like to throw at me before you go?

Yes. Wayne Rooney's been sent off and it's all your fault.

Posted by: Interested at July 1, 2006 12:29 PM

Hmmm I am seething over that one and I may just become an antiportugese(see Ronaldo's academy award fall? )bigot for a day or so.

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 12:38 PM

WANTED: Vikrant_Camberleykar . age unknown, sex male, race Indian...last seen in the vicity of Granny Fairweather's house...thought to be involved in an alleged hit and run incident with the addition of attempted character assasination.

this man is dangerous as anyone who comes near and who say the word BNP are immediately verbally attacked. so beware!!

Anyone seeing this person please contact rednecks, bigots and racists united c/o JW

we still have a chance(tottenham supporter although I am sure that now labels me as a jew ...redneck jew...hard to picture it).

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 12:57 PM

Interested,

"I note that Dr Pepper has not explained why anything by the BBC and The Times that is critical of Islam, posted by Robert for example, is to believed, but anything by them that is critical of the BNP is to be disbelieved."

1) If you're really interested in the pedagogical effect of the Jihad Watch comments section, you wouldn't persist in your silly habit of calling me "Dr Pepper", since that would disorient all those thin-skinned non-whites whose hypersensitive sensibilities you worry about (who when they see a particular poster merely presuming to wonder if the BNP is as bad as its critics say it is, would leave and never come back), who might be visiting these pages and need to follow the inner threads of the complicated conversations.

2) As for the MSM Spencer uses and the apparent double standard you detect in me: the answer is elemental: in assimilating the stories from virtually all of the MSM sources Spencer quotes from (including The Times -- how British, to capitalize the the! -- and the BBC) which deal with Jihad and Crypto-Dhimmitude, the Jihad Watcher reader has to read between the lines and palpate the more accurate truth from that curious mixture of cleverly Orwellian newspeak and naively botched misinterpretation that characterizes most of MSM reportage on the Problem of Islam (and reportage in the MSM is rarely just-the-facts-ma'am; it is a melange of data and interpretation -- PC multiculturalist interpretation -- that often far exceeds proper reportorial bounds). In dealing with topics like the BNP, on the other hand, the British MSM do not employ this curious mixture at all: they are curiously frontal, direct and clear about how bad the BNP are, without employing the typical euphemisms and hidden equivalency arguments and barely hidden multiculturalist assumptions they use for the Problem of Islam. The problem for the reader with regard to such hot potatoes as the BNP -- where everyone knows that white racism is the worst thing on Earth and that brown people are ontologically incapable of being racist against other darker brown people or against other people from slightly different tribes or clans or against white people -- is that the reader must employ the same between-the-lines tactic he employs for stories in jihad and dhimmitude: he can't take the lines at face value, but for the opposite reason: with jihad/dhimmitude, the lines don't say enough and sufficiently directly about how bad the facts are; with the BNP, the lines suspiciously say too much, too specifically, too directly. The reader must suspect what the MSM are telling him so suddenly and unusually frankly and harshly about the BNP. Why are the elaborate kid gloves suddenly off when treating the BNP, when elaborate kid gloves are almost always on when treating of far uglier and far more evil activities perpetrated by Muslims? No, one cannot trust the MSM to deliver truth: one must take tedious trouble to read between the lines, above the lines, below the lines, behind the lines -- everywhere but the lines as they present themselves in black and white.

Posted by: Television at July 1, 2006 1:17 PM

My condolences to England. Penalty shoot-outs to decide a team sport is a crock, and the reason why soccer doesn't have much of a following in North America, where we play, team on team, until one side messes up - as in hockey. We don't resort to the insult of penalty kicks to decide a game that is so evenly matched and hard fought for 90 minutes. That is what happens when a system cops out and resorts to the easy way of resolving a battle. Kind of like with islam. I hope England doesn't resort to penalty kicks to decide the fate of Great Britain.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 1, 2006 1:55 PM

@Infidel Pride: So if you were in Mumbai as a Bengali would you vote for Shiv Sena??? Even tough i am a Maharashtrian i dont support this Maharashtrian flavour of BNP. the Shiv Sena was handy in 1992. Following the demolition of the Ayodhya mosques, Muslims started rioting, and when that got to Bombay, the Shiv Sena rioted back, Shiv Sena rioted only BECAUSE Maharashtrians were murdered by Muslims. You cant simply mass-murder Maharashtrians in the heart of Maharashtra and get away with it. Maharashtrian pride demanded it. To put it they would have started the pogrom even if it had been non-Muslims. It was our hour of madness... Lastly for all its coverage, IP even 90% Indian jehad stories arent reported here. Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar

Vikrant

Glad to see you, albeit fleetingly. I thought you did support them, or more precisely, Bal Thackeray, due to some of your relatives being saved during the riots. I stand corrected.

Actually, I did once get a chance to vote Shiv Sena in Pune in the state elections in 1991-92, and abstained. I'm not sure I'd do that today, if I were a voter there - I could well vote for them, despite my being Marathi challenged. But in the national election just some months earlier that same year, I voted for their BJP allies. Note that the secular non-Congress coalition had just split from them, due to the SS alliance. But that didn't stop me from supporting the BJP, although that support didn't percolate to the Shiv Sena at the time, and I in fact was unhappy about such an alliance. Not any more.

To the extent that the Shiv Sena is a regional party that wants to exclude non-Marathas, I do have reservations about them. But in that regard, they are no different from other regional parties elsewhere in India, like the AIADMK, Akali Dal, Telegu Desam, et al, excepting that those other parties aren't Hindutva advocates. Also, the Shiv Sena has been growing modestly elsewhere in India, like Jammu, and you can be sure they aren't advocating Maratha supremacy, or becoming a cult following of Thackeray. When I worked in Baroda for 6 months, they were also the main union that ensured that we got paid our salaries/wages on time, since the employer was floundering financially.

I don't agree that 1992 was our hour of madness. By doing what they did, the Shiv Sena showed the Muslims their place, just as Gujratis showed them their place after Godhra, and Narendra Modi showed them what to expect from law enforcement. You are right - if Hindus from say, TN or AP had started mass murdering Marathis, the Shiv Sena would have retaliated. But South Indians - a favorite hate target of Thackeray from the 70's - didn't and don't target marathis, so the prejudice that Thackeray has against them is completely unjustified. Also, his statements supporting the holocaust in a TIME magazine interview in 1992, and his release of a book glorifying Hitler (totally glossing over Hitler's connections with Jerusalem grand Mufti Feisal Husseini) are the reasons I loathe him. Of course, today, with the Shiv Sena having split, such a discussion is moot. I do wish Raj Thackeray picks up the major support, drops all anti-non-Islamic references, and carries on, but I havent followed Shiv Sena politics since the split.

Also, those who do know Maratha history do admire and almost worship Shivaji Maharaj, Tanaji Mulasare, Peshwa Baji Rao I and (for those who know) Chinmaji Appa. But what's one to make of your comment? How does the fact that they faced military threats from the Moghuls and trounced them have anything to do with what the BNP is doing today?

You are right - Muslims don't get confronted by posting on blogs. But that's like suggesting that everyone who posts here should leave his/her computer, get an arsenal, and start vigilante operations against Muslims wherever they live (almost like the BNP, or the Shiv Sena).

I don't know how many posters here have politics as their full time profession - I don't. But like Hugh has often pointed out, this is a pedagogic site. All of us "anti-Muslim fanatics" can get together, and exchange information about what Muslims have done throughout history, and even today. You said that we don't fight Jihad by educating "ignorant rednecks". But that way, anti-Islamic people here remain "ignorant rednecks", anti-Islamic people in India remain "Langots", anti-Islamic people in Israel are what? Apes and Rats? All of us anti-Muslim fanatics tend to be seen as narrow minded xenophobes, interested only in our own miniscule communities. But the moment we come to a certain place and exchange notes and support, you think it's a worthless exercise in the campaign against Islam? How exactly do you propose that one fight the Jihad?

As for JihadWatch coverage of events in India, I agree that it's thin. However, how do you know that 90% of Jihadi or Dhimmitude activity in India goes unreported here? Are there consistent sources you can point us to, so that we can visit often, and maybe have linked to Jihadwatch's links? Assuming you are right, the 10% that does get reported far exceeds what gets reported in the Indian media, outside, say, Marathi newspapers like Samna.

Last question - since you've seen both, do you think that the BNP is more or less benign than the Shiv Sena?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 1, 2006 2:01 PM

By that definition he is just as bigoted as those whose name he likes to use to abuse others and this is unfortunately very common in this PC climate. Any value his posts could have had has been totally undermined by this episode and as he has failed to reply as expected I say "good riddance " to him and i hope that his bigotry keeps him happy.

Now one thing is quite clear, Vikrant did NOT read all of this postline as he would not have said what he said. I knew this which was why I repeated what I had said.

So that means that he was given a summary of the nefarious actions of the "proBNP" enthusiasts by none other than" granny Fairweather who while adding fuel to the debate managed to escape any responsibility for insults.

Now I have ALWAYS treated Granny and her posts withy respect due to her perceived age and the fact that her posts are usually informative and non-abusive, although her stance on the BNP is quite clear and good for her.

However, it is apparent to me that my demonstrated goodwill to her has not been reciprocated by her and that she has given Vikrant her summary of what I am supposed to have said and who I am supposed to be, and he has fed from this bowl of LIES.

So, Granny any credibility or respect that I have given to you is now withdrawn and you are no better than any of the bigots that you claim to loathe. The fact that you were too cowardly to do naught but allow Vikrant to be your mouthpiece is even more reprehensible.

I have noticed one behavioural trait of the leptodermic PC crowd and that is that they NEVER admit fault and they NEVER apologise. In many ways they are almost as bad as those they criticise except that they only use verbal attacks and character assassination but never put it into physical violence.That is the only difference as they are just as bigoted in their way as any fascist group

I am quite disappointed with you granny but then, so would be many people who followed this postline.

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 6:54 PM

oops I failed to copy the top 8 lines which I add below...my apologies but i have had only 3 hrs sleep.

This is directed at Granny Fairweather as it has troubled me for a couple of hours:

Vikrant's brief hit/run episode here where he jumped in and slandered me and then jumped out has shown me that he is a child with a severe case of leptoderma and that he applies the tar brush of bigotry without looking at the source material. He may well have good reason for his antiBNP stance but he has NONE for insulting me

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 6:57 PM

If you're really interested in the pedagogical effect of the Jihad Watch comments section, you wouldn't persist in your silly habit of calling me "Dr Pepper"...

Television, I am really "interested" and you are really "dr pepper".

Well aren't you? Is you is or is you ain't?

Nobody else combines white supremacist politics with jargon about adumbrating the eschatological penumbra.

You is, ain't you?

And yes, we lost. But it's not the winning, it's playing the game. Onward and upward.

Posted by: Interested at July 1, 2006 7:36 PM

Interested

In my view I am glad that Ericsson is leaving although I have grave doubts that his replacement will be any good either. Mclaren is a good average club manager but only that.

The decision to choose Walcott who has looked like a "rabbit in the headlights" (ie talented but with NO confidence) was an exampke of crass stupidity and is not worthy of the name "gamble".

As I am THFC supporter I will pass on the North London paranoid times theory:

The FA wanted Wenger(manager of Arsenal) but Dein(Chairman of Arsenal and on the FA committee) on the committee blocked this by refusing to vote for it. Dein kept(not unsurprisingly) pushing for Scolari who even denied interest. This lead to the farcical roundabout we had with the choosing of the next England manager.

Dein was exposed as a conspirator(over the Wemger bit) because Ericsson opend his mouth and told the committee(inadvertently) so and thus Dein's credibility went totally "down the spout" with the FA. However Dein was under quite a bit of pressure at Arsenal as the fact that there is only rarely an England player in the side(Campbell or Cole) has embarrassed someone who claims to be an English club. That is why he allowed the purchase of Walcott who while talented is totally unproven in the EPL. Dein was under great pressure from his own board to justify the purchase of Walcott.

So as it was his his friend Ericsson who had also put him "on the spot" with the FA, he ajudged that it was his responsibility to help him out with the Arsenal board. hence his picking of a totally useless walcott over Bent, Defoe or Johnson.
This "old chums" decision IMO has cost England dearly and you can place it at the door of Arsenal.

However once the rest of the FA board worked out what Dein had been doing he was "kicked off" the FA board and replaced by another. Far too late IMO.

Is this true? No idea. But it IS a theory which fits the otherwise unrelated facts fairly well.

Still awaiting a response from Granny but I really do not expect one going by past performances as this topic will be allowed to die here but I will not forget.

Posted by: Zathras at July 1, 2006 11:35 PM

Interested,

"Television, I am really "interested" and you are really "dr pepper".

Well aren't you? Is you is or is you ain't?"

What I meant was, you've spent a lot of time and trouble making sure that new visitors are properly disabused of the impression they might get that white racists support this forum; your fitful references to me as "Dr Pepper" would only serve to confuse those new visitors as they might try to navigate this complexly threaded conversation here (that is, if such visitors you worry about are predisposed to read that carefully). You should at least add "Television" in parentheses to minimize that confusion.

"Nobody else combines white supremacist politics with jargon about adumbrating the eschatological penumbra."

Cite one statement I've made that represents my advocacy of white supremacist politics.

Posted by: Television at July 2, 2006 1:02 AM

BTW just in case there is any confusion and this allows an escape excuse, Granny Fairweather = Granny Weatherwax.

The mistake was intentional as the ship only sails in calm weather. The remainder of the time the proxies do the dirty work. Then they too run.

Cowards and inverted bigots of the world unite!!!

NB
an inverted bigot is one who makes such a fuss over certain( in fact) bigotry and prejudice that it becomes an obsession with this person and so it devolves into a search for and a persecution of anyone suspected of POSSIBlE similar bigotry. As their paranoia and their obsession waxes, it becomes a witch hunt where anyone suspected of making even the most innocuous comment related to the initial hate subject becomes a target himself and thus the so called partisan of antibigotry becomes a true bigot herself and thus is no better than those whom she first hated or the BNP's BNP.

If you think that this is rubbish do check up on both the psychology and the history of persecution.

I wish to thank both Vikrant and Granny for showing me such a fine example of this in action.

Posted by: Zathras at July 2, 2006 1:46 AM

Good Morning Zathras, (are you any relation of km by the way, you have views and a relocation from UK to US in common)
I do have a life outside this site you know. I don't have to justify how I spend my day to you. And why I should worry about you taking umbrage I don't know.
But.
I spent yesterday morning spent putting some consciousness raising, truth about Islam literature, around a nearby town. Then I replied to an e-mail from Vikrant discussing Islam Expo and other matters and mentioned, among other matters, this debate here. He is entitled to read the history, you say he did not do so thoroughly enough, that is your opinion, and comment, particularly as he was being talked about in his absence. And I was the person who had mentioned him in the beginning merely as someone who knows more about this sort of music than I.
I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. And I had guessed the misinterpretation of my nickname.

I have not forgotten km's promise to never let the matter die, you have just made the same promise, and whats more you malign my late father's team, the Arsenal.

And as has been seen from the response of the other UK readers here, Animus, Moris2 (a man from my own manor I believe), Greek Gurl, Silvester, profitsbead, if I am elsewhere, doing something practical, and therefore miss you next time, there are others who will carry on the argument.

Now I'm off out again. Good day.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 2, 2006 4:03 AM

Zathras

Why was I under the impression that you are an aussie?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 2, 2006 4:07 AM

Infidel Pride .It is because I am one by birth although I spent a lot of time overseas (mostly UK and a war zone or more).
.
1) Granny I have no idea at all just who km is or was. Sorry to disappoint you. As for views in common please tell me what my views are so I can know just how to answer you..
2) Of course, you do not have to explain your day to me, that is none of my business and I do know that you distribute flyers on Islam and that is excellent. As to what I do that helps the world survive Islam just realise that JW is NOT where I do it and I only log on here regularly when confined to my bedroom for a period. of prolonged illness and extensive boredom. Although this is irrelevant I state this so as to undermine any sneers about just how I waste my time here.

3). I also normally do not talk about people behind their back but I took umbrage over the how and why of Vikrant's last shot at JW as for all of its faults it IS a good site and while, yes some people here do see some good about the BNP I have yet to see ANY ONE attack someone because of their race or colour, although by the very nature if the site any Muslim is theoretically fair game, But even then, most Muslims are allowed a chance to have their say and if reasonable there is no sniping.
(I myself considered leaving JW as I was sick of wasting so much time combating evangelists here but decide that it was myopic and childish to do so. So I knew from where Vikrant was coming and to me it mean that his prejudices overwhelmed his fears).

Vikrant’s opening salvo was entirely hostile to me personally and to JW. I quote:
@Zathras... and all BNP rednecks comming out of the closet:
No i'm not returning, i'm just here coz Granny mailed me...
Now I do NOT believe for one second that Vikrant read ALL of my posts as they are over numerous and as I have a heavy style, not easy to read. I know this as I have had to backtrack here often to see exactly how I phrased a point and it took no mean effort to do so. In addition if he was not already of a prejudgemental mindset and he HAD read ALL of my posts then he would have known exactly what I meant and where I was at and three would have been NO need for personal insults.

So assuming that he has normal English comprehension, just WHY did he jump in and start insulting me in this very specific and BNP discussion related way? I had criticised his Parthian shot it is true but that hardly labels me a “redneck”. It was as if he had been briefed on me and my supposed views by someone much more active in the post line. And that it was you was the only conclusion possible and this was semi verified by his above line. Hence my shot at you for using a proxy as you had not attacked me directly and I do admit that I am totally aware of that..

Now assuming that you are entirely innocent here, how do you explain his above salvo about which I am very angry still, and especially so as he did it and ran.
He could have called me many things for criticising his departural petulance but not a BNP redneck.
So from where did he get that idea?
I have almost never (certainly never from memory) mentioned them on JW before although I do remember them in the UK as the NF who I think grew out of the defunct BNP of the ?70s or 60s.
So, unless he read it he must have been briefed. But if he read it all just hpw could he reach such a stupid conclusion?
The only other possibility is that he jumped in like a fool shouting BNP and hitting in all directions because of his past experiences on JW. But then how did he know my name?
So that is why my comment were also directed at you..

4) When I say that I will remember I simply mean that no longer is there any benefit of the doubt and that any snipe will be answered directly. If you do recall, I said that I had not seen such in your posts so I would not be too worried if I were you as I do not go around making first strikes, but I will defend others here, JW and myself. From what I see to be unnecessary comments.

5) my late father was a THFC supporter and although hate is a strong word I just wish that the Woolwich Gypsies would trundle back to South London where they belong. and…(best not to say)

6) I answered Animus and Infidel pride and there was no rancour and no real problem as far as I know. My position is and was still quite clear and that we are scarcely in the position to rejects any potential ally no matter how repulsive.

How that makes me a redneck I will never know but the pc ideology of the so called professional “antiracists” never allows mistakes to be admitted and never allows apologies to be given and quite honestly I rate people like this as only just above true racists in that they are JUST as bigoted and just as verbally violent but fortunately not always physically so. But if you look at the venom output and the hostility index there isn’t much difference and now that I have experienced it from both directions I am certain.

Posted by: Zathras at July 2, 2006 5:37 AM

Zathras there is no need to be touchy about the redneck remark... You are right i didnt read all your posts... didnt consider it worth my time. I was born in one of those mill-and-mosque towns of Northern Midlands.. I've faced BNP/NF racism first hand.... No amount of justification would lead me into supporting them. Thats all i gotta say. As i am a person who sticks to his principles, i feel it necessary to un-suscribe to JW/DW given the heavily partisan nature of the comments here.

Adios

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at July 2, 2006 1:51 PM

I agree with Zathras' assessment of the psychology and tactics behind the the pc ideology of the so called professional “antiracists".

The psychology and tactics we see here, in microcosm, on the part of Granny, Interested, Animus and Vikrant (I may have left out a couple more) is virtually the same psychology & tactics by which the West became PC-dominated after confronting and defeating in WWII the horrors of Nazism and Fascism (and in the USA, more directly related to the sociocultural convulsions of the 1960s). In a nutshell, this psychology is this:

We are so afraid of the recidivist "slippery slope" into the darkness of Nazism and Fascism, and beyond that the darkness of our evil Colonial Heritage, that we will hereby impose, in socio-politico-cultural and legal terms, an Iron Paradigm upon society that will forever prevent any slipping down that horrible slope to that horrible abyss of Racism, Colonialism and Hierarchical Authoritarianism, by carving in stone the necessity for erring in the opposite direction.

Champions of this new paradigm then concretize "erring in the opposite direction" in various ways, including such tactics as behaving in fascistically intolerant ways (as Zathras noted) against anyone who might suggest a hint of the slighest odor of racist perspiration.

(Other ways this new paradigm is concretized can be much worse, such as having solidified in place, after the concrete of PC multiculturalism has hardened into stone, the socio-politico-cultural protection of Muslims and Islam principally because most of them are non-Westerners and non-whites and wear cool ethnic clothes -- their ideology being off-limits to substantive criticism for no other reason, and this reason based, again, on the Iron Paradigm that has been imposed as a visceral reaction against the horrors of WWII as well as the profoundly anti-Colonialist self-recriminations which were part of the Cultural Revolution of the 60s. The West's predominant inability to rationally separate racism from anti-Islamism is fueled, in great part, by precisely the same kind of psychology intolerant of degrees and distinctions evinced by Granny, Interested, et al. here.)

Posted by: Television at July 2, 2006 1:58 PM

Granny, Interested, Animus and Vikrant

Well, Dr Pepper, what do we four have in common apart from our surrender to the Leftist memic penumbra or whatever you call it? Something that you don't have.

It isn't difficult. Go on - have a bash.

Clue: BRITISH National Party.

Posted by: Interested at July 2, 2006 3:08 PM

Y'all haven't surrendered to the Leftist penumbra, since you wouldn't be as critical of Islam if you had. What your intellectual thuggery demonstrates is that the penumbra is not "monolithic".

Posted by: Television at July 2, 2006 7:38 PM

Yeah, right.

Posted by: Interested at July 2, 2006 7:45 PM

Vikrant’s quote:Zathras there is no need to be touchy about the redneck remark... You are right i didnt read all your posts... didnt consider it worth my time. I was born in one of those mill-and-mosque towns of Northern Midlands.. I've faced BNP/NF racism first hand.... No amount of justification would lead me into supporting them. Thats all i gotta say. As i am a person who sticks to his principles, i feel it necessary to un-suscribe to JW/DW given the heavily partisan nature of the comments here. Adios.
.................................................
Vikrant: "Zathras there is no need to be touchy about the redneck remark"
.....
Well I am sorry to say it but that is one of the most hypocritical statements that I have read here. You can abuse me by calling me a racist (which IS what redneck means) based upon absolutely NO evidence and yet you leave here because someone somewhere said something positive (I have no real idea) about the BNP. In addition, you attempt to mollify but without even the decency of an apology which you have shown to be necessary as you admit to not reading my posts and therefore either shooting at random or at granny’s briefing. You have just behaved exactly as I predicted in my last post.

Now I am very sorry about your past experiences with UK thuggery of the BNP kind but I have been shot at and wounded because of the colour of my skin, I have been spat upon, abused and had faeces thrown at me by people whose prime motivation was my race(there is more)and I do not find the racist card or the antiracist an excuse for this sort of comment especially when blind.

Imagine how you would feel if I called you a "curryhead" or whatever antiIndian comment is now fashionable in the midlands? I would have been kicked off JW by Hugh.
But because you are Indian you are allowed to insult me and to get away with it. I am no leptoderm normally but when the pc crowd insinuate that I am a racist after my experiences, I see red.
The fact is that the dreaded pc antiracist double standard is endemic here also but I guessed that when I first posted here.

If you stick to your principles then where are humility and apology for wrongdoing?
Or don’t they go that far? I have made apologies here multiple times when I have made a mistake and upset someone.

As for unsubscribing due to the partisan nature of comments, I have just been put through a grinder here(requiring well over 20 posts) because I had the honest pragmatic view of life to say that PERHAPS we should not reject the BNP as an ally if they make antiIslam their main ticket. I said this not because I have a crush on the BNP or condone any of their acts but because of just how bad I find the situation in the EU with regards to islam.

I have had to fight at the keyboard here for nearly 4 days past a barrage of smug pc antiracist insinuations about myself from people who either have no comprehension skills or who cannot be bothered to actually READ my posts where my view has been quite clearly set out from the start.

Let us see just what principles you do have.

Posted by: Zathras at July 2, 2006 11:42 PM

Television..whether you are or are not Dr Pepper is irrelevant in my opinion.
I do remember his posts and how Hugh's decorum listed severely upon their presence, although I could see no reason for this but as I have had several "run-ins" with Hugh myself Dr Pepper has my sympathy.

Like a normal human being with no axe to grind (Islam apart) I judge you here solely by your posts.
My apolgies to you on behalf of those who will not as you have aptly and almost exquisitely defined the how and the why of the pc antiracist crowd which is THE MAIN REASON why islam has such a start in the survival stakes in the EU.

We have unwittingly(on my behalf leastways) found the key to the current EU debacle in the war to survive.

I just wish that some people here would make their priorities more exact with regards to this site as, after, it IS called: JIHAD/DHIMMI WATCH not BNP watch or Fascist watch or commie watch or racist watch or....

I do find any form of racism offensive and equally so when it is directed at me eihter from a serve or a supposed return of service.

I liked your above summary so well I have copied it and with your permission may use it in my own efforts.

Posted by: Zathras at July 3, 2006 12:12 AM

Zathras, thanks for your comments, and feel free to copy whatever you want of mine. Your comments to Vikrant above seem to show that you have "paid your dues" concerning experiencing racism first-hand, and yet you still retain a realistically pragmatic view on the subject vis-a-vis not only the BNP, but more generally the utter bankruptcy of PC anti-racism (which as you know is a travesty in relation to genuine anti-racism). I wonder how Interested and her posse would process all that, without blowing a fuse in their brains? (Apparently, the answer is that they wouldn't take the trouble to process it.)

Posted by: Television at July 3, 2006 1:59 AM

Television ...Thank You

Interested totally OOT but I have to admit to loving your above phrase"leftist memic penumbra"
and yes, I know Dawkins' work right back the "the Selfish gene" publication( I still have a hardcover from the first press run on my bookshelf plus most of his other books).

But PLEASE!!! tell me exactly what you mean by this phrase as I have sat here doing literal and symbolic and metaphorical combinations and I am still at a total loss:

Does it mean left wing ideas of a selfish and shady nature spread by people when they come into contact with others of the same ilk so that a nonethical attitude can infiltrate and subvert a previously ethical group?

This is a genuine question and in no way a resumption of our previous war.

I am a student of language and this phrase really tickles my fancy.

Posted by: Zathras at July 3, 2006 3:10 AM

Zathras

I've stayed largely quiet on the discussion about the BNP, since I assume that the Brit posters here are correct about them in terms of the former not being a genuine ally against Islam. However, after reading Vikrant's missives about you being a redneck, I believe he did the right thing by leaving. While I've generally liked him and enjoyed his contributions here, I'm dismayed to see him resort to such comments, and this isn't the first time. If he thinks that people in the US who post here are no different from the Muslims, he is definitely in the wrong place. And as a fellow Indian, I found his comment embarrassing.

My suggestion to you at this point - let it go. Anybody who doesn't like it here is free to move on, and that decision of theirs needs to be treated as exactly that.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 3, 2006 4:06 AM

Zathras,

The particular phrase "leftist memic penumbra" is a concoction of Interested. I don't even know what "memic" means. I wouldn't use "penumbra" in a technical sense, just in the normal sense it can have of an amorphous influence over somebody or over some culture (literally "shadowing over"). The more technical term I like to use is "nebula". In my use, a nebula is a cohesion of different elements where the elements are combined in complex ways and the overall whole is vague and difficult to pin down, but still exerts unified influences that can be diagnosed and analyzed. Usually, a politico-cultural nebula is just vague enough that it allows critics to deny its existence: such is the nebula of Islam -- vast and complex and with an oh-so wonderful and rich "diversity", yet (as we at JW know all too well) unified in certain important ways. And such is the Leftist nebula, with its own complexity & diversity, but also its overall unified features. I think both these particular nebulas, the Leftist and the Islamic, belong together in a larger "supernebula", Gnosticism. (Though I wouldn't go so far as to say they are formally related -- they just share enough traits with regard to the supernebula as to belong together under its aegis).

Posted by: Television at July 3, 2006 4:22 AM

Infidel Pride...thank you for your concern and your helpful comments.

I do hope that Vikrant doesn't take your intervention as a sign of swaying from the faith and blame you.

As all of our interactiona have been quiet friendly I shall be direct with you.

I have wasted 4 evenings on this and I am not joking I run into this so often, here and elsewhere that I have to make a stand here.

I have a heavily verbose, direct style and barely can spell subtle let alone know its meaning. This does irritate just about everyone eventually.

I once was thrown off a forum because the administrator, who was jewish, acted like an SS gruppenfuhrer in his very rude and sarcastic comments to everyone including myself, and so I said so.

Well....you would have thought that it was me who caused all of the problems..I had described his actions correctly and I had 2 weeks of trying to persuade him and his friends that I was not a neonazi. his comments about me both before and after were disgusting but never once did he apologise. I can repeat similar stories elsewhere.As a behavioural phenomenon it is very common on the internet.

The trouble with people like this is that they carry the torch of self righteous indignation which they think gives them the right to get away with this sort of behaviour while if anyone did it to them there would be hell to pay. They NEVER apologise and they NEVER admit wrongdoing. It seems to be almost a preconditon to being a professional antiracist, and this is irrespective of their own colour or race or even religion. In fact the Muslims are the world's best at it and that comparison is quiet ironic on this site.

I am not picking upon Vikrant because he is Indian,Pakistani, Maldivian, Singaporian. Kenyan or British, but because of what he said and his attitude still. He does get marks however because he was honest enough to return and state his true position. but nought else. But even then he could not resist sarcasm:"You are right i didnt read all your posts... didnt consider it worth my time".

This subject line is dying and I guess that time is running out for any apologies to be made and I know that, that event is what is being counted upon here. Granny will not admit and Vikrant will not apologise. So, I who merely made one pragmatic political comment have to behave as though it was myself who was at fault.

So while I agree that continuing this is quite pointless, what choice do I have? If you allow someone to get away with this sort of thing they will repeat it.That is a universal law.

I do not know Vikrant but I do know that many here regarded him highly and that makes it more the pity that he should be so petty and leave and that is ignoring his attack upon me. This is a good and necessary site and I have about 30 such in my Jihad subfolder and it is the most comprehensive and the best by far.

Similar granny, her antijihad work is open to all to see and I have never seen her attack anyone directly, but it was her phone call that set Vikrnat off on his sniping attack so what does that tell you?

Just imagine what would have happened to me if I had called him some insulting racial name ( I confess that I made up curryhead as I know none).

However with the relentless pull of time you will have your advice followed and with the closing of posts here the curtain will fall but the blood stains will still be there.

However despite it all I do have problems in trying to remember grudges and who induced them.

Posted by: Zathras at July 3, 2006 5:26 AM

telvision ....the phrase: "leftist memic penumbra" may have been made up by Interested but it is full of great potential and really has me "ticking over".

This postline will die soon so I will let it simmer in the back of my mind until I find an appropriate meaning that appeals to me.Then somewhere else, no doubt. I will pass it on to you and her.

Posted by: Zathras at July 3, 2006 5:39 AM

leftist memic penumbra" is a concoction of Interested

Indeed it is. I was taking the mickey out of the jargon, which Peppers Television's posts.

One thing stands out. Opposition to the BNP comes from:

Yours truly
Granny W
Vikrant
Animus
Greek Gurl
Moris2

All these live in Britain and have direct experience, not just of racism but of the BNP and its former incarnation, the National Front.

Support for, excusing of or willingness to form a "strategic alliance" with the BNP comes from those who do not live in Britain, mainly those from across the Atlantic, and who have no direct experience, and little to no knowledge of this organisation.

Regarding the "strategic alliance" of which Zathras is the main advocate, when pressed for details of this, for example, do we vote for them, go to meetings, exhort them to violence against Muslims, he has nothing to say. For someone who claims that his stance is pragmatic, he is strangely short on pragmatism.

I fully understand and sympathise with Vikrant's reaction. It is a natural, visceral disgust at this organisation of racist thugs and at those who would excuse them.

Posted by: Interested at July 3, 2006 5:49 AM

Zathras "redneck" remark was just a jibe more than anything else. Ok you arent the usual blatantly racist/ignorant BNP supporter that throng here these days. I do apologise for my pretty emotional comment (well Rooney had been redcarded afterall at the time i was typing!)... Anyways Zathras incase you dont notice the kind of ignorance about British society exhibited by Americans here is appalling like somethingaboutislam's comments oin this thread wherein he suggests Hindus quit Britain for good of the entire British society. Now Com'on the richest man in Britain is a Hindu so is the 3rd richest guy.This sort of attitude smacks of the intellectual dishonesty. You guys really dont care what jehadis do unless ofcourse it directly affects your country. Hindus are ofcourse only to be used as mere figures whilst citing jehadi activities world wide. I'm accusing you guys of racism here but there sure is a subtle bias against us the third-world-wogs.

Lastly i must the comparisons between BNP and Islam are really unnecessary. Both have crossed acceptable limits of civilty doesnt matter how much. I wasnt the first British-Indian here ( i have been here since Nov 2004) but surely i'm the last. Why have apostate_islam,Zico,NorfolkHindutvadi disappeared into thin air? Go figure...

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at July 3, 2006 5:57 AM

Some priceless gems from somethingaboutislam:

The BNP may not be the most intelligent people, but right now, they are the only party willing to kick out islam from the west.

Yeah right dude, for BNP the west specifically means "England". They wont care if Osama were to bomb Paris or even Dublin (hell they'd help Al-Q in that i reckon)

I have long ago given up any pretenses to political correctness in this matter. Race is a factor for the west. Naturally if I was a Hindu, I wouldn't want to support the BNP. But therein lies the problem. They put their racial solidarity ahead of the menace of islam to Britain. If Britain has to kick them ALL out, to be fair to ALL, then the Hindus should go as well, for the greater good. I have no problem with that. Then again, I am not Hindu. Do I understand the BNP correctly, now?

It is NOT for YOU to decide whether i should stay in MY COUNTRY or not...

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at July 3, 2006 6:07 AM

Some priceless gems from somethingaboutislam:

The BNP may not be the most intelligent people, but right now, they are the only party willing to kick out islam from the west.

Yeah right dude, for BNP the west specifically means "England". They wont care if Osama were to bomb Paris or even Dublin (hell they'd help Al-Q in that i reckon)

I have long ago given up any pretenses to political correctness in this matter. Race is a factor for the west. Naturally if I was a Hindu, I wouldn't want to support the BNP. But therein lies the problem. They put their racial solidarity ahead of the menace of islam to Britain. If Britain has to kick them ALL out, to be fair to ALL, then the Hindus should go as well, for the greater good. I have no problem with that. Then again, I am not Hindu. Do I understand the BNP correctly, now?

It is NOT for YOU to decide whether i should stay in MY COUNTRY or not...

The moment most Britons vote BNP i'll take a hint and leave. But knowing this beautiful island and its people i daresay it woulnt ever happen.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at July 3, 2006 6:08 AM

Vikrant totally accepted and stay here please as we need you .If only for your knowledge of current music(:)) (poor attempt at being facetious)

Yes it IS easy for non UK residents to belittle the danger of the BNP to nonwhites. I do realise that but my statement was simply one of politico military pragmatism in action and no more. The BNP have an obnoxious reputation and it would take a lot of absolution to be able to accept them, if ever I agree.
We are lucky in Australia but we do have our problems with both (Romper Stomper) but now Islam is totally dominant.(theoretically, if all Muslims here went to Tasmania that state could secede if they all voted)

We also have a very anti-everyone not Muslim bunch of jihadic would be’s on our doorstep(Indonesia) and quite a few of my friends and acquaintances are forced to go there on business and in the towns and even in the villages it is quite apparent that most of them hate Australians whether white, Chinese or Indian
( a common comment was that "the vibes were so bad" and this from adult professionals).

BTW I lived in London for quite some time and travelled often to the midlands and the NW/NE quite a lot. (THFC supporter and in my profession and if you think Indians cop it, Try being a spurs supporter in Brummy after we gave AV a hiding :)I was hit by full bottle of beer (7 sutures to the back of my head next morning) which one of my fellow supporters caught and guzzled on the train home (While I sat there and bled and the constable wanted to take me off at every stop They would have been called skinheads now but I never saw them after we caugh the train.
Television.. I omitted my thanks to you for the data on nebula and penumbra. I hade guessed at the meaning of penumbra here being an overall vagueness of underlying elements (as is a partial shadow) but was unaware of its use in politics and sociology.

Memic is derived from meme: a unit of cultural information that is copied by being transmitted to another person by the senses. Like the famous verbally transmitted speech it can mutate during this copying and metamorphose into something better or worse. it can thus evolve. I thought that it only pertained to ideas but apparently can include physical things such as pottery and music. It also implies a selfishness. In other words, a need to survive at the expense of others like it. I have never come to grips with this part of it.

Even leftist is fraught with danger as it can mean: radical, sinister, freethinking, extreme, undisciplined or even subversive.

Oh well!! I shall drop into the sump of my unconsciousness and hope that something floats to the surface eventually.

Interested.1) I did not say that I was totally FOR an alliance with the BN P (there you go again) I merely said that ANY alliance should be considered on its merits(not those words I admit but certainly that meaning) and if it did prove useful(and I gave you examples of HOW) then perhaps it might even be acceptable...no more than that.
2) I do not care if your use of leftist memic penumbra was meant to be facetious as there is a definitely an intrinsic meaning to it and I am going to find out what it is. I love language although my style here does not show it as I write with exactitude of detail in mind not quality of prose.

Posted by: Zathras at July 3, 2006 6:44 AM

The canard of "intrinsic meaning" has long ago been dismissed as a Barthesian mytheme by the sneerocrats of the intelligentsia.

Posted by: Interested at July 3, 2006 7:04 AM

All right Zathras, I have cousins and a 90 year old aunt living just off White Hart Lane.
Vikrant feels that he was hasty and has apologised. You have accepted. This is good.
I drew him into this in all innocence.

I stand by what I say about the BNP and racism in principle but appreciate your qualification that "I merely said that ANY alliance should be considered on its merits and if it did prove useful...then perhaps it might even be acceptable...no more than that." then I think you realise the strength of opinion that the BNP is not going to be considered useful etc within that remit.

Must go look up Barthesian....is it anything to do with Bark at the Moon.....

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 3, 2006 7:37 AM

ahaaa!! But they are wrong, very wrong at this stage of the phrase's life!!! Which goes to show you just how shallow is their linguistic depth.

When a neologism or a new phrase is first concocted, created, invented , defined, distilled etc it has ONE highly specific meaning. It is a part designed to be one cog in the machine of language and one cog which will fit into one place only. So only shortly after birth and until it is deemed and accepted as useful it only has one meaning: an intrinsic meaning.

But language is a living machine, it changes, it evolves and if that cog is seen as very useful, those who use the machine often try to put that cog into another place to see if it will work there.If it fits, well and good, but it is no longer the same cog. It may look and sound the same but it no longer peforms the same function.
They can fit into a similar spot or they can just jam it into any spot where it will fit. If it does function in these new places its use will have diverged as an inverse function of the tightness of fit. eventually if it keeps being used in multiple places where it appears to fit it will diverge into a family of uses most similar but some even contradictory.

Then they are indeed correct.
But anyone could have told them that.

Posted by: Zathras at July 3, 2006 7:47 AM

Hey!! we hit 202 posts.

As I guess 101 were my posts I am not sure that it is a good thing.

Granny, accepted, you have admitted your role, so go back to your flyer dropping(that sounds soooo bad) in peace now. I discussed with Interested where the BNP could be useful but that is water long since evaporated(ie well past the bridge) and I have been sick of the subject for days.

Now I can truly do soemthing useful.

Vikrant I will not criticise aomethingaboutislam as he supported me when it appeared that all were against me here. I always forget my enemies but never my friends and you do not have to agree with your friends because if you do then they are not your friends. I haven't looked at your comment about his posts and I will not.

Posted by: Zathras at July 3, 2006 8:08 AM

Must go look up Barthesian....

But you don't have a problem with "mytheme"? "Sneerocrats" is a hapax legomenon that I hap'd upon one day on a website whose name I've forgotten.

I'd be interested, in fact I am Interested, to know where hapax legomena fit into the paradigm outlined by Zathras at 7.47 am.

Posted by: Interested at July 3, 2006 8:40 AM

Barthesian is either redolent of Bart Simpson, or Karl Barth (1886-1968)
Mytheme is a variant of my tune, or for the newly courting our tune.
Which is definitely not (c)rap but probably something by Dave Swarbrick.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 3, 2006 8:58 AM

Interested...in that case the sneerocrats would be totally and utterly wrong(and isn't that good???!!)

I don't mind sneerocrats either*steals it*

I had Barthesian diarrhoea in English 201

Mytheme is what is left when you dig through the ashes after a legend is burnt at the stake by the inquisition in an auto da fe

Posted by: Zathras at July 3, 2006 9:24 AM

oops I did not put this in(extra post ...have to push it up :))

Interested...in that case the sneerocrats would be totally and utterly wrong(and isn't that good???!!)
hapax legomena is just another expression for the birth of a neologism and as most are stillborn they remain so but every so often one of them escapes the usual death sentence and turns into..a WORD

Posted by: Zathras at July 3, 2006 9:29 AM

ooops..addendum.... so a hapax legomena is a cog which is made but yet to be placed within the "Great Machine"
(and if you are a scifi fan you will know that that is right up my street)

Posted by: Zathras at July 3, 2006 9:36 AM

For those Americans who think we Brits should vote for/ally with the BNP I assume that you think the BNP is pro-American. I simply have this to say if this is what you imagine - we have US air bases here in Britain, particularly in East Anglia, which is flat country and conveniently rural for practise flying even though the locals hate the noise. The BNP is hostile to the presence of US military bases on British soil. Don't just take my word for it - there used to be a pub in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, that was very popular with National Front supporters (the BNP is a break-away from the 'purist' National Front). An American writer/magazine editor called Bill Buford has written a non-fiction book set among Brits called 'Among the Thugs' and in one of its chapters he describes a visit to this pub (as well as an evening among the neo-nazis of this little town). Because this pub, which Buford does not name but which ironically has, or used to have, a 'politically incorrect' name refused to serve Americans from the bases Buford was served only because he was introduced as a visitor by accompanying neo-nazis. The landlord of the pub described to him how some American servicemen had attempted to buy drinks there the previous evening and had refused to leave quietly on being told to get out. He took Buford outside to the yard to show him the stains left by the blood they had lost when he and his regular customers had dragged them out for a beating. The neo-nazis in Britain are generally supportive of Americans of the racist right but they are generally hostile to what they call 'neo cons' (code for Jews and pro-Israeli Republicans). The BNP does not approve of the presence of US and other Western troops in Iraq or anywhere else in the Muslim world and regards the conflict in Iraq as purely a cloak for 'neo cons' to get their hands on oil. Personally, I don't think any of Britain's racist groups have much time for the America I know and have lived in. Are the Americans coming on here urging us to vote and ally with the BNP really keen to see Britain cut its ties with the USA?

Posted by: moris2 at July 3, 2006 10:17 AM

Don't just take my word for it -

No danger of that.

in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

The MP for Bury St Edmunds blotted his copybook once when he said: "I come to Bury St Edmunds, not to praise it."

hapax legomena is a cog which is made but yet to be placed within the "Great Machine"

Nice one.

Posted by: Interested at July 3, 2006 10:27 AM

Some of my in-laws live in Ipswich so I can well believe what Moris2 describes.
Moris, I believe we would find that we have a shared background; I invite you to have a little look around the New English Review whereat I can be contacted, if you wish so to do.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 3, 2006 10:53 AM

I am coming late to this and am not sure that anyone is still paying attention, but anyway:

I am surprised at Vikrant's viciously false and unfair mischaracterization of Jihad Watch. I have always called for a Jewish-Christian-Hindu-Buddhist-atheist alliance against the jihad, and have never wavered from that.

If he believes I am a "white racist," let him bring proof if he is truthful. And to link to a site that is not linked here to illustrate our position -- well, that is simply unfair.

I am also surprised at Interested's assertion that we never issued an "unequivocal, ex cathedra condemnation" of the BNP. This is not a church, and I am not a bishop or pope. I do not support the BNP, and have made that clear here. I don't see what is "equivocal" in that. Ultimately this is a question that lies outside the purview of Jihad Watch. This is an anti-jihad site, and that is our focus here.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at July 3, 2006 11:06 AM

Robert,

I've never accused you or anybody on JW Borad of Directors of racism... my comments reflect my perceptions of many of the newcomers to JW community.

I have always called for a Jewish-Christian-Hindu-Buddhist-atheist alliance against the jihad, and have never wavered from that.

I'm repeating again i wasnt the first British Hindu here but surely i am the last. All i say to the BNP supporters here you only end up diluting credibility of JW/DW.

Regards,

Vikrant

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at July 3, 2006 11:29 AM

I do not support the BNP, and have made that clear here.

Robert, you know, because we have discussed it before, that it has long been my fear that not challenging those who do support parties with a racist agenda, like the BNP, NF etc could indeed lead to the credibility of this site being diluted.

If, or when, the proposal that it is the BNP that will be the saviour of the UK in the struggle against Islam comes up again I will be glad to be able to link to this page to confirm that the BNP do not have your support. Hopefully that will then settle the matter.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 3, 2006 11:48 AM

Robert, I made it clear in the post you refer to that you do not support the BNP.

However, I stand by my point that an unambiguous condemnation of this white supremacist party would be helpful. In its absence, BNP supporters from all over the globe will continue to crawl out of the woodwork and claim - with no knowledge whatsoever - that it is the UK's only hope.

You may not feel this is appropriate, however.

Posted by: Interested at July 3, 2006 12:10 PM

No ONE here said that the BNP would be the UK's saviour. Nor that it would be the UK's only hope.
(which is the same thing)

What was said was that IF the BNP offered to become active in an anti-Islam alliance then it should not be rejected out of hand.

This was said NOT because the BNP are changing their tune or have promised to change their tune.
Although one would expect them to drop all racist attacks and creed if they did agree to an alliance.

It was ONLY stated as a measure of the desperation that many, here and elsewhere feel because of the UK and the EU's total inability to come to any form of control over the Islamic problem.

Thus depseration sometimes requires desperate alliances and I would rather ALLY with the BNP than see the UK become muslim. However, I have grave doubts about whether they would do this and even greater doubts that they would be useful but I stated this as a pragmatic view of necessity in what I and many others see as a total war.

Remove islam from the scenario and no one would want the BNP to come within hailing distance at any time.

Stating the above supposition here in DW created a hailstorm of PC indignation in which I was the primary target. I still maintain this position however unlikely it may be in reality.

I still maintain this as I see and feel desperation approaching and as television said quite aptly professional PC antiracists have tied our hands behind our backs in the war vs islam. This does not mean that any form of racism is acceptable but it does mean that legislation made to back this up has given Muslims too much leeway and too much benefit of the doubt and they hide behind this. Thus both the EU and the UK rot from within.

My salutary lesson is not to smoke a BNP cigar within 10k of a PC gunpowder factory.

Good Night all!!

Posted by: Zathras at July 3, 2006 12:40 PM

"All these live (Granny W, Vikrant, Animus, Greek Gurl, Moris2] in Britain and have direct experience, not just of racism but of the BNP and its former incarnation, the National Front."

When communicating data to somebody else -- particularly a stranger through such an already anonymous medium as the Internet -- one has a choice:

1) either communicate pure data

a) as pure as possible, i.e., as shorn of interpretive overlays as possible, and

b) as substantive and complete as possible to substantiate whatever point is trying to be communicated (representativeness may be substituted for completeness -- i.e., 3 or 4 juicy & meaty examples to suffice for a more rigorously thorough presentation)

or

2) communicate the data in interpretive packages, but

a) make sure the interpretations are respectable, which in turn requires good behavior on the part of the communicator, and

b) again, the data within the interpretive packages should be as substantive and complete as possible (and, again, representativeness may be substituted for completeness -- i.e., 3 or 4 juicy & meaty examples to suffice for a more rigorously thorough presentation)

As far as #1 goes, the list of people above have shown themselves to be pathetically inadequate. They have furthermore either ignored an argument that analyzed the insufficiency of their data, or have responded with sarcastic and puerile retorts to it, followed -- after being reminded that only a counter-argument suffices to challenge an argument -- by an inadequate attempt at a counter-argument that failed to address the argument's points sufficiently.

Which brings us to #2a: "make sure the interpretations are respectable, which in turn requires good behavior on the part of the communicator". The behavior of the people listed (Granny W, Interested, Vikrant, Animus, Greek Gurl -- I don't know about Moris2) has been abysmal -- each one evincing varying degrees of behaviors that are childish, emotional, irrational, stubbornly obtuse about the obvious need for solid data to communicate a point, disrespectful of their interlocutors (by, among other things, not fully reading their responses), hypocritically arrogant, outrageously insulting (calling someone who merely asks for evidence a BNP enthusiast).

In short, with this kind of behavior, no sincere person can trust the data that's enfolded within the interpretive packages; and since data that is so intertwined with interpretive packages as it is with this list of people becomes heavily dependent upon the interpretive matrix which is their medium, the data becomes significantly compromised. The "direct experience", therefore, of these people listed becomes worthless unless either the interpretive matrix is cleaned up, or an earnest attempt at purifying the data is attempted.

Compare the behavior of this list of people with that of Robert Spencer: he usually fulfills either #1 or #2 (or combinations thereof) with good behavior, professionalism, rationality, intelligence -- even when under fire in heated exchanges he has had (documented at frontpage.com) with Muslims who behave even more childishly than our anti-racists here.

Posted by: Television at July 3, 2006 12:41 PM

Zathras
My comments to Mr Spencer refered to discussion we, ie him and me, had in May on another thread. It is part of a longer debate than merely this thread.

I wish you well with the situation you described in an earlier post and a speedy return to your normal activities.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 3, 2006 12:56 PM

The "direct experience", therefore, of these people listed becomes worthless unless either the interpretive matrix is cleaned up, or an earnest attempt at purifying the data is attempted.

Oh well, you know best, with your "interpretive matrix" and all.

So, Granny W, next time we hear a BNP thug yelling "kill those f****ng n*ggers", it doesn't count because we haven't got the right matrix or "interpretive package".

Posted by: Interested at July 3, 2006 1:13 PM

Interested:

"an unambiguous condemnation of this white supremacist party would be helpful."

What exactly is ambiguous about what I have said so far?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at July 3, 2006 1:53 PM

OK, Robert, perhaps I'm being really picky here. But there is a difference between saying you don't support something and condemning it.

One or two people in this thread have said that they don't support the BNP, but think we should use them as allies against the greater evil that is Islam.

I don't support the Liberal Democrats, or the Natural Law Party (a British political party that believes in Yogic flying) but I don't think they are evil.

I'm sure your lack of support is akin to condemnation. But I genuinely think that it would be helpful to spell it out more clearly, perhaps in a main posting. I am not saying this to be difficult. I have been a regular at this site almost since it got going and do not have a history of being difficult - at least I don't think so.

Vikrant, above mentions four or five British Hindus who no longer post here. Now there could be all kinds of reasons for that. But the presence of BNP supporters may well be one of them. I hesitate now before recommending this site to non-whites, and usually end up doing so with a caveat not to mind the BNP fans.

I know that you are busy, that you can't please everyone - that is not your role. I am simply stating my opinion and what I believe to be the consequences of not reining in the racists.

I would be happy to be proved wrong by a flurry of British Hindu, Sikh and apostate commenters who don't mind the BNP fans at all. If that happens I will gorge myself sick on humble pie, rather than, as is more likely, my hat.

Posted by: Interested at July 3, 2006 2:18 PM

Bear in mind that this business of the BNP is not new to this last 5 days, and there are other posters who did not join in this time, who have done so before. Some of these have been quite blatant in their racist views.

There have been occasions when, having had the BNP explained to them non UK posters have accepted that they are not a solution. There are others who will not accept the evidence brought. The thread "Eurodhimmis: Boldly pursuing appeasement against all odds" which ran from 24 to 27 May this year is just one such. It happens to be the one that sticks in my mind.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 3, 2006 3:00 PM

Interested:

I take it you have not followed my endless and tedious argument with Lawrence Auster, in which I disagreed with his call to defend the "whiteness of the West."

I see what you mean about the difference between non-support and condemnation. What surprises me is that you, who I think generally supports my work, would actually have the idea that I wouldn't condemn such principles. Where in any of my writing has there ever been the shadow of a hint of support for such things?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at July 3, 2006 3:15 PM

Robert, I support your work 100%. Please understand that I don't think for a minute that you support the BNP or any such organisation. I have not followed your disagreement with Laurence Auster, but I have no doubt as to which side you would take.

My concern has been that this condemnation has not been made explicit enough to other readers of this site who do support the BNP and cannot see anything wrong with it.

However, I can see that this one has run its course.

I don't intend to spend any more time criticising the BNP here - it is a pointless exercise.

Posted by: Interested at July 3, 2006 3:46 PM

Interested

Looks like you actually got what you wanted, when you consider the fact that Robert is on record as not condemning Islam either. TV, I, neverpayretail and some others were involved in an intense debate with him some weeks back re: whether or not Islam is a violent, dangerous religion. Robert's contention there was that to characterize Islam as violent and dangerous would be simplistic and misleading. We ended up with a debate on how much of Islam needs to be evil for it to cross a threshold that characterizes it as such.

On the BNP, not to re-open that topic, but from their website alone, which I once visited while surfing anti-Islam websites, I read their various manifestos. Wasn't impressed.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 3, 2006 4:14 PM

I suppose that I am forced to reiterate my position on the BNP yet again.

So infamous but last words so thee canbe NO doubt.

Let me start by saying that it is my view that if the whole world became Islamic
That 90% of its population would be dead within 10 years due to the simple norm of Islamic incompetence. And that even if mankind survived he would be back to caves with NO handy supplies of energy or minerals to restart civilisation again.

Thus I see Islam not just as the enemy of western civilisation, but of mankind and hence my totally hard line versus ALL of Islam.

I see the situation as desperate re Islam. NOW.

I feel certain that it will become much more so over the next 5-10 years.

When it becomes truly desperate, that is, when it is quite apparent that Islamic voters in France have seized control of the government and its nuclear weapons, it will be TOO late for ANY EU country as we well know that Jihadists WILL use nuclear weapons if they have them unlike the west who usually only threaten to do so( No comments re Japan, nuclear weapons and WW2 as there you are really out of yr depth with me….arrogant perhaps but true)
France has between 42% and 45% Muslims in the 15 to 25 yo male population in not a few cities already and at current birth-rates it may not even take ten years. So by then it will be too late.

Action has to be taken NOW.

I have no time for the BNP and their stupidly divisive racism and I have a marked family history of persecution by the Nazis and I have made the study of Nazi Germany one of my areas.
The SA are mild compared to the SS totenkopfverband( camp SS) and the BNP are mild compared to the SA. Don't argue this with me go and compare the murder statistics. It is a fact.

But having said that, the Nazis have had a major effect on my life as they are the primary reason that I am an agnostic. I have also made a study on the "camps" and I can give you lurid stories about the details as I have interviewed a few survivors (never published and for my own edification) about which most people have NO idea. So I have NO reason to like them and plenty of reason to hate them.

Now seeing as I see the BNP as an offshoot of the Nazis why do so I say that I would at least CONSIDER an alliance with them against Islam?

Because fascism rarely lasts past the life of its major figure and once that figure is removed evolution is possible and ALL fascist governments tend to become mellow with time and then usually die with their leader (Argentina, Spain). Whatever happens, social and political evolution may well be held up for sometime but they are NOT
eliminated forever as a possibility. There is always hope with fascism as it is built almost always on the back of one feeble if charismatic human life. However NO STATE that has been forced to accept or has freely chosen Islam has ever been able to release its people from the monolithic incarceration of the will that is Islam and thus there is NO HOPE
once Islam has political control of a state. Thus IMHO fascism for all of its faults is the lesser threat to mankind

Now I could NEVER see the BNP as becoming a major figure in any alliance and hence taking over the government(a fear expressed by some here) but I have considered this above if only to remove it as a possibility. I doubt hat the average Brit is stupid enough to massively vote for the BNP even in such a severe crisis as being overwhelmed by Islam.
But then if it did, I would still see it as a lesser evil.

If the BNP did enter into an alliance it would have to be at the cost of their other antiracial or racist policies. Is this likely? I do doubt it but it is possible.

Where would they be useful? This also was discussed both here and elsewhere and given the fact that Muslims (unlike Robert I trust NO Muslim although I do admit that most Muslims unshackled from Islam would be decent people) love to use converts against their own people (janissaries) plus the police track record of many BNP members, they would be perfect for infiltration as gaol or ex-gaol converts. In addition, surveillance is possible as would be non-legal collections of data otherwise impossible for a legitimate agency( via breaking and entering).

So there you have it. I see the situation as so desperate now that IF they offered an alliance with the current government on the above conditions I would at least consider their use.

I had no idea when I said this on DW what a tidal wave of criticism, some reasoned and much of it not and most personal, would wash over me. I am very glad I learnt to swim.

Granny…I much prefer Esmeralda: brown or green eyes and olive skin, windblown dark hair streaming out behind her at she peers into the winds of fortune with her slim body braced against the swell of time.(I sailed once upon a schooner of the same name around the barrier reef) compared with granny: sensible shoes, blue stockings, tightly curled or bun’d grey hair, schoolma’m dress and tired eyes but with still some sparkle and a patient maternal face as she endures those who disagree before finally sic’ing her dholes onto them
Anyway thank you for your comment but I will never be free and like bad weather it comes unpredictably, stays for a week or more then leaves beaten off by the warmth of the sun. It may not always be a wonderful life but it is a life of wonder.
(sorry about the trite corn but I am feeling much better)

Posted by: Zathras at July 4, 2006 1:43 AM

Sorry abouthe above post.
It was no attempt to re-open the debate.

But seeing as Robert entered it early this a.m.(my time) I figued that I at least should be allowed one post to state my position. However I wrote it away from this PC and only read most of the comments after his just now after I posted.
I must admit to shock seeing so many more posts.

I do not wish to get into an argument about the possible evolution of fascism as it was only mentioned to cover the unlikely scenario where fascism dominated a western state once again.

I see this as virtually impossible UNLESS western goverment make no attempt to truly reign in the jihadists. Once, and before Islam becomes a political majority, the people take to the streets a violent fascist action is possible but even then I do hope that most people have more sense. But to ignore this is to ignore why the german fascists gained power(primarily because of the real or virtual communist threat).

Ok I now drop this one unless someone wants more detail on a point but no abuse please.

Infidel Pride..I had a quick look myself..doesn't exactly fill you full of confidence does it?

Posted by: Zathras at July 4, 2006 2:00 AM