A New Europe: Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, Nation-State

[American Dream]

“In February, Tim and Kevin started Balaclava Kueche, Germany’s first Nazi vegan cooking show. In each episode, the two chatty, fast-talking men wear facemasks and earnestly explain to viewers how to make an array of vegan dishes (the first episode: mixed salad, tofu scramble). ‘The left-wing doesn’t have a prior claim to veganism,’ says Tim. ‘Industrial meat production is incompatible with our nationalist and socialist world views.’”

Has Nick Griffin's cookery programme been posted here yet?

Holy Shit! Nick Griffin's cooking makes me lose my appetite!

I didn't know so much about the Nazi/Animal Rights connection till I found this:



Ambiguities of Animal Rights

by Peter Staudenmaier

http://www.federfauna.org/images/Ambigu ... Rights.pdf

While hardly typical of the current as a whole, it is not unusual to find the most militant proponents of animal liberation also espousing staunch opposition to abortion, homosexuality, and other purportedly ‘unnatural’ phenomena. The “Hardline” tendency, which in the 1990’s spread from North America to Central Europe, is perhaps the most striking example. (16) But the connections to reactionary politics extend substantially further. The recent Russian youth group “Moving Together”, an ultranationalist and sexually repressive organization, has made animal protection one of the central planks in its platform, while the Swiss “Association Against Animal Factories” wallows in antisemitic propaganda. In Denmark, the only party with a designated portfolio for animal concerns is the anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party, while the far-right British National Party boasts of its commitment to animal rights. The contemporary neofascist scene in Europe and North America has shown an abiding interest in the theme as well; over the last decade many “National Revolutionaries” and “Third Positionists” have become actively involved in animal rights campaigns. (17)

Although this widespread overlap between animal liberation politics and the xenophobic andauthoritarian right may seem incongruous, it has played a prominent role in the history of fascism since the early twentieth century. Many fascist theoreticians prided themselves on their movement’s steadfast rejection of anthropocentrism, and the German variant of fascism in particular frequently tended toward an animal rights position. Nazi biology textbooks insisted that “there exist no physical or psychological characteristics which would justify a differentiation of mankind from the animal world.” (18) Hitler himself was zealously committed to animal welfare causes, and was a vegetarian and opponent of vivisection. His lieutenant Goebbels declared: “The Fuhrer is aconvinced vegetarian, on principle. His arguments cannot be refuted on any serious basis. They are totally unanswerable.” (19) Other leading Nazis, like Rudolf Hess, were even stricter in their vegetarianism, and the party promoted raw fruits and nuts as the ideal diet, much like the most scrupulous vegans today. Himmler excoriated hunting and required the top ranks of the SS to follow a vegetarian regimen, while Goering banned animal experimentation.

The list of pro-animal predilections on the part of top Nazis is long, but more important are the animal rights policies implemented by the Nazi state and the underlying ideology that justified them. Within a few months of taking power, the Nazis passed animal rights laws that were unprecedented in scale and that explicitly affirmed the moral status of animals independent of any human interest. These decrees stressed the duty to avoid causing pain to animals and established extremely detailed and concrete guidelines for interactions with animals. According to a leading scholar of Nazi animal legislation, “the Animal Protection Law of 1933 was probably the strictest in the world”. (20)

A 1939 compendium of Nazi animal protection statutes proclaimed that “the German people have always had a great love for animals and have always been conscious of our strong ethical obligations toward them.” The Nazi laws insisted on “the right which animals inherently possess tobe protected in and of themselves.” (21) These were not mere philosophical postulates; the ordinances closely regulated the permissible treatment of domestic and wild animals and designateda variety of protected species while restricting commercial and scientific use of animals. The official reasoning behind these decrees was remarkably similar to latter-day animal rights arguments. “To the German, animals are not merely creatures in the organic sense, but creatures who lead their own lives and who are endowed with perceptive facilities, who feel pain and experience joy,” observed Goering in 1933 while announcing a new anti-vivisection law. (22)

While contemporary animal liberation activists would certainly do well to acquaint themselves with this ominous record of past and present collusion by animal advocates with fascists, the point of reviewing these facts is not to suggest a necessary or inevitable connection between animal rights and fascism. (23) But the historical pattern is unmistakable and demands explanation. What helps to account for this consistent intersection of apparently contrary worldviews is a common preoccupation with purity. The presumption that true virtue requires repudiating ostensibly unclean practices such as meat eating furnishes much of the heartfelt vehemence behind animal rights discourse. When disconnected from an articulated critical social perspective and a comprehensive ecological sensibility, this abstentionist version of puritan politics can easily slide into a distorted vision of ethnic, sexual, or ideological purity.

[bluenoseclaret]

Architect of Apartheid in Israel: “If we don’t kill, we will cease to exist”

"Zionists hate being labelled ZioNazis but one only has to read some of Arnon Soffer’s quotes to realise that the label is not inappropriate.

It would be easy to dismiss Soffer’s quotes if he were just some Jewish street thug but he’s not. To quote Wikipedia, Soffer worked at Haifa University where:

“he has taught, mentored and is involved in the IDF Command and Staff College; In 1978 he became a professor at the National Defense College and was appointed head of the College Research Center in 2007.

“Soffer is now retired, and teaches only the security officials studying at the University of Haifa, including students from the National Defense College, Tactical Command College, the Havatzalot Program of the Intelligence Corps, and the Trainee Course of the Israel police.”

In other words we are looking at a man who has had enormous influence guiding and shaping the attitudes and outlook of Israeli security personnel."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsT6qCPDJIE

In this episode of Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, Max Blumenthal looks at Arnon Sofer, one of Israel's most important strategic thinkers, who developed plans to defend Jewish demographics

Interesting Comments:

[American Dream]

Yes, Israeli Apartheid is horrible- but it will never give boneheads, holocaust deniers, and others of their ilk a free pass. What is needed is an expansion and deepening of our political/economic thinking, one which consistently critiques neo-Colonialism, Racism and all the rest and instead struggles towards societies based on post-patriarchal, post-capitalist, post-imperialist, post-racist and etc., values.

The far right is totatlly fucked, and will never lead us forward...

[Searcher08]

Yes, Israeli Apartheid is horrible- but it will never give boneheads, holocaust deniers, and others of their ilk a free pass...
What is needed is an expansion and deepening of our political/economic thinking, one which consistently critiques neo-Colonialism, Racism and all the rest and instead struggles towards societies based on post-patriarchal, post-capitalist, post-imperialist, post-racist and etc., values.

The far right is totatlly fucked, and will never lead us forward...

Your implication to me is that you response consider bluenoseclaret a bonehead and holocaust denier.

Is that accurate?

It is also possible to look at what you said from a different perspective and say that

Just because anti-Semitism and holocaust denial are horrible - it will never give a free pass to Supremacists, Anti-Zionist Zionists and organisations like the Anti-Defamation League, B'nai Brith and the SPLC, who to use a business phrase are the "Market Makers' of anti-Semitism and Hate Speech.

What is needed is an expansion and deepening of our political/economic thinking,

Yes. Your brand of political thinking is based in critical analysis. That type if thinking is USELESS FOR DESIGNING A WAY FORWARD.
Are you in favour of a global central banking system and fiat currency?

One which consistently critiques neo-Colonialism, Racism and all the rest and instead struggles towards societies based on post-patriarchal, post-capitalist, post-imperialist, post-racist and etc., values.

I have never heard a person get engaged as an activist as a result of a critique.
My issue with critiques is that they are all past based. Talking about post-ANYTHING gives an enormous focus and attention to the 'ANYTHING'. There is a huge difference between a CRITIQUING A POST-WIFE BEATING SOCIETY and designing a society where all members can always be physically safe with their partners.

You talk about "post-{CONCEPTUAL AREA} values"
The purpose of any operation is to deliver value to the users of that operation eg the purpose of Amazon (obviously simplifying here) is to deliver books faster and cheaper.
I am unclear what the values are in each of these areas - for example: post-imperialist

The far right is totatlly fucked, and will never lead us forward...

I totally agree. However, unlike you, I also think the left is totally utterly utterly fucked as well and I question the need to be led forward. My opinion is that that is giving one's power away.

I assert it is better to embody leadership, not be led forward.

[American Dream]

Yes, Israeli Apartheid is horrible- but it will never give boneheads, holocaust deniers, and others of their ilk a free pass...

Your implication to me is that you response consider bluenoseclaret a bonehead and holocaust denier.

Is that accurate?

The answer is, "No".

Now putting you back on "ignore".

[bluenoseclaret]

Jews for Palestinian Right of Return....2 July

“The blame for the murder of the three Jewish boys and for the murder of endless Palestinian children should be placed where it belongs: on the hands of the Israeli racist regime of occupation, apartheid and sociocide.”

Israeli professor Nurit Peled-Elhanan, Sakharov Prize laureate for human rights and a co-initiator of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine.

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/

Academic claims Israeli school textbooks contain bias

Nurit Peled-Elhanan, an Israeli academic, mother and political radical, summons up an image of rows of Jewish schoolchildren, bent over their books, learning about their neighbours, the Palestinians. But, she says, they are never referred to as Palestinians unless the context is terrorism.

They are called Arabs. "The Arab with a camel, in an Ali Baba dress. They describe them as vile and deviant and criminal, people who don't pay taxes, people who live off the state, people who don't want to develop," she says. "The only representation is as refugees, primitive farmers and terrorists. You never see a Palestinian child or doctor or teacher or engineer or modern farmer."

Peled-Elhanan, a professor of language and education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has studied the content of Israeli school books for the past five years, and her account, Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propaganda in Education, is to be published in the UK this month. She describes what she found as racism– but, more than that, a racism that prepares young Israelis for their compulsory military service.

"People don't really know what their children are reading in textbooks," she said. "One question that bothers many people is how do you explain the cruel behaviour of Israeli soldiers towards Palestinians, an indifference to human suffering, the inflicting of suffering. People ask how can these nice Jewish boys and girls become monsters once they put on a uniform. I think the major reason for that is education. So I wanted to see how school books represent Palestinians."

In "hundreds and hundreds" of books, she claims she did not find one photograph that depicted an Arab as a "normal person". The most important finding in the books she studied – all authorised by the ministry of education – concerned the historical narrative of events in 1948, the year in which Israel fought a war to establish itself as an independent state, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled the ensuing conflict.

The killing of Palestinians is depicted as something that was necessary for the survival of the nascent Jewish state, she claims."It's not that the massacres are denied, they are represented in Israeli school books as something that in the long run was good for the Jewish state. For example, Deir Yassin [a pre-1948 Palestinian village close to Jerusalem] was a terrible slaughter by Israeli soldiers. In school books they tell you that this massacre initiated the massive flight of Arabs from Israel and enabled the establishment of a Jewish state with a Jewish majority. So it was for the best. Maybe it was unfortunate, but in the long run the consequences for us were good."

Children, she says, grow up to serve in the army and internalise the message that Palestinians are "people whose life is dispensable with impunity. And not only that, but people whose number has to be diminished."

Peled-Elhanan approaches her subject from a radical political background. She is the daughter of a famous general, Matti Peled, who became convinced that Israel's future lay in a dignified peace with the Palestinians. After leaving the army, he became active in the peace movement.

When Peled-Alhanon's only daughter, Smadar, was two, her face appeared on billboards in a political poster for Labour. Its message was that all children deserve a better future.

Then, in 1997, Smadar was killed by a Palestinian suicide bomber while shopping in Jerusalem. She was 13. Peled-Elhanan declines to talk about her daughter's death apart from once or twice referring to "the tragedy".

At the time, she said that it would strengthen her belief that, without a settlement to the conflict and peaceful coexistence with Palestinians, more children would die. "Terrorist attacks like this are the direct consequence of the oppression, slavery, humiliation and state of siege imposed on the Palestinians," she told TV reporters in the aftermath of Smadar's death.

Her radical views have exacted a professional cost. "University professors stopped inviting me to conferences. And when I do speak, the most common reaction is, 'you are anti-Zionist'." Anybody who challenges the dominant narrative in today's Israel, she says, is similarly accused.

She hopes her book will be published in Hebrew, but is resigned to it being dismissed by many in the political mainstream.

Asked if Palestinian school books also reflect a certain dogma, Peled-Elhanan claims that they distinguish between Zionists and Jews. "They make this distinction all the time. They are against Zionists, not against Jews."

But she concedes that teaching about the Holocaust in Palestinian schools is "a problem, an issue". "Some [Palestinian] teachers refuse to teach the Holocaust as long as Israelis don't teach the Nakba [the Palestinian "catastrophe" of 1948]."

Perhaps not surprisingly for someone of such radical views, Peled-Elhanan is deeply pessimistic about her country's future. Change, she says, will only come "when the Americans stop providing us with $1m a day to maintain this regime of occupation and racism and supremacy".

She said that within Israel, "I only see the path to fascism. You have 5.5 million Palestinians controlled by Israel who live in a horrible apartheid with no civil and no human rights. And you have the other half who are Jews who are also losing their rights by the minute," she says, in reference to a series of attempts to restrict Israelis' right to protest and criticise their government.

She dismisses the Israeli left as always small and timid, but especially now. "There has never been a real left in this country." She believes that the education system helps to perpetuate an unjust, undemocratic and unsustainable state.

"Everything they do, from kindergarten to 12th grade, they are fed in all kinds of ways, through literature and songs and holidays and recreation, with these chauvinistic patriotic notions."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/a ... cism-claim

[seemslikeadream]

“If fascism comes to America, it will not be identified with any “shirt” movement, nor with an “insignia,”


Should We Have Six Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court?

THURSDAY, JUL 3, 2014 01:47 PM CDT
We are a corporate theocracy now: The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination
Christian right's plan is simple: Dominate courts, state legislatures, and push their twisted morality on all of us
CJ WERLEMAN


We are a corporate theocracy now: The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia (Credit: AP/Randy Snyder/Reuters/Brendan McDermid)
“If fascism comes to America, it will not be identified with any “shirt” movement, nor with an “insignia,” but it will probably be “wrapped up in the flag and heralded as a plea for liberty and preservation of the constitution,” wrote in a 1936 issue of The Christian Century. Nobel Laureate recipient Sinclair Lewis put it even more succinctly when he warned, “It [fascism] would come wrapped in the flag and whistling the Star Spangled Banner.”

No one who has followed the rise of the Christian Right in national politics over the course of the past three decades should be surprised by Monday’s Supreme Court decision to grant corporations religious personhood. It was as predictable as Pat Robertson saying something stupid about gay sex. The hyper religious conservatives on the bench of the nation’s high court, all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, see the federal government as being controlled by ‘secular humanists’ who wish to make war against the purity of the Christian belief system. Like the 89 million Americans who count themselves as evangelicals, they seek total cultural and political domination.

Not only is the Christian Right the most politically agitated and reliable voting bloc of the Republican Party, but it is also emboldened like no other time in their warped history. With recent efforts to legalize discrimination against gay Americans defeated, the Hobby Lobby case against the Affordable Care Act has reenergized the theocratic wing of the GOP base — the wing that is now the party’s fuselage. Throw red meat to their holier than thou rationalizations and they won’t care what big business does to this great nation. They care for one thing – turning America into a theocratic regime. Don’t be fooled by the flag-waving and the obnoxious hyper-masculine jingoistic platitudes; the Christian Right does not love America unconditionally. They love America on the condition that representatives they help get elected are carrying out their political agenda.

There is no conspiracy theory here. Their strategy is evidently clear and unashamedly boasted. Their strategy is to control state and federal legislatures, and the courts – in a way that says, “We don’t care what the American people want. We write the laws, and those laws will not reflect the wishes of the center majority, but instead will cater only for the theological cranks within our ranks.”

ADVERTISEMENT

In state after state, the nation’s theocrats are fighting and defeating America’s secular sense of self. The Christian Right has not only moved from the fringes to become the main strain of the Republican Party; it is the Republican Party. “The results of this takeover are all around us: If the American people poll more like Iranians and Nigerians than Europeans or Canadians on questions of evolution, scriptural inerrancy, the presence of angels and demons, and so forth, it is due to the rise of the religious right, its insertion into the public square by the Republican Party, and the consequent normalizing of formerly reactionary beliefs,” observes Mike Lofgren, who spent 28 years in Congress as a Republican.

These radicals continually surprise America for the fact that the mainstream media and casual political observers mistakenly believe these theocrats represent the minority fringe. You cannot sugarcoat the fact that it was a majority of Republicans in Arizona’s Senate who voted for the anti-gay bill. Likewise it was a majority of Republicans in Kansas’ House who voted for a similar bill. They voted for these religiously motivated discrimination bills because the Christian Right wish to discriminate against individuals they claim the Bible deems abhorrent.

The American Taliban is on a roll, and the Republican National Committee is seeking to capitalize on the Christian Right’s renewed energy, which has been fueled by victory in the Supreme Court. Last week, the RNC launched its first web-based effort to rally social conservatives and evangelicals as a key cornerstone of the party’s efforts to retake the Senate in the coming November elections.

“This shouldn’t be outreach, this should be who we are — it is who we are,” said Chad Connelly, director of faith engagement for the Republican National Committee and the force behind this new initiative, GOPfaith.com. Evangelicals, Connelly said, “are our biggest, most reliable voting bloc.” The aim of the website is “to build an army of conservative pro-faith activists” — that is sympathetic conservative Christians.

The RNC believes a big reason for Mitt Romney’s heavy defeat in the 2012 election was that the party didn’t do enough to court the Christian Right, with less than a third of the 89 million evangelicals casting a ballot. “Let’s overcome that myth of the IRS saying you can’t talk about this from the pulpit,” Connelly said. “Look, if there’s no freedom of speech in the pulpit, there’s no freedom of speech.”

“Now is the time of righteous indignation,” he said, a time to be the “turn-the-tables-over Jesus” and not the “meek, turn-the-other-cheek Jesus.”

The immediate goal of this renewed effort to “maximize the faith vote” is to help the GOP win in key Senate races, especially in battleground states like Kentucky, Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina. With the GOP needing a net gain of seven seats to take unilateral control of the U.S. Congress, winning those seats is essential to the GOP’s 2014 prospects.

“Many Republican leaders are tired of losing, they see some real opportunities to win, and that means they have to fire on all cylinders, if you will. And this is a key constituency,” said John Green, head of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. “They don’t have to woo them to the party as much as they need to woo them to the polls,” Green said of conservative evangelicals.

Should the Christian Right help the GOP retake the Senate, the Piper will need to be repaid. This prospect should terrify every secular, liberal American to his bootstraps.

The Hobby Lobby case is yet another reminder that those who wish to transform America’s secular democracy into a tyrannical theocracy are on the march.

The Most Partisan Supreme Court Justice Of All
BY IAN MILLHISER JULY 2, 2014 AT 11:58 AM UPDATED: JULY 2, 2014 AT 10:40 PM


In mid-November of 2012, hundreds of tuxedo-clad Republican lawyers gathered at a hotel ballroom in Washington, DC. They were a mix of heads hung in dejection and chests puffed out in compensatory bluster. Less than two weeks earlier, they’d seen President Obama vanquish his opponent at the polls. Their last chance to knock a hated president out of office — and their last real chance to halt that’s president’s even more hated health reforms — ended in failure. They and their allies had made their best case that liberalism was a path to economic ruin, and the American people had lined up at their polling places to pull the lever for liberalism.
And yet, at this annual gathering of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, arguably the most powerful legal organization in the country, Justice Samuel Alito was defiant. Not long after rising to give his keynote address to the room full of conservative senators, judges, and attorneys gathered before him, Alito launched into a story of a particularly uninspiring law professor whose course he took in law school. The professor, Alito recalled, authored a book in 1970 warning of a decaying society trapped in a “moment of utmost sterility, darkest night, most extreme peril.”
At this point in his speech, Alito paused, and looked over the roomful of lawyers still licking their wounds from Mitt Romney’s very recent defeat. “Our current situation,” he told them, “is nothing new.”
[Alito] wanted Obamacare gone.
Justice Alito’s speech came during a brief moment of respite between two great constitutional battles. Just a few months earlier, the Court had rejected a request that it repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, based on a tenuous reading of the Tenth Amendment that one prominent conservative judge dismissed as having no basis “in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.” Justice Alito dissented in the Court’s health care decision. He wanted Obamacare gone.
Almost exactly one month after his speech, a gunman named Adam Lanza walked into an elementary school in Sandy Hook, Connecticut and murdered 26 people, 20 of whom were children. What followed was a nationwide debate over the proper way to solve gun violence and over the scope and the wisdom of the Second Amendment. Many of the lawyers and lawmakers who attended Justice Alito’s speech would fight hard — and, ultimately, successfully — to defeat President Obama’s proposals to prevent future Sandy Hooks.

In the moment of calm between these two storms, Justice Alito let the audience know where he stood on both questions. Referring to the text of the Constitution, Alito quipped that “[i]t’s hard not to notice that Congress’ powers are limited, and you will see there is an amendment that comes right after the First Amendment, and there’s another that comes after the Ninth Amendment.” He spent much of the rest of the speech criticizing legal arguments the Obama Administration had made in his Court.
So, when Chief Justice Roberts opened the final session of the Supreme Court’s term on Monday by announcing that Justice Alito would deliver both of the Court’s remaining opinions, liberals immediately knew that they were about to hear some very bad news. In quick succession, Alito dealt sharp blows to public sector unions and to women whose employers object to birth control.
A Straight Face
If Alito’s Hobby Lobby opinion — the second of the two decisions he handed down on Monday — proves anything, it is that Alito has mastered the art of reading legal authorities that cut sharply against his position, and then authoring a legal opinion that passes them off as if they actually bolster his argument. In Hobby Lobby, Alito was confronted by decades of legal precedents establishing that religious liberty claims could not be used to diminish the rights of third parties, especially in the employment context. Worse, at least for Alito’s belief that employers with religious objections to birth control could deny legally mandated coverage to their employees, Hobby Lobby turned upon how the Court interpreted a 1993 law — a law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or RFRA — that explicitly stated that its purpose was to “restore the compelling interest test” set out by these earlier precedents after that test was overruled by an unpopular Supreme Court decision. This was the same legal test that was in place when the Court held that “[w]hen followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”
Yet Alito ignored Congress’s clearly stated purpose, he offered little explanation for why he was justified in doing do, and what little justification he did offer falls apart upon a very cursory inquiry. At one point in his opinion, for example, Alito points to a 2000 amendment to a largely irrelevant provision of RFRA, claiming that the amendment was “an obvious effort to effect a complete separation from First Amendment case law.” Elsewhere, Alito argues that RFRA strengthened the legal protections available to religious objectors prior to 1990. Both claims, however, are difficult to square with RFRA’s statement that its entire purpose is to restore prior precedents — and there is nothing in the 2000 amendment which alters this statement of purpose.
Alito . . . does not appear at all humbled by the experience of having a successful presidential candidate campaign against his most well-known opinion and then eradicate that opinion just over a week after moving into the White House.
Hobby Lobby is also the latest in a series of decisions Alito has handed down diminishing the rights of women in the workplace. Prior to Hobby Lobby, his most famous decision was undoubtedly Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, the pay discrimination case that Congress overturned in the very first bill President Obama signed into law.
Alito, however, does not appear at all humbled by the experience of having a successful presidential candidate campaign against his most well-known opinion and then eradicate that opinion just over a week after moving into the White House. Last year, in an opinion with potentially much further reaching consequences than Ledbetter, Alito gutted a core protection helping prevent workers from being racially or sexually harassed by their boss. Harassment suits of this kind are notoriously difficult to win, especially when a worker is harassed by colleagues without direct authority over them. When a worker is sexually or racially harassed by their “supervisor,” however, the law recognizes that employers should have a special incentive to halt this kind of exploitation immediately. In many cases, when a worker is the victim of harassment by their boss, their employer is automatically liable for this harassment.
Except that, in Vance v. Ball State University, Alito’s opinion for a majority of the Court defined the word “supervisor” so narrowly as to render it practically meaningless. In Alito’s view, a person’s boss is only their “supervisor” if their boss has the power to make a “significant change in [their] employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.”
In a modern workplace, where final personnel decisions are often delegated to a distant human resources office, this means that few workers’ bosses will qualify as supervisors. Indeed, in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gives several examples of women whose bosses no longer count as “supervisors” under Alito’s framework. One of these non-supervisor supervisors was a man assigned to evaluate a female co-worker’s job perfomance, who then “forced her into unwanted sex with him, an outrage to which she submitted, believing it necessary to gain a passing grade.”
A Corporation’s Best Friend
Lest there be any doubt, these three cases are not isolated decisions. The Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) releases occasional reports tracking how often the Supreme Court sides with the United States Chamber of Commerce in cases where the Chamber files a brief. In large part because the Chamber is both a prominent corporate interest group and an especially active Supreme Court litigant, CAC maintains that tracking the Chamber’s performance is a good proxy for how likely the justices are to side with big business. Year after year, their data shows that Alito is a corporation’s best friend on the Court:
Chamber stats by justice
Other studies show similar results. According to data by Washington University Professor Lee Epstein, Alito is more likely to cast a conservative vote than anyone else on the Court.
To be fully precise, that does not make Alito the Court’s most conservative member. That honor belongs to Justice Clarence Thomas, who is the only member of the Court who openly pines for the days when federal child labor laws were considered unconstitutional. Yet, while Alito can’t match Thomas’s radicalism, he is far and away the most partisan member of the Court.
To explain this distinction, Thomas not a partisan. He is an ideologue. His decisions are driven by a fairly coherent judicial philosophy which would often read the Constitution in much the same way that it was understood in 1918. While this methodology typically leads him to conservative results, it does occasionally align him with the Court’s liberals. In 2009, for example, in a case brought by a drug company seeking lawsuit immunity after one of their products caused a woman to lose her hand, Thomas arguably took a position well to the left of the Court’s liberal bloc. While Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an opinion for the Court rejecting the drug company’s quest for immunity, Thomas argued that the legal doctrine the drug company relied upon should be tossed out entirely.
“Scalia is a Roosevelt liberal in comparison” to Alito.
What makes Alito a partisan is that there is no similar case where his judicial philosophy drove him to a result that put him at odds with his fellow conservatives. Shortly after Hobby Lobby was handed down, ThinkProgress contacted several legal scholars and Supreme Court advocates asking if they could identify a single closely divided case where Alito broke with his fellow conservatives to join the liberals. Most replied that they could not think of any. One, Boston College Law Professor Kent Greenfield, added that “Scalia is a Roosevelt liberal in comparison” to Alito. Another, a progressive attorney who frequently practices in Alito’s Court, wrote back with just four words — “Nope. He’s the worst.”
Kedar Bhatia, who compiles statistics on Supreme Court decisions for SCOTUSBlog, agreed that “I don’t believe there have been any true instances of a 5-4 majority with Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens/Kagan, Souter/Sotomayor, and Alito,” (although he was able to point to a handful of cases where Alito joined a 5 justice majority that included one other conservative and three liberals). The four other conservatives, Bhatia added, “are more prone to creating that sort of lineup.”
In contrast to Alito, some of his fellow conservatives have joined 5-4 decisions that absolutely enraged many Republicans. Chief Justice John Roberts famously cast the key fifth vote saving Obamacare, while Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the fifth vote striking the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act. Even Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court’s most outspoken conservative, once broke with the other four conservatives to join the liberals in support of a state fair lending law.
Nor is Alito’s partisanship matched by the Court’s left flank. Both Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the Court’s conservatives in rewriting Obamacare to make its Medicaid expansion optional, a decision that deprived millions of Americans of health coverage. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg broke with her fellow liberals in a case brought by unions seeking to make it easier for them to collect funds. Justice Sonia Sotomayor sided with the conservatives in a major privacy case.
Fahrenheit 451
Alito is a reliable partisan, but it would be a mistake to dismiss him as a substanceless hack. Alito may be the smartest member of the Court’s conservative bloc, and he is their best questioner. Recounting the oral arguments in the Citizens United campaign finance case in his book The Oath, Supreme Court reporter Jeffrey Toobin recalled that “[i]t was easy to tell which way Alito was leaning, because his questions were so hard to answer for the lawyer he was targeting. Alito had a radar for weak points in a presentation.”
Indeed, Alito asked a question during the Citizens United argument which has come to define that case for many conservatives. If the Constitution permits campaign finance law to regulate movies and television ads intended to influence an election, Alito asked, could the law also do “the same thing for a book?” After Malcolm Stewart, a longtime Justice Department attorney tasked with arguing this case while the newly inaugurated President Obama was still filling the top jobs in the Solicitor General’s office, answered that books could be regulated under campaign finance law, the argument descended into what Toobin labeled an “epic disaster.” Alito had somehow recast a case about whether corporations could spend unlimited money to shape electoral results into a case about banning books.
Several months later, when Solicitor General (and future Justice) Elena Kagan reargued the case, she tried to undo the damage Alito’s question had caused by announcing that “[t]he government’s answer” to his question “has changed.” But the damage had already been done. Alito’s single question continues to inspire conservative talking points to this day. Just last month, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) labeled supporters of campaign finance regulation “Fahrenheit 451 Democrats.”
In 2005, When President George W. Bush announced Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, he praised his nominee as someone who “understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people.” Less than a decade later, Alito rewrote American religious liberty law, and he did so despite an explicit statement by Congress indicating that Hobby Lobby should have come down the other way. Along the road to Hobby Lobby, Alito made the workplace a harsher, meaner place for women. He inspired talking points for Ted Cruz. And he has an unblemished record as the most committed partisan on the Court.
And, unlike the many partisans in Congress and other elected positions, Alito cannot be voted out of office. His appointment to the Court lasts for his entire life.

[American Dream]

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/arch ... n-fascists

Golden Dawn links with Italian fascists

Published on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 20:15 Written by Alfio Bernabei

Support for the Greek Golden Dawn continues to grow among neo-fascist groups in Italy with invitations extended to its members and the setting up of similar organisations, including Golden Dawn Italy and, more recently, Golden Dawn Europe, which already claims about 5,000 members. Their nationalities are unspecified but presumably most are Italians.

Two months ago it was the turn of CasaPound to hold a meeting at their headquarters in Rome with two leading members of Golden Dawn flown in from Athens. It ended with indications of a political alliance for the sharing of what was described as a “common destiny”.


The meeting at CasaPound in Rome with Golden Dawn. On the platform: Andrea Antonini (CasaPound Italia), Apostolos Gkletos (Golden Dawn), Konstantinos Boviatsos (Alba Dorata), Simone Di Stefano (CasaPound Italia)

The two Greek guests of the “fascists of the Third Millennium”, as CasaPound calls its members, were Apostolos Gkletsos, a former MP and member of Golden Dawn Central Committee, and Konstantinos Boviatsos, introduced also as a representative of Black Flag Radio Hellas. “Golden Dawn will defend Greece and the whole of Europe from Muslims”, Gkletsos told the audience of about 300 crammed onto the sixth floor of the building. “We fought this war throughout Greek history and will continue to do so. Georgios and Manolis (the two militants killed in early November) are heroes for the white race. Our battle goes on”.

Gkletsos rejected accusations that Golden Dawn is a criminal organisation and received sympathy from the Deputy President of CasaPound, Andrea Antonini, who said the meeting had been arranged because “it is important to understand the reasons why Greek people have so overwhelmingly voted for this party”. Antonini told the audience, which included members of the Third Position: “We share much more with Golden Dawn than just a geographical area. We share a political programme and probably a common destiny”.

Obviously the two Greek guests were grateful to be given an opportunity to demonstrate that their neo-Nazi party was not isolated and that they were free to land in Rome, and form alliances with like-minded movements. CasaPound has branches in every major town in Italy and enjoys good political connections at local and national level with some contacts in Parliament.

The hand of friendship extended to Golden Dawn by CasaPound adds to the longstanding links already established with Forza Nuova whose leader, Roberto Fiore, promoted over the years exchange visits and held meetings with Nikos Michaloliakos, the Golden Dawn leader arrested at the end of last September following the fatal stabbing of the anti-racist rapper, Pavlos Fyssas. In June 2010 Searchlight reported on their meeting in Milan with a number of other Nazi-fascist representatives of various European groups. Fiore has since expressed solidarity with Michaloliakos on several occasions. Members of FN in Genoa picketed the local Greek consulates to protest at measures taken against a “perfectly legitimate political force alternative to the system”, while those in Ancona displayed a banner at the local harbour stating defiantly that “Forza Nuova and the Greek Golden Dawn are twinned”.

Independently of FN and Casa Pound, in October 2012 an organisation called Alba Dorata Italia (Golden Dawn Italy) was set up by Alessandro Gardossi in Trieste with a flag reminiscent of the Third Reich and its aim “to save the best things done by Mussolini and Hitler”. Now a separate group, Alba Dorata Europa (Golden Dawn Europe), has been created by Vincenzo Maresca as President, and Pasquale Mungari as Secretary, in Pordenone, Northern Italy. Mungari is described as an entrepreneur who was until recently in charge of two private schools and president of a Pordenone football team.


The inauguration of Golden Dawn Europe

Following the successful example of CasaPound with its use of cultural props to recruit among students and appear fashionably in line with new thinking, as well as referring to Mussolini and Hitler, Golden Dawn Europe’s website quotes from American “motivators” advocating the kind of transformation in individuals that can lead to action and personal affirmation, a trend that is not a million miles away from Julius Evola’s philosophical ideas.

Curiously, just as Golden Dawn Europe was being set up, a very real American motivator “capable of establishing organisations aiming to exterminate the black and Jewish races in Europe”, according to the International Business Times, was found residing in Italy, incognito, in defiance of a Europe-wide ban, having been declared persona non grata in 2009. David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, had set up home in a village in the Dolomites. Perhaps one day we shall know what else he was doing for one and a half years, apart from skiing. Don Black on the Stormfront website had apparently revealed that Duke had many friends in Italy but no one had taken much notice.

The manifesto of Golden Dawn Europe calls for an end to immigration, the repatriation of immigrants, the right to defend one’s property with weapons, an increase in the powers of the police and “security systems” and higher pensions. It follows the example of most Nazi-fascist movements in Italy and of Golden Dawn in Greece with a two-pronged strategy focusing on the one hand on topics of general concern, such as the price of fuel, housing shortages and unemployment, while at the same time intervening on specific problems in local areas, such as parking or the price of milk, down to matters affecting a single family.


Golden Dawn Europe flag on sale at €12

The inauguration of Golden Dawn Europe did not run smoothly. It should have taken place last May at a theatre in Naples, but local antifascists, just as they did in 2011 to object to the arrival of CasaPound in their town, staged a demonstration to stop the event. They succeeded with some help from the local mayor and on the strength of a petition. The inauguration was postponed to 14 July and moved to Pozzuoli, not far from Naples. But here too the antifascists intervened successfully.

As a last resort, the Golden Dawn Europe organisers sneaked into Park Hotel Vesevus, a remote location at the foot of Mount Vesuvius, where the movement was officially declared up and running. The protesters were “rabid dogs”, they said, unable to understand the high motives of the nascent organisation devoted to re-establishing “national dignity” and a new “spiritual rebirth” to fight against “satanic oligarchies”. Mungari, is now under arrest. The official reason is that the two private schools he was presiding over in Pordenone were offering fake educational certificates to students who were not even bothering to attend classes. The schools were in receipt of public money. Was any of it used in the launch of Golden Dawn Europe? Investigations are continuing.

While it remains important to keep an eye on the emergence of new neo-fascist groups, for the time being the Italian neo-fascist electorate will continue to channel its vote in the direction set by Silvio Berlusconi’s party and its allies, such as the Northern League. The exit of the television tycoon has not changed the political landscape. The historical revisionist trend that presents fascism as a benign force continues unabated. The young new leader of the Centre-Left Partito Democratico, Matteo Renzi, has hardly ever spoken on antifascism. At the forthcoming European elections we will see only a minute proportion of the Nazi-fascist vote going to parties such as FN or Fiamma Tricolore, perhaps no more than 0.8% to 1%. The bulk of the neo-fascist vote that may be just as strong as Golden Dawn’s in Greece will be distributed around under “respectable” labels hosting fascism in its continuing evolution.

[American Dream]

The Trans-Atlantic Traffic in White Nationalism

Leonard Zeskind 06 June 2013



The following article describes activities by Jared Taylor in France and England earlier this year. Taylor is not unknown to regular readers of http://www.IREHR.org. He is the founder of a scientific racist outfit known as American Renaissance, has been a leading figure in the ranks of the Council of Conservative Citizens and an editor for other white nationalist enterprises. Leonard Zeskind’s book, Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream, available from IREHR, includes the first and most comprehensive treatment of Taylor—including his friendship with Holocaust denier Mark Weber, his stint as the West Coast editor of PC magazine, and a description of American Renaissance’s first conferences. The following is taken from an article in Searchlight magazine by Ray Mount. IREHR congratulates Searchlight for nearly 50 years of monthly anti-fascist and anti-racist publication. Leonard Zeskind added to Ray Mount’s reporting, using material from other sources.

Read More...

[American Dream]

Nationalism and Culture | Rudolf Rocker

ALL nationalism is reactionary in its nature, for it strives to enforce on the separate parts of the great human family a definite character according fi to a preconceived idea. In this respect, too, it shows the interrelationship of nationalistic ideology with the creed of every revealed religion. Nationalism creates artificial separations and partitions within that organic unity which finds its expression in the genus Man, while at the same time it strives for a fictitious unity sprung only from a wish-concept; and its advocates would like to tune all members of a definite human group to one note in order to distinguish it from other groups still more obviously. In this respect, so-called "cultural nationalism" does not differ at all from political nationalism, for whose political purposes as a rule it serves as a fig-leaf. The two cannot be spiritually separated; they merely represent two different aspects of the same endeavour.

Cultural nationalism appears in its purest form when people are subjected to a foreign rule, and for this reason cannot pursue their own plans for political power. In this event, "national thought" prefers to busy itself with the culture-building activities of the people and tries to keep the national consciousness alive by recollections of vanished glory and past greatness. Such comparisons between a past which has already become legend and a slavish present make the people doubly sensitive to the injustice suffered; for nothing affects the spirit of man more powerfully than tradition. But if such groups of people succeed sooner or later in shaking off the foreign yoke and themselves appear as a national power, then the cultural phase of their effort steps only too definitely into the background, giving place to the sober reality of their political objectives. In the recent history of the various national organisms in Europe created after the war are found telling witnesses for this.

In Germany, also, the national strivings both before and after the "wars of liberation" were strongly influenced by romanticism, whose advocates tried to make the traditions of a vanished age live again among the people and to make the past appear to them in a glorified light. When, later, the last hopes which the German patriots had rested on liberation from the foreign yoke had burst like over-blown bubbles, their spirits sought refuge in the moonlit magic night and the fairy world of dreamy longing conjured up for them by romanticism, in order to forget the gray reality of life and its shameful disappointments.

In culture-nationalism, as a rule, two distinct sentiments merge, which really have nothing in common: for home sentiment is not patriotism, is not love of the state, not love which has its roots in the abstract idea of the nation. It needs no laboured explanation to prove that the spot of land on which a man has spent the years of his youth is deeply intergrown with his profoundest feeling. The impressions of childhood and early youth which are the most permanent and have the most lasting effect upon his soul. Home is, so to speak, man's outer garment; he is most intimately acquainted with its every fold and seam. This home sentiment brings in later years some yearning after a past long buried under ruins; and it is this which enables the romantic to look so deeply within.

With so-called "national consciousness" this home sentiment has no relationship; although both are often thrown into the same pot and, after the manner of counterfeiters, given out as of the same value. In fact, true home sentiment is destroyed at its birth by "national consciousness," which always strives to regulate and force into a prescribed form every impres-sion man receives from the inexhaustible variety of the homeland. This is the unavoidable result of those mechanical efforts at unification which are in reality only the aspirations of the nationalistic states.

The attempt to replace man's natural attachment to the home by a dutiful love of the state-a structure which owes its creation to all sorts of accidents and in which, with brutal force, elements have been welded together that have no necessary connection-is one of the most grotesque phenomena of our time. The so-called "national consciousness" is nothing but a belief propagated by considerations of political power which have replaced the religious fanaticism of past centuries and have today come to be the greatest obstacle to cultural development. The love of home has nothing in common with the veneration of an abstract patriotic concept. Love of home knows no "will to power"; it is free from that hollow and dangerous attitude of superiority to the neighbour which is one of the strongest characteristics of every kind of nationalism. Love of home does not engage in practical politics nor does it seek in any way to support the state. It is purely an inner feeling as freely manifested as man's enjoyment of nature, of which home is a part. When thus viewed, the home feeling compares with the governmentally ordered love of the nation as does a natural growth with an artificial substitute.

-Rudolf Rocker

(Published 1937, written much earlier)

[American Dream]

Britain First's Facebook Page Banned For 'Hate Speech'... Then Put Back Just An Hour Later





http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06 ... 39413.html

[American Dream]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... i-semitism

The radicalism of fools: the rise of the new anti-Semitism

No self-respecting person on the left should endorse anti-establishment positions that are in reality just cloaked anti-Semitism.

BY ANTHONY CLAVANE PUBLISHED 30 JANUARY, 2014


Mixed signals: fans do the quenelle outside a Nantes venue where Dieudonné was due to give a show on 9 January that was banned by the supreme court.

At the end of December, a couple of days before the five remaining members of the cast of Monty Python’s Flying Circus were reunited on Graham Norton’s BBC sofa, I was reminded of one of the comedy team’s funniest sketches. Entitled “World Forum”, it featured a TV quiz in which various revolutionaries were questioned about important issues – such as who won the FA Cup final in 1949 and which football club was nicknamed the Hammers.

I was reminded of it because I was at the home of the Hammers, Upton Park in east London – reporting on a six-goal thriller between West Ham United and West Brom­wich Albion – when a colleague from another national paper suddenly asked me to define the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Having written a book about Jewish involvement in football, I’m used to inquiries about Tottenham Hotspur’s much-vaunted connections to the community, rabbinical attitudes to playing on the Sabbath and the relatively low number of Jewish players in the professional game. But this was the first time I’d been called on to comment on such a weighty ideological matter. It seemed about as surreal a question as the Python quizmaster’s to one of the icons of the radical left: “Now then, Che, Coventry City last won the FA Cup in what year?”


Then I saw on a TV replay – the match had been broadcast live around the world – the reason for this bizarre inquiry. The French striker Nicolas Anelka had celebrated the first of his two goals for West Brom with his right arm extended towards the ground, palm open, and the other arm bent across his chest, palm touching his right upper arm. It was, apparently, a reverse Nazi salute, invented by the Parisian comic Dieudonné M’bala M’bala. Although missed by most of us journalists at the game, it had been picked up by the cameras and was condemned by shocked tweeters watching it in France. Many of them referred to this “quenelle”, as Dieudonné had named it, as an anti-Semitic gesture; a few preferred the label “anti-Zionist”. Before I could explain the obvious distinction to my colleague, Albion’s caretaker manager, Keith Downing, breezed in to the press room. Besides the obligatory questions about tactics, injuries and controversial refereeing decisions, he was asked about the political significance of Anelka’s salute. “Absolute rubbish,” he snapped. It was an innocuous gesture, “dedicated to a friend [of Anelka’s] who happens to be a comedian”.

When Dieudonné, the friend in question, had initially joked in 2002 about Judaism being “a scam . . . it’s one of the worst, because it’s the first”, he was portrayed as some kind of Pythonesque absurdist. But after it became clear that he meant exactly what he’d said and when, in subsequent one-man shows, he felt compelled to insult the memory of Shoah victims, give a platform to Holocaust deniers and promote all kinds of Jew-hatred, his repulsive brand of humour provoked outrage. Not, it has to be said, universal outrage. On the far right, as would be expected, he was feted as a truth-teller. Less expected, perhaps, has been his growing attraction to the kinds of people who stick, or once stuck, Che posters on their bedroom walls. Despite several convictions for racism – and even though most recently, in a riposte to a critic, he declared: “When I hear Patrick Cohen speak, I think to myself, ‘Gas chambers . . . too bad’” – his attacks on Jewish capitalism and riffs about ripping out Holocaust chapters from history books have been hailed as taboo-breaking by those professing themselves to be radical, anti-establishment leftists.

Which raises a troubling question: is anti-Semitism now the radicalism of fools?

In the late 19th century, the German Marxist August Bebel observed that anti-Jewish prejudice was “the socialism of fools”. From Marx’s plea for the withering away of Jewishness to the popular euphemistic references to “rootless cosmopolitans” in the Stalin era, the left has had, to put it mildly, a problematic relationship with the world’s oldest monotheistic religion. The French left’s relationship has been more difficult than most. During the revolution of 1789, Jews were attacked for clinging selfishly to their religious identity. Even an ardent Dreyfusard such as the socialist leader Jean Jaurès could still insist that “the Jewish race was consumed by a sort of fever for profit”. What is new today is the appeal of this race-hate discourse to a fashionable, anti-globalisation, up-yours, them-and-us (“them” frequently being Jewish financiers and Holocaust memorialisers) coalition of radical Islamists, hip middle-class white Parisians, alienated black youth and Jewish-world-domination conspiracy theorists.

“Look at the composition of Dieudonné’s audiences,” says Philippe Auclair, an author who is the England correspondent of France Football. “There are people from the far right, but also from the far left. People on the margins. There are Green extremists and radical Muslims. To them, the English FA’s action against Anelka [the organisation has finally got round to charging him] is probably proof that American Zionists control the FA. Some of the people tweeting me, for example, have pointed out that the FA’s previous chairman was called Bernstein.”

David Bernstein’s predecessor as chairman at the FA, David Triesman, also happens to be Jewish. “There are some people on the so-called progressive left,” says Triesman, now Labour’s main foreign affairs spokesman in the House of Lords, “who have taken on board anti-Semitic slurs based on the notion of Jewish power and money.”

Triesman and Bernstein, who both pioneered anti-racist initiatives at the FA, pointed out to me that anti-Semitism had virtually disappeared from football stadiums. In fact, last year, despite protracted debate about Tottenham’s use of the term “Yid Army”, the community’s connection to the game became an official cause for celebration. In October, as part of the governing body’s 150th-birthday festivities, the Jewish Museum in London launched its “Four Four Jew” exhibition. The guest speaker was the Arsenal manager, Arsène Wenger, who spoke about the depth and variety of the Anglo-Jewish contribution to soccer. As a fan, reporter and author of a book on the subject, I can confirm that anti-Semitism has almost vanished from the game’s discourse. But can the same be said of left-liberal discourse? Do British radicals, like their counterparts across the Channel, have a Jewish problem?

While acting as an adviser on “Four Four Jew”, Triesman was disturbed to discover that several leading Jewish figures in football had declined to take part. “They didn’t want to be seen in that context because they thought they’d be pilloried, in certain parts of the media, in an anti-Semitic way,” he told me. “They were worried that people would say Jews had too much power in football. Elements of the far left genuinely look at the world and believe a huge amount of power is concentrated into the hands of the Jewish people. It’s not a different view from that taken by the far-right movements of the 1930s.”

It is striking that, weeks after the “reverse Nazi” sign was performed in the East End of London – an area once inhabited by Jewish immigrants fleeing persecution from eastern Europe – the “zero tolerance towards anti-Semitism” line adopted by most football writers has not been replicated by the liberal commentariat. “Perhaps there’s a reluctance because he’s a Muslim,” Auclair says of Anelka’s gesture. “If he had been a white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant there would have been a stink. There would have been outrage by liberals and progressives.”

Unbelievably, some liberals and progressives have defended Anelka. Nabila Ramdani, a French journalist of Algerian descent who writes for the Guardian, sees the Rolls-Royce-driving, hamburger-chain-advertising, multimillionaire enfant terrible as a victim of France’s political class – “because he is the kind of Frenchman many disapprove of – one who is Muslim, black and from a deprived housing estate”. In a column for the National, she wrote: “There is no doubt that Dieudonné has some repulsive views, but until its Premiership debut, the quenelle meant next to nothing at all.” She also noted that “anybody – from schoolchildren to celebrities and politicians – could and did perform [it] during those goofing around moments which are nowadays invariably caught on smartphone cameras”. Although she noted that some of these revolting photographs were taken outside Holocaust memorials, she assumed that Anelka himself would condemn such obscenities.

This worrying phenomenon has not, as yet, entered the British cultural mainstream. True, the humorist David Mitchell, who describes himself as a leftish liberal, offended some Jewish sensibilities in 2009 when he quipped on a radio programme: “There’s actually no truth in the rumour that the last entry in Anne Frank’s diary reads: ‘Today is my birthday, Dad bought me a drum kit.’” But Mitchell, quite reasonably, claimed this was “a joke about people who are hiding, not wanting to make a noise . . . that’s not the same as finding the Holocaust funny”.

In fact, his fellow comedian Russell Brand, our very own idiosyncratic, taboo-breaking anti-hero, last year poked fun at Hugo Boss’s sordid past making uniforms for Nazi Germany – in stark contrast to Dieudonné, who prefers to poke fun at Jews who exaggerate their suffering in the Holocaust. I can remember feeling uncomfortable, as a youngster who played at being a punk, about the prevalence of the swastika in punk fashion, but accepted it to be more the product of a misguided, anarchistic desire to shock than an expression of racism.


Yet it is not so long ago that the Labour MP Tam Dalyell was accusing Tony Blair of being in the pocket of Lord Levy, Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw and a “cabal of Jewish advisers” (Mandelson and Straw have Jewish ancestry but neither is Jewish). In the 2012 London mayoral election, Ken Livingstone suggested that “rich Jews” wouldn’t vote for him. Only last year, the Labour peer Nazir Ahmed claimed his jail sentence for dangerous driving was the result of a Jewish plot and the Liberal Democrat MP David Ward tweeted, “What a shame there isn’t a powerful, well funded Board of Deputies for #Roma” (a reference to the Board of Deputies of British Jews).

“There are left-of-centre people in parlia­ment,” Triesman says, “who are incapable of understanding that you can be in the progressive movement and be Jewish. They can’t accept anything you say on Israel. They think that if you criticise Israel it’s a fiction, that almost anybody who’s Jewish can’t criticise Israel in good faith. Some of the rhetoric around the Israeli boycott movement from the Trotskyite left is anti-Semitic.” Which brings us back to the question asked by my football reporting colleague at Upton Park: what is the difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism?

Criticising Israel, as many Jews do, and Zionism as an ideology, which a much smaller number but still a significant minority of the community does, are perfectly valid positions. Publishing an anti-Zionist cover story featuring a golden Star of David stabbing a pliant Union flag with the headline “A kosher conspiracy?”, as the New Statesman (then under different ownership and editorship) did in 2002, is not. It should not have to be spelled out, though this magazine’s then editor did so in a subsequent apology, that all principled critics of Israeli policies should avoid using anti-Semitic images and narratives. They should not, as the BBC’s Tim Llewellyn once did, accuse American politicians such as Dennis Ross of hiding behind “a lovely Anglo-Saxon name”. (Llewellyn went on to say that Ross is “not just a Jew, he is a Zionist . . . a Zionist propagandist”.) They should have no truck with vile anti-Jewish calumnies, including the blood libel slur, routinely rehearsed in anti-Zionist Arab textbooks.

“The Zionist lobby,” Dieudonné told the Iranian-funded Press TV, “have taken France as hostage and we are in the hands of ignorant people, who know how to structure themselves into a Mafia-like organisation and . . . have now taken over a country.”

As Dave Rich at the Community Security Trust, a charity that monitors anti-Jewish attacks in Britain, explains: “This is not the anti-Zionism of people who think that the Palestinians get a raw deal from Israel: it is the anti-Zionism of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, of a conspiracy theory that believes the Jews pull all the strings.”

“We need to keep things in perspective,” warns David Feldman, of the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism. “We have experienced the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, with Jews prominent in many places [in finance]. Yet in contrast to the situation 80 years ago, few radicals have proposed anti-Semitic explanations.”

As Jonathan Freedland, who writes a weekly column for the Guardian and a monthly commentary for the Jewish Chronicle, points out, so far only “a few marginal political voices” on the British left have flirted with anti-Semitic tropes. However, after a property website owned by a Jewish businessman withdrew its sponsorship of West Brom on 20 January, and then the FA announced it was charging Anelka, the liberal-left commentariat was presented with a perfect opportunity to take a stand against such tropes. Yet more silence. In fact, it was left to the right-wing controversialist Rod Liddle to condemn the striker’s “repulsive” support for his Jew-baiting friend.

“On this issue,” Freedland told me, “all anti-racists of good conscience should have leapt in. Dieudonné is aligned with the far right. He’s had criminal convictions for anti-Semitism. My worry is that, as time passed before the FA’s announcement and the lack of outrage continued, it didn’t send out a strong message about anti-Semitism.

“The quenelle was a previously obscure gesture in this country and now it’s known. So this is the moment to make the point that no self-respecting person on the left should accept a supposedly ‘anti-establishment’ position which in fact says it’s the Jews who are ‘the establishment’.”

[American Dream]

THE BNP PARTIED WITH EUROPEAN FASCISTS IN ROME THIS WEEKEND

By Leonardo Bianchi Mar 5 2014


Nick Griffin at a demonstration in London, September 2013


http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/rome-hos ... is-weekend

[American Dream]

http://newjewishresistance.org/blog/eur ... t-and-west

Europe's fascist resurgence: East and West

BLOG | MAY 27, 2014 - 8:15PM | BY BILL WEINBERG

The May 24 shooting at the Jewish Museum of Belgium in Brussels, that left three dead, is greeted by the usual ridiculous bet-hedging. CNN typically writes: "The circumstances of the shooting have raised suspicions that it may have been an anti-Semitic attack, but no motive has been determined." Once an anti-Semitic motive is finally conceded, we will next be assured that it was the work of a lone nut with no organizational ties. How many commentators will tie the attack to the terrifyingly good showing that far-right "anti-Europe" paties made in the next day's EU parliamentary election? In France, Front National leader Marine Le Pen, daughter of xenophobic party founder Jean-Marie Le Pen, boasted as the exit polls rolled in: "What has happened tonight is a massive rejection of the EU." In Britain, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) is on course to win, displacing Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservatives and burying their coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats. (Globe & Mail, CBC) And think there's a wide gap between the "anti-Europe" ideologies of the Front National and UKIP and the anti-Semitic doctrines of classical fascism? Think again...

An April 25 account on Britain's SWNS news service noted that UKIP candidate for local office in East Sussex, Anna-Marie Crampton, posted some charming comments to the conspiranoid website Secrets of The Fed to the effect that Jews deliberately murdered each other in the Holocaust as part of a masterplan to create Israel. The comments, which appear to have been purged from the website, included: "Holocaust means a sacrifice by fire. Only the Zionists could sacrifice their own in the gas chambers... The Second World Wide War was engineered by the Zionist jews and financed by the banksters to make the general public all over the world to feel so guilty and outraged by the Holocaust that a treaty would be signed to create the State of Israel as we know it today."

And these was the usual bogus attempt to disavow anti-Semitism—in classically anti-Semitic terms: "The Rothschilds are Zionists... there is a difference between Jews and Zionists. These Psychopaths hide behind and use the Jews. It was thanks to them that 6 million Jews were murdered in the War (along with 26 million Russians!)... I am anti Zionist, not antisemit [sic]. I love the true Israel and the Jews."

UK Metro thankfully reports that UKIP has suspended Crampton as a candidate in the wake of the outrage, and according to International Business Times, she is now claiming to be the victim of hacking—but her supporters have launched a Facebook page in defense of her "freedom of speech."

Then there's Ukraine, where the question of anti-Semitism has emerged as a political football. Former chocolate magnate Petro Poroshenko appears as the victor in the May 25 presidential race—which took place as Ukraine's interim government is engaged in a military offensive against Russia-backed separatists in the east. The separatists severely disrupted voting in the eastern regions—no polling stations were open in Donetsk and several other districts. Poroshenko pledges to "end war and bring peace"—but also said Kiev will never recognize Russia's "occupation" of Crimea. (BBC News, Kyiv Post)

It's pretty funny that leftists, who have for years been portraying anti-Semitism as a mere propaganda creation of Zionists, are now echoing Putin's propaganda that the new Ukrainian government is a hotbed of anti-Semitic fascists. We've been arguing, first, that this is cynically overstated—but, that there is indeed a resurgent fascist element in the new Ukraine (contrary to the dogma of both sides). And, secondly, that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black—that there is resurgent fascism on both sides in the Russo-Ukraine conflict, and Putin is in a very poor position to be making accusations of "fascism."

Yes, the recent spate of anti-Jewish attacks has been in Ukraine—although there is the predictable unclarity as to whether they were carried out by "real" Ukrainian neo-fascists or pro-Russian provocateurs. But Julia Ioffe in The New Republic offers a round-up of recent anti-Semitic outbursts in Putin's Russia. To cite but one example, last month the Jewish daily Forward noted that Russian state television's hatchet-job "documentaries" about Ukrainian politicians Yulia Tymoshenko (ex-PM and Poroshenko's rival in the election) and Arseniy Yatsenyuk stressed, in ominous terms, their alleged Jewish background. The "documentary" on Tymoshenko stated: "She completely hides her origin. But for many, it is no secret that the father of this woman with a hair-braid—Viktor Abramovich Kapitelman—has Jewish roots."

Ioffe adds: "In Ukraine, meanwhile, the Jews are standing with the provisional government in Kiev, which has even appointed one of them to run the Dniepropetrovsk region."

Isn't it just like those tricky Jews to deny being persecuted the one time we actually want them to be?

Meanwhile darlings of the Idiot Left like always-annoying William Engdahl pose "China, Russia and Iran as a resistance against global fascism." Will you please shut up?

This simultaneous fascist resurgence among pro-European forces in Ukraine and anti-European forces in Britain and France (and Russia) is instructive. We've noted why Jews and progressives in Ukraine seek to move towards the EU: It offers basic standards of human and civil rights, at least in theory—in contrast to Putin's Eurasian Union project. But Ukrainian rightists, who only seek distance from Russia on nationalist grounds, also joined the movement that brought down the Moscow-aligned Yanukovich regime, and are now in influential places in the new government. Meanwhile, within the EU, austerity is provoking a backlash readily exploited by the neo-fascist right. This should give Jews and progressives in Ukraine pause...

[American Dream]

http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... orism.html

November 01, 2009

The BNP and terrorism

Posted by Antifascist

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Roddy Newman. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

After 9/11, BNP leader Nick Griffin started moralising about Islamist terrorism, and pretended that the BNP was a mainstream political party like the big 3 parties, UKIP, and the Greens, but as I will explain in this article, the BNP has had links to fascist terrorists, while the five other parties have not. Moreover, as I will also explain in this article, Nick Griffin supported Iranian dictator Ayatollah Khomeini's terrorist regime during his period in the International Third Position group, who saw Khomeini's Iran, and Libyan dictator Colonel Gadaffi's terrorist regime, as a "Third Way" which was not "Jewish-controlled capitalism", or "Jewish-controlled communism".

The most notorious BNP linked former terrorist, is of course the London nail bomber, David Copeland, whose 3 bombs killed 3 and injured 139. Copeland had been a member of the BNP before he carried out his bombings, and he openly said that his bombs were designed to create a race war which would encourage white British people to vote BNP (one bomb went off in the primarily African-Caribbean Brixton area, and one in the primarily Asian Brick Lane area). The third went off in a Soho gay bar. See the June 30, 2000 BBC News online article, "Profile: Copeland the killer", to learn more about Copeland and his bombings.

Another BBC News online article, "Ex-BNP man jailed over chemicals" (July 31, 2007), discussed a second BNP former terrorist, Robert Cottage [pictured left], who stored bomb-making chemicals at his home, because he expected that immigration would lead to a civil war. A YouTube film, "BNP terrorist Robert Cottage", which is a clip from a Sky News report about his bomb-making hoard, mentions his involvement with the BNP, for whom he stood as a local election candidate 3 times.

A third BNP former terrorist, former BNP Propaganda Officer and Group Development Officer Tony Lecomber, who was taking a nail bomb to the headquarters of a left wing group when it went off in his car, was discussed in an article in "Searchlight", which is Britain's leading anti-fascist magazine, "Sacked terrorist ran BNP election campaign" (September 2006), and in a YouTube film, "BNP nail-bomber Tony Lecomber", which is a clip from a BBC "Panorama" documentary, "Under the Skin", which was originally broadcast on November 25, 2000.

The "Searchlight" magazine, which all 3 of the big political parties have asked for advice on how to defeat BNP candidates in elections, have discussed a number of other BNP former terrorists in their articles. In their November 2005 article, "Right-wing terrorism still alive and plotting", you can read about David Tovey, a BNP member who was caught with military plastic explosive, and remote control devices to set it off, and in March 2007's "AWB terrorist finds home in the BNP", you can read about Lambertus Nieuwhof, a white South African former terrorist who has joined the BNP, and who has created a number of its websites - for example, the website of the BNP's Barking and Dagenham branch, and the website of its Solidarity trades union.

As a March 31, 2007 article in "The Guardian" ("BNP activist took part in terror campaign") revealed, Nieuwhof planted a 25 kg bomb in a South African multiracial school, which thankfully failed to explode.

If Nieuwhof was a non-white, South African Islamist former terrorist, rather than a white South African former terrorist, there would no doubt have been critical stories in various national newspapers about his presence in Britain, but so far, only "The Guardian", and "The Independent" ("Johann Hari: The looming threat of terror that comes from the far right", October 14, 2009) have written about him.

Johann Hari's article, which was reprinted in "The Belfast Telegraph" under a slightly different title ("Johann Hari: UK faces looming threat of terror from 'neo-Nazis' out to kill black people, Jews and gays"), perhaps because that city is much more concerned about white terrorists than the mainland UK is, for obvious reasons, discusses several British fascist former terrorists, including David Copeland and Tony Lecomber.

The YouTube video "Lambertus Nieuwhof and the Afrikaner Resistance Movement", is a short clip from "His Big White Self", a 2006 Nick Broomfield TV documentary about the Afrikaaner Resistance Movement white South African terrorist group, who, as the film explains, set off about 120 bombs in the 1992 to 1994 period, to try to stop the transition to black majority rule. Broomfield made another TV documentary about the same terrorist group in 1991, "The Leader, His Driver, and the Driver's Wife". Both of the documentaries have now been released on DVD.

On a "Searchlight" HOPE not hate webpage, "The real BNP: The terrorist links", you can read about yet another BNP related former terrorist, BNP supporter Allen Boyce, who was given a 2 year suspended jail sentence after he passed bomb making instructions to a BNP activist, Terry Collins.

As I will now explain, even Nick Griffin himself has past terrorist links, as he is linked to an Italian fascist former terrorist who was convicted in absentia for being a member of an Italian fascist terrorist group. As I will now explain as well, Griffin also once backed 2 regimes which funded terrorist groups, and was allegedly once a "close ally" of a pro-terrorism American fascist party leader.

The Italian fascist former terrorist who Griffin is linked to, is Roberto Fiore, who fled Italy and made his home in Britain after the August 2, 1980 Bologna train station bombing (which killed 85, and injured more than 200), because his fascist terrorist group, the Armed Revolutionary Nuclei, were responsible for what is known in Italy as "The Bologna massacre". See 3 online articles, "Italy:Terror on the Right" ("New York Review of Books", January 22, 1981, Volume 27, Numbers 21 and 22), "Roberto Fiore: from terrorist to entrepreneur...and back again" ("Searchlight", July 1998), and the "Searchlight" HOPE not hate website's "Nick Griffin, BNP leader" (December 2008) to learn more about Fiore, the Armed Revoloutionary Nuclei, and the Bologna massacre.

Most people would no doubt assume that Nick Griffin, who moralises about Islamist terrorism, would have had nothing to do with a former terrorist like Fiore when he fled to Britain, but of course if you did assume that, you would be wrong, because Griffin has in the past said one thing to the general public, and a different thing to his own people. Griffin tells the general public that the BNP is now a moderate mainstream political party, but in a YouTube film of a Griffin speech, which has been posted under the title "BNP MEP Nick Griffin + KKK Terrorist", Griffin tells an American far right audience that he is merely repackaging his unchanged far right ideas to make them more acceptable to the British general public.

It is thus not surprising that Fiore is the political mentor and friend of Griffin, as a "Searchlight" article, "Nick Griffin political extremist and veteran splitter" (February 2008) pointed out, and that Fiore has financially supported Griffin, as a second "Searchlight" article, "BNP deputy leader addresses international fascist rally" (April 5, 2009) explained. It is thus also not surprising that Griffin used to be Fiore's business partner, as a third "Searchlight" article, "No beer, no bands, no fun" (September 2009) revealed, that Griffin and Fiore once shared a flat together, as a February 29, 2008 article in "The Guardian" ("Language school run by Italian fascist leader") stated, and that Fiore spoke at the BNP's Red, White and Blue Festival in August 2009, as an August 16 story in "The Times", "Convicted Italian fascist Roberto Fiore addresses BNP followers in Derbyshire" noted. Nor is it surprising that in a YouTube video which has been posted under the title "Nick Griffin and Christianity (BNP)", you can hear Griffin praising Fiore as "charismatic" and "magnetic".

If you know about the dirty secrets of the Italian fascist scene which the "charismatic" and "magnetic" Fiore emerged from, then you will also know that those dirty secrets make it extremely hypocritical for the BNP to moralise about terrorism. The Bologna bombing was initially blamed on an accident or the communist Red Brigades terrorist group, but it soon became clear that the fascist Armed Revoloutionary Nuclei had carried out the bombing, which was presumably designed to weaken support for the large Italian Communist Party, as Bologna was one of its strongholds.

The Italian Parliament's 13 year Slaughter Commission, which was investigating the Bologna massacre, and a series of other murderous "communist" and "anarchist" bombings in Italy in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's (hence its 'Slaughter Commission' name), concluded that the American CIA, and the Italian elite Masonic lodge P2, which included senior figures in the Italian Parliament, armed forces, secret services, and police forces, were responsible for the bombings, which it is now known were carried out by fascists to create public support for a fascist military coup.

On page 110 of David Yallop's book, "In God's Name: An Investigation into the Murder of Pope John Paul I" (Constable and Robinson, London, 2007), which has sold over 6 million copies around the world, and which is about the theory that P2 poisoned and murdered Pope John Paul I, because he was about to throw Freemasons out of the Vatican, Yallop mentions the fact that Italian former fascist terrorist Elio Ciolini, who had allegedly been a follower of P2's fascist Grand Master, Licio Gelli, had alleged that the Bologna bombing was planned at a P2 meeting in Monte Carlo on April 11, 1980.

Bologna was a well known stronghold of the Communist Party, so why would a communist terrorist group bomb the second class passengers' waiting room at its Central Station? Communists have historically got most of their support from working class people, who were probably the majority of the people in the second class waiting room on the morning of August 2, 1980. It is equally unlikely that anarchists, who have historically got most of their support from peasant and working class people, should have perpetrated the bombings which they were initially accused of in Italy, as those terrorist atrocities killed or injured many working class people.

Italian judge Guido Salvini indicted US Navy officer David Carrett as a suspect in a December 12, 1969 "anarchist" bombing of Milan's Piazza Fontana (Fontana Square), which killed 16, and injured 90, and which an Italian former fascist terrorist, Vincenzo Vinciguerra, has said was the work of fascist terrorists, and, although it should be pointed out that Carrett has never even been tried, never mind convicted for carrying out that bombing, it should also be pointed out if Salvini was indicting a US Navy officer as a Piazza Fontana suspect, it is hardly likely that anarchists were responsible for the atrocity.

The Piazza Fontana bombing also led to another death, that of Giuseppe Pinelli, an entirely innocent Italian anarchist railway worker, who "fell" to his death from the fourth floor of a Milan police station while he was being interrogated about his non-existent role in the bombing. Pinelli's death inspired Dario Fo's famous 1970 play, "Accidental Death of an Anarchist", which was broadcast on Channel 4 in 1983, and which has been performed in various British theatres in London, Birmingham, and other places.

Fiore's friend, political pupil, and former financial benefactor and business partner Nick Griffin, was also once a fan of 2 regimes which fund, or did fund terrorism (Colonel Gadaffi's Libya, and Iran's Islamist theocracy). A BBC News webpage, "Nick Griffin: Right wing chameleon" (June 29, 2001), explains how Griffin went to Libya to ask Colonel Gadaffi for funds for the National Front, which Griffin was then a member of. That visit is also discussed in a YouTube video, "Nick Griffin supports Muslim Extremism", which is a clip from an already mentioned BBC "Panorama" documentary, "Under the Skin". The "Panorama" documentary clip includes a photograph of Griffin in Libya, whose regime paid for his trip to Tripoli, as a "Searchlight" anti-BNP webpage which also includes that photo explains.

That webpage also mentions the fact that the "political soldier" wing of the NF, which Griffin created, as an already mentioned "Searchlight" article, "Nick Griffin political extremist and veteran splitter" (February 2008) pointed out, had been paying visits to the "Libyan People's Bureau" (the Libyan Embassy) in London, and had been expressing support for Colonel Gadaffi's Libya, so it is not surprising that the Libyan regime arranged an all expenses paid trip to Tripoli for Griffin. Colonel Gadaffi's Libya used to fund a number of terrorist groups of course, including the IRA.

The just mentioned "Searchlight" Stop the BNP webpage, and the previously mentioned "Searchlight" article, also refer to Nick Griffin's past support for Iran's Islamist theocracy, which has long funded Islamist terrorism (for example, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas), so Griffin's past support for that regime is as hypocritical as his links to Fiore, and as his past links to Colonel Gadaffi's Libya.

Whether you believe the original theory that Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran paid Ahmed Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine to carry out the Lockerbie bombing, to avenge the deaths of 290 Iranian pilgrims returning from Mecca, whose Iran Air Flight 655 airliner had been shot out of the sky by accident by the US Navy warship the USS Vincennes, or whether you believe the post 1991 Gulf War theory that Colonel Gadaffi's Libya was responsible (when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, Iran was needed for the anti-Iraq coalition, so some writers, like the late Paul Foot of "Private Eye", have alleged that American and British intelligence agencies started to point the finger at Libya so Iran could become part of the anti-Iraq coalition), Nick Griffin backed the regime which was responsible for the worst terrorist atrocity in British history.

That atrocity killed all of the 243 passengers and 16 crew on board Pan Am Flight 103, as well as 11 people in the village of Lockerbie, because the plane's nearly full fuel tanks (and wings) fell on their homes and exploded.

9/11 created a "Who should we hate now?" moment for Europe's far-right, as a "Searchlight" article, "International far-right reactions to the terrorist attacks on the USA" (October 2001) showed, because some of Europe's far-right continued to primarily hate Jewish people, and what they saw as the USA's "Zionist Occupation Government", which led to them applauding the 9/11 attacks, while the rest of Europe's far-right, including Nick Griffin, switched to primarily hating Muslim people, which is why Griffin used the attacks as an excuse to begin hypocritically moralising about Islamist terrorism.

Griffin was also allegedly a "close ally" of a pro-terrorism American fascist party (National Alliance) leader, the late William Pierce, who openly advocated killing all of the world's non-white and Jewish people with nuclear weapons, and the use of terrorist violence to kill such people. See my September 13th Lancaster Unity article, "Do the BNP and EFP leadership still believe in the mass slaughter of billions?", to learn more about Pierce's pro-global genocide views, and about Griffin allegedly being a "close ally" of his.

Of course, other British fascist groups have terrorist links, which is why "The Guardian" of December 13, 2008 featured a story called "Racist who had bomb kit jailed for campaign against couple", which discussed Nathan Worrell, a British People's Party, Ku Klux Klan, and November 9 Society terrorist, and which is why another article in the same newspaper, "Neo-Nazi convicted of planning terrorist bombing campaign" (July 15, 2009), discussed Neil Lewington, who was found by police to have 2 home made bombs, and fascist (Ku Klux Klan and Combat 18) literature, as well a video about the ex-BNP nail bomber David Copeland. A YouTube video, "BNP + Nazi terrorist Nathan Worrell", includes film of the BNP stickers which were found at Worrell's home. Another YouTube video, "Nazi terrorist Neil Lewington", is a BBC News clip about that fascist would-be bomber.

A third non-BNP fascist terrorist, Martyn Gilleard, was the subject of a BBC News online article, "Man jailed over nail bombs plot" (June 25, 2008). Police found 4 home-made nail bombs at his home, as well as bullets, swords, and axes (and 39,000 child pornography images). A second BBC News online article, "Neo-Nazi had child abuse images" (June 25, 2008), states that: "At the time of his arrest he [Gilleard] was a paid-up member of the National Front, the White Nationalist Party, and the British People's Party...".


Andrew Wells and Ian Hindle

Gilleard's British People's Party membership is also mentioned in a YouTube film, "BNP and NF Pedos Martyn Gilleard, Roderick Rowley, Ian Hindle + Andrew Wells", which is a clip from a Channel 4 News report. The report only discusses Gilleard, but the "more info" information on the right hand side of the page when the video is playing, mentions former BNP election candidate Roderick Rowley's child pornography conviction, and the child sexual abuse convictions of BNP members Ian Hindle and Andrew Wells, which were exposed after the BNP's membership list was posted online in 2008.

Despite the existence of non-BNP British fascist former terrorists, the BNP are the largest British fascist party, so it is no surprise that they seem to attract the most terrorists, and it is also no surprise that even the non-BNP terrorists Nathan Worrell and Neil Lewington had BNP stickers, or a video about an ex-BNP former terrorist at their homes.

The BNP may even attract more terrorists than other countries' fascist parties, because "Searchlight" has foreign readers who write articles for them about fascism in other countries, but that magazine has primarily featured BNP-linked terrorists in its articles, which have included: "Belgium: Arrested nazi terrorists included soldiers" (October 2006); "Italy - An endless cycle of terror" (May 2002); "Portrait of a bomber" (February 2001), which was about a terrorist bombing that was carried out by a member of the New Force party (whose leader is a certain Roberto Fiore, who, in 1999, was allowed to return to Italy, where he became a fascist MEP); and "Unmasking the Anti Anti-Fa" (May 2000), which mentions German fascist terrorism.

See Martin Lee's book, "The Beast Reawakens: The Chilling Story of the Rise of the Neo-Nazi Movement" (Warner Books, London, 1998), to learn more about modern fascist terrorism in Italy, Germany, and Belgium.

Perhaps not even an American fascist party has attracted as many terrorists as the BNP, despite that country's size. See my already mentioned September 13th Lancaster Unity article, "Do the BNP and EFP leadership still believe in the mass slaughter of billions?", to read about various American fascist terrorists, who, like the ex-BNP London nail bomber David Copeland, were inspired by the genocidal ideas of the late National Alliance leader William Pierce.

A YouTube video, "BNP + Nazi Terrorism", which is a clip from a BBC documentary, "Panorama Special - The Nailbomber", which was originally broadcast on June 30, 2000, discusses David Copeland's [pictured left] involvement with the BNP, and his admission that his bombings were inspired by "The Turner Diaries", which the documentary said was "sold through BNP magazines". So much for the supposedly mainstream BNP. Do the big 3 parties, UKIP, or the Greens sell novels through their party magazines in which billions of people are exterminated with nuclear weapons?

In reality, like other totalitarian organisations, the BNP is a haven for psychopaths and other dangerous individuals, and has nothing to do with mainstream politics.

Another BNP type fascist group which is a haven for psychopaths and other dangerous individuals, the even more extreme National Socialist Movement, has a tiny past and present membership which includes 3 men who are serving life sentences for murders, London nail bomber David Copeland, Charlie Sargent, and Martin Cross, so it is no surprise that the BNP has had to ban convicted criminals from standing in elections, because anti-fascists had been able to use their leaflets to point to the numerous BNP candidates with convictions for terrorist offences, racist violence, gang rape, child sexual abuse, football hooliganism, and other violent crimes.

The NSM were profiled in an already-mentioned BBC documentary, "Panorama Special: The Nailbomber". They are not to be confused with a different National Socialist Movement of the past, whose members included a certain Andrew Brons, who is now the BNP MEP for Yorkshire and Humberside. While the previous NSM did not spawn any terrorists, it did spawn some arsonists, as a "Searchlight" HOPE not hate webpage, "The real BNP: Andrew Brons" explains. It states: "NSM members were responsible for an arson campaign against Jewish property and synagogues in the 1960's."

"Brons appears to have approved. In a [garbled] letter to [hardline fascist Colin] Jordan's wife, Brons reported meeting an NSM member who "mentioned such activities as bombing synagogues." He declared: "On this subject I have a dual view, in that I realise that he is well intentioned, I feel that our public image may suffer considerable damage as a result of these activities. I am however open to correction on this point.""

Like BNP founder John Tyndall, Colin Jordan was a disciple of the pre-World War Two Imperial Fascist League leader Arnold Leese, who advocated gassing Jews before the Nazis (in 1936).

Because British fascists are at least partly responsible for far more racist violence than fascists in any other Western European country, as an official European Union report which you can download here shows (in England and Wales, there are several times more racist crimes each year than in Germany, which has a roughly 30% bigger population than England and Wales), it is hardly surprising that the BNP appear to attract more terrorists than any other fascist party on the planet. As an April 22, 2009 EU Business article which you can read here explains, a survey has revealed that the true level of racist violence in the EU, is far higher than the level in official government statistics, which makes it even less surprising that the BNP attracts so many terrorists.