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

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

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

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

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

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

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

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

The typical left-wing response to contradictory views. Strange to find that here. And I am at a disadvantage as you haven't made available even a cursory bio.

Cheers!

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

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

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

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

As for Mr Griffin?

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

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

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

Brendan Scarborough
BritNat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clear enough for you?