The BNP’s appropriation of British institutions must be resisted

The Puppet Master

The Daily Mash has quite an amusing take on this story. We really are getting into Alice in Wonderland territory with this though.
As I understand the BNP position, they support our troops, but don't want them sent to fight in foreign wars, especially illegal ones.
Are the Generals trying to defend their rights to kill foreigners in pointless conflicts? Or are they opposed to the idea that our army should only be used to defend our country, rather than attack countries which have not attacked us.
I think I'll go and lie down now, see if I can understand how I am being manipulated.

beagleslovefags

Didn't Phil Woolas and the Labour Government have a distinctly ambiguous stance on the gurkhas?

Didn't I see footage of Gordon Brown bounding out of a military helicopter in Iraq?

Didn't I see Tony Blair strutting around with an open-necked shirt in front of troops in Iraq?

Didn't I see Margaret Thatcher in battle gear sticking out of the turret of a tank somewhere?

Austin Barry

Crikey, the Establishment seems to be in an unnecessary panic about the BNP. Calm down chums, the redoubts of Hampstead and Islington are safe from advancing hordes of angry proletarian Sturmabteilung - well, at least until after a few more terrorist outrages - then, I fear, all bets are off and the abyss may indeed start to open.

By the right, quick ....

The only reason the BNP is able to appropriate these symbols of national pride is by virtue of the deliberate abandonment of those very symbols by our government and the chatterati.

Peter

Yet again this is another example of Griffin astutely commandeering a vacant position. If the majority of the electorate had not joined the government in talking down, acting down and diminishing their pride in their country Griffin would e left without that standard to bear.

Labour with the quiet aquiesence of any opposition has successfully destroyed a great part of what we used to believe in so yet again the BNP is providing voters with what none of the other parties is offering. Belief in themselves and belief in their country.

It really is that simple. And so is the solution.

Vulture

Stories like this make you understand why the modern British General has the reputation of donkeys leading lions. They never were the sharpest knives in the box, intellectually speaking, but that's not what they are employed for.

We expect soldiers to be brave, patriotic, determined, disciplined, cool, courageous, calm, efficient - and (not least) when necessary utterly ruthless.

If 'tolerance' and 'fairness' really are the virtues of today's modern Army then its no wonder we are in the S**t that we are. If you asked Cromwell, Marlborough, Wellington, Kitchener or Montgomery what were the military virtues - how far up the list would tolerance and virtue ( though admirable in themselves) actually feature? They wouldn't even be on the radar.

Armies are there to fight, kill and sadly sometimes die on behalf of the nation. The fact that the Generals have put their names to this piece of pap penned and pumped out by some PR scribe is sad - but scarcely surprising.

And how much easier than getting to grips with the issues that the BNP in their crude and nasty way - actually raise. If the BNP are as wrong and vile as we are told, no-one will support or vote for them and the problems they address will all go away. But if not.....

mac

Sadly, as a nation we're reaping what's been sown for 12 years: rampant metropolitan liberalism and, more destructive still, the infestation of Gramscian ideology in a gimcrack government and the client state it's deliberately fostered.

Sue Ward

Totally agree with everything said above - especially wonderful Vulture who always hits the right note for me (you have a fan!). I see no problem with a legitimate, legal, political party (however distasteful) associating itself with symbols of national pride. If the BNP is tapping into the repressed patriotic sentiments of the British working class, the other parties only have themselves to blame for denigrating and demeaning all we hold dear.

McKenzie

I am ex-forces and I am on the new 'leaked members list'. All I have to say Mr Blackburn is suck my dick.

maryb

The Speccie sure is playing games with this one! What fun it must be needling us all to anti-BNPism!!

I'd like to know why my previous post has been rejected for the previous BNP strand. All I did was point out that anti-British Racism is part of a widespread (international) Marxist/franco-german campaign ... against the British. I claim that anti-Griffinism participates in this campaign. I claim that British 'racists' are less sinning than sinned against. And I say that the People have a right to decide whether or not this man is a devil - and if so, worse than the devils we have before us.

Indeed, the people will decide. If time the idiots who claim to be the 'establishment' want to save themselves, they'll take their blinkers off.

strapworld

I cannot believe all this fuss over a rump of an ultra left wing political party.

Sky News gave the leader of this party nearly an hour of publicity. An interview, in which the Sky News presenter got hot under the collar and lost the argument well and truly, and then they had a discussion with two other BNP haters who just carried on giving this party the oxygen of publicity. And still they carry on throughout their news broadcasts.

So the General's have shown, by this letter, their naivety in matters political.

As for that General jackson. That man did nothing to stand up for his men and women when in the army. Only when he climbed out of his bunker did he open his mouth (with his ghastly brown teeth!).

Am I missing something? Why the concern? Or is the banning of the BNP about to be brought to Parliament?

DavidDP

"If 'tolerance' and 'fairness' really are the virtues of today's modern Army then its no wonder we are in the S**t that we are"

Yeah - like the BNP say, we don't need no Darkies and furriners in our army.

True, they have been extremly good soldiers, and yes, the Polish squadron was a vital part of the Battle of Britain, but it doesn't matter if we'd have lost, because at least we would have lost being White and Pure!

DavidDP

"I see no problem with a legitimate, legal, political party (however distasteful) associating itself with symbols of national pride."

And I see know problem with representatives of those symbols making it clear that they hold no truck with the nasty small minded views expressed by that legitimate, legal (tautology?) political party.

Peter From Maidstone

Why is David Blackburn producing material for the Spectator? Surely his content would sit much more naturally with the New Statesman?

DZ

I was only born yesterday, but, without being economical with the truth, or dwelling on the past, is there anything more wrong with the BNP (British National Party) than the following:

SNP (Scottish National Party),
Plaid Genedlaethol Cymru (Welsh Nationalist Party), or
Sinn Fein, Ulster Unionist Party, and Social Democratic and Labour Party (our Governments ‘partners in the peace process’)?

Not to mention the other 31 accredited national parties in Europe.

Or the hundreds of European National Parties on the Left (listed by www.broadleft.org).

Or is this fuss about the BNP just the usual Brit thing of pig ignorance, misery, and mortification of the flesh? Heads and brains up their backsides whilst all the serious nationalists standing in the queue for ferry tickets in Calais fall about laughing at the naivety of the Brits beating themselves with thorns?

Just thought I would ask.

Sue Ward

DavidDP - your use of 'know' instead of 'no' beats my tautology. Always best not to nit pick another's usage if you haven't proofed your own post first!

I don't recall anyone on this page suggesting the armed forces should be all-white so the point of your 2.33pm post is beyond me.

Wilhelm

How come these generals and old farts are squeeeling now ? 2 days before Nick Griffin's Question Time and not before the Euro elections

Have they been lent on by the liebour, tory establishment ? I think we all know the answer, dont we ?

Horatius

I accept that the armed forces should not be exploited for selfish ends by politicians. They should be above politics. That applies equally to the mainstream political parties as well as to the BNP. Does anyone still remember Portillo's digracesful attempt to exploit the SAS back at a 1980s Tory conference?

With respect to every one who is getting so worked up, I analysed the BNP Euro campaign as the use of a metaphor. Anti-EU party has campaign ticket:" Battle for Britain". Not so hard to figure out and a similar line was taken by UKIP with its Churchill posters. I imagine that Spectator readers can understand the concept and use of a metaphor, even if Mr Bethell and his pet generals cannot.

Which brings us to the irony of the matter, for in signing a letter deploring political exploitation, the generals are aligning themselves with a campaign, Nothing British,that is run by two leading members of the Conservative Party.

Metaphors notwithstanding, I do have some sympathy with the generals, though I have distaste for flag waving an inappropriate medal wearing by all parties, not just the BNP. If the generals had wished to maintain their appearance of independence, they would have been far better advised to have written directly and independently to the Times.

TomTom

In 1945 Poles were forbidden by the Labour Government from taking part in victory parades for fear of upsetting Stalin. They were banned from the Cenotaph on 11 November until only a few years ago.

The sacrifices of the Indian troops in North Africa and in Italy and Burma have been totally ignored by British Governments, the largest volunteer army in the world was the Indian Army fighting alongside the British Army.

When Gates were erected in London to commemorate their efforts it was not a British Government nor a British Army that sponsored them.

There is rank hypocrisy in The Establishment which has connived to ignore those who fought for Britain if they had Independence Movements opposed to Britain or were Friends of Joe Stalin. In such cases the politics of kow-towing to ideological soulmates overrode any obligation to those men who had fought.

Dennis Churchill

As has been written above if the political class abandons patriotism then it will be used against them. Where in the world are there a people with no nationalists?
As for a politically correct Armed Forces...hilarious.
With all those photo opportunities Brown and Co use in Afghanistan maybe they should stay clear of accusatios of “exploiting” the Armed Forces.
The Trendy Tendency is getting its knickers in a twist about the BNP aren’t they? Maybe they realise their contempt for the British, in particular the English, is becoming mutual.

TomTom

BTW is this the same Sir Mike Jackson that now works for PA Consulting, a firm fired for losing a disk containing national security data files ?

Vulture

@Horatius ; 'Mr Bethell' - pleeese! I think you'll find that the Tory toff who runs their anti-BNP outfit 'Nothing British..' is the 4th Baron Bethell. The Cam clique think that the workers just love a lord, donchaknow.

@Sue Ward : Thankyou for your support. One tries to amuse, as well as abuse.

David Ossitt

Nick Griffin has them all rattled; in an interview on radio 4 today, he claimed that a very high proportion of the British Army votes for the BNP.

I would not take bets against that assumption.

DavidDP

"As for a politically correct Armed Forces...hilarious."

What's politically correct about taking in anyone in the armed forces as long as they are willing to serve their country?

Colin

General The Lord Guthrie GCB, LVO, OBE, DL
General Sir Mike Jackson GCB, CBE, DSO, DL
General Sir Richard Dannatt GBC, CBE, MC
Major-General Patrick Cordingley DSO’

What a depressing list of chancers...

With the exception of Cordingley.

Horatius

@Vulture. The receding chin in the picture all makes sense now.

Apparently he spent years running a famous night club - you know the sort of place that is a complete bastion of true British and conservative family values.

A great CV for someone who wishes to lecture the great unwashed.

Dennis Churchill

DavidDP
“What's politically correct about taking in anyone in the armed forces as long as they are willing to serve their country?”

It is not about whether they are willing; it is about whether they are able.
War is too serious to be subject to Sociobabbel nonsense theories.

Geoff Miller

Winston Churchill On Islam:-

A quote from an 1899 book by Winston Churchill, "The River War", in which he describes Muslims he apparently observed during Kitchener's campaign in the Sudan

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

I think Churchill would find comfort in the BNP. He would certainly be sacked from the LibLabCon cartel.

Geoff Miller

Why all the obsession over the fact that a Pole was flying a Spitfire?

Wasn't Poland invaded by Germany? Wasn't this Pole fighting the Germans because of that? Didn't the British support them in that endeavour?

The same goes for Chinese and Sikhs - wasn't Japan invading China and threatening India?

Many nations supported the war effort because many nations were threatened by Germany, Italy and Japan.

Do not confuse peoples war efforts to protect their nations and peoples (with the support of British blood and treasure) with a naive and sentimental belief that they sacrificed themselves purely to save Britain and the British.

They did not.

David Lindsay

If the BNP wants votes here in the former mining areas, then it will stop identifying with Churchill. But it won’t.

In the Thirties, there were two British threats to constitutionality and, via Britain’s role in the world, to international stability. One came from an unreliable, opportunistic, highly affected and contrived, anti-Semitic, white supremacist, Eurofederalist demagogue who admired Mussolini, heaped praise on Hitler, had no need to work for a living, had an overwhelming sense of his own entitlement, profoundly hated democracy, and had a callous disregard for the lives of the lower orders and the lesser breeds. So did the other one. Far more than background united Churchill and Mosley (originator in English of the currently modish concept of a Union of the Mediterranean).

In Great Contemporaries, published in 1937, two years after he had called Hitler’s achievements “among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world”, Churchill wrote that: “Those who have met Herr Hitler face to face in public business or on social terms have found a highly competent, cool, well-informed, functionary with an agreeable manner, a disarming smile, and few have been unaffected by a subtle personal magnetism.” That passage was not removed from the book’s reprint in 1941. In May 1940, Churchill had been all ready to give Gibraltar, Malta, Suez, Somaliland, Kenya and Uganda to Mussolini.

Churchill’s dedicated Zionism was precisely that of the BNP: he did not regard the Jews as British, so he wanted them to go away. The anti-British terrorists who went on to found the State of Israel agreed with him, very nearly coming to an understanding whereby Hitler would have expelled the Jews by sending them to British Palestine, which he and the Zionists would have conquered together for the purpose.

All sorts of things about Churchill are simply ignored. Gallipoli. The miners. The Suffragettes. The refusal to bomb the railway lines to Auschwitz. His dishonest and self-serving memoirs. Both the fact and the sheer scale of his 1945 defeat while the War in the Far East was still going on, when Labour won half of his newly divided seat, and an Independent did very well against him in the other half after Labour and the Liberals had disgracefully refused to field candidates against him. His deselection by his local Conservative Association just before he died. And not least, his carve-up of Eastern Europe with Stalin, so very reminiscent of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

But we have not forgotten the truth about him in the old pit communities. Nor have they in the places that he signed away to Stalin, including the country for whose freedom the War was fought, making it a failure in its own terms. And including Latvia.