anti-BNP hysteria

From reading some of the responses of politicians in Britain's mainstream parties to the British National Party's success in winning two seats in the European parliament, anyone would think that a descendent of Adolf Hitler had just been voted into Number 10.

A particularly overblown label which they keep throwing around is "fascist," which now seems to be totally divorced from its original meaning as a particular form of technocratic totalitarianism.

In mainstream liberal society, the term "fascist" lost its original intellectual definition some time in the hedonistic late-60s, when it came to be used to describe virtually anything that was perceived as vaguely authoritarian or conservative.

When coined in the 1920s, fascist, referred to a particular system of non-democratic government, which was moderately elitist and had an corporate economic system in which the public and private sectors worked closely together in the national interest.

In the contemporary world, the developed country with the most fascist-like state is probably Japan, with its staunchly meritocratic education system and complex system of state-directed financial institutions and large scale industrial networks. However, since the country doesn't conform to what most semi-educated left-liberals think of as a "fascist" state, with a militarised government and a charismatic strongman leader, it never gets labeled as one in the mainstream media.

Among European countries, the most fascist-like states would probably be the corporate Scandinavian likes of Finland and Sweden, where the government, for better or worse, continues to take an active role in economic development and industrial relations.

The British National Party, by contrast, fails most of the criteria for being a fascist party. It does advocate protectionism for native industries, but has no detailed corporate programme for integrating the public and private sectors. It also has little to say for example on important corporatist issues like research and development or industrial relations. Nor does it call for greater government control of free speech, the media or the legal system.

A true fascist party for example, would probably be critical of the jury system, which is would perceive as wasteful and unprofessional, and would probably be strongly opposed to populist public referenda.

Nick Griffith himself has argued that a true fascist-style party would probably fail in Britain since the country has no fascist intellectual tradition to draw upon.

Rather than fascism, populism seems to be dominant political philosophy of the BNP. It's political campaigning, emphasises populist imigary, of the Battle of Britain-era and its policies, such as immigration restrictionism, capital punishment and pulling out of the EC, are those which most working-class Britons either support, or would have supported just a few decades ago.

Probably only its anti-interventionist foreign policy could be construed as being more ideologically nationalist than populist.

However, majoritarian populism is arguably just as unpopular these days as Fascism. At no stage in the last 40 years have the populist policies which the BNP now advocates, been put up for public vote through referenda or by being advocated by the major parties.

Controversial matters like increased immigration, EU entry and the repeal of the death penalty were all decided through closed negotiations among the nation's elites without any real democratic imput from the populace.

The reason why mainstream politicians are so concerned by the rise of the BNP is that it represents a populist challenge to the elites monopoly over deciding policy on controversial issues.

In the minds of Britons, political, business and media elites, the populace should only be able to debate, minor issues like small variations in tax rates and prison sentences (which can later be reversed if they prove unsatisfactory) and not over serious matters of long-term consequence like immigration.

It's also rather ironic that pro-EC parties like nu-Labour and the Liberal Democrats should be so concerned about Britain having some nationalist political representation, when this is now a well-established trend in most other European countries which they supposedly want closer relations with.

By labeling the BNP as "Fascists" or "Nazis", rather than calling them what they actually are, Briton's mainstream politicians and journalists are showing contempt for both the British populace, and the populace of much of western Europe.

A nationalist approach to demographic imbalances

With a change of leadership in the White House, population control advocates are in the news again with calls for more population control programmes in the burgeoning third world.

Overpopulation seems to be one of those orphan issues which both liberals and religious conservatives prefer to ignore, but which stubbornly refuses to go away.

It may be easy to dismiss overpopulation as dire sensationalism if you live in lightly-populated Western Australia or Wyoming, but it's harder to ignore if you're working in the Italian coastguard having to collect dead African refugees floating about the Mediterranean.

One of the big reasons why overpopulation isn't taken seriously is that most population control advocates are culturally naive environmentalists who see the overpopulation issue as a global problem requiring global solutions. And as the example of global warming demonstrates, once something is labeled a "global problem" it becomes a unsolvable abstraction that nobody's willing to deal with.

Overpopulation may have been a global problem in the past, but it's now largely a national that's much worse in some countries than others.

For example, in Somalia and Niger, fertility rates are about 7 births per woman, while in Italy and Eastern Europe fertility rates are around 1.3 births per woman - well below the replacement rate of 2.1.

Population control advocates who go around telling everyone to have fewer children won't win much support from conservatives who see no reason why western countries which are struggling to pay the welfare and medical costs of an aging population should also have to pay for the overpopulation problems of the developing world.

Nevertheless, the world's burgeoning population has already had a big impact on the environment, and is causing massive social and economic disruption in both rich and poor countries alike.

How then to draw attention to this pressing issue without alienating potential support?

Well perhaps instead of talking of global overpopulation, population control advocates should define the problem as one of population imbalance, which would highlights the fact that some countries have too many children and some countries too few.

This would certainly be more palatable to conservatives and nationalists, but it would draw a lot of criticism from the globalist left.

If the overpopulation issue is defined as a problem of population imbalance between countries, then it would become clear that countries, rather than NGOs, should be taking more responsibility for dealing with it, and for the globalist organisations charged with distributing aid to the third world, such an idea is anathema.

Even most conservatives who oppose expanding welfare in first world countries, run for cover at the idea of telling third world countries that development aid should be tied to population control measures.

Eventually though, unconditional aid to the third world will become just too expensive for the West and what aid it does provide will have to be conditioned on preferential trade agreements or other conditions which are beneficial to the donor.

Already China is leading the way in this regard, with an infrastructure for resources policy that it's pursuing in parts of African, The South Pacific and Latin America.

However, for the populations of third world countries that continue to grow at a rapid rate, the changing situation in the West will put them in a very precarious position. Instead of being able to pacify their growing populations with western aid money, developing countries with growing populations will suddenly be forced to live off their own rapidly shrinking resource bases.

Hence, from this perspective, the sooner the West starts making government aid to poor countries conditional on reduced population growth the better.

Private aid agencies are of course free to pursue their own approaches, but hard-pressed western taxpayers shouldn't have put up with money being wasted on short-sighted band-aid policies that amount to fighting the fire by feeding the flames.

This should also apply to the Palestinians, whose unreasonably high birthrates only aggravate the already volatile situation in the West Bank and Gaza strip.

Palestinians may believe having as many children as possible is a good strategy for national survival, but I don't see why the West should have to pay for it.

An example of "ethnomasocism"

In Saturday's Press under the title "Racial bigots damage Christchurch's reputation" the following letter was published about a small white nationalist turnout in the town square. In between the author's description of events, I've included my interpretation from my own (albeit very brief) observations and reports from others.

"Saturday was the United Nations Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, held to spread the message of peace and tolerance.

I found it hard to tolerate that the white pride constituent of Christchurch hijacked what is supposed to be a harmonious event for their own sick means: a white pride day.

(There is such a thing as racial discrimination towards whites. Many western countries have affirmative action laws that discriminate against whites, and schools and universities regularly prescribe textbooks with a clear anti-white bias. There is even an anti-white academic discipline called whiteness studies).

A clan of white supremacists descended on Cathedral Square, clad in barely disguised neo-Nazi outfits: steel-capped boots, army boots, army uniforms, white pride T-shirts, shaven heads, swastika tattoos.

(A small group of perhaps 20 white nationalists, wearing army boots and white-cross, white pride t-shirts, stood in an unoccupied corner of the square for about 30 minutes. I don't know if any had Nazi tattoos.

They carried New Zealand flags and signs: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." They were extremely intimidating.

(Their appearance was slightly intimidating, but they were pretty much sticking to themselves and weren't engaging with the general public.)

The presence of these people and what they stand for filled me with disgust and embarrassment: they made me feel sick to the stomach. I felt ashamed to be white.

Hundreds of tourists from all over the world came to the square on Saturday and were meet by this sight. They were scared and intimidated I found myself apologising profusely to them in an effort to salvage their impression of Christchurch.

Is this the image we want to present to visitors? An un-welcoming place for hatred for non-whites?"

(It was a cool, wet morning and there were relatively few tourists or shoppers in the Square at the time, nor did they threaten or shout down any members of the public. They were not doing anything that could be construed as "hatred" to other races. Also you would have had to get up very close to them to see if they Nazi tattoos or not).

For a description of ethnomasocism check this link from Mild Colonial Boy.

Some thoughts on Muslim assimilation

It's assumed by most western liberals that it's only fundamentalist Muslims who lash out at western culture or get angry about criticism of Islam, and that mainstream Muslims are fine with cartoons of Allah or women in short skirts.

Both right and left liberals believe that Muslims can be successfully assimilated into western culture and that this is the best way of protecting western society from Muslim militancy.

The two sides only differ in approach.

Left liberals pursue a softly-softly diplomatic strategy which seeks to appease older Muslims through a pro-Muslim foreign policy while slowing enticing young Muslims into western liberal ways through the power of consumerism and liberal education. They believe that if right liberal "hot-heads" like Dutchman Geert Wilders can be shut up then eventually the fundamentalist Muslims will mellow out and turn into semi-western moderates who'll respect women and homosexuals and support western values like freedom of speech.

Conversely, right liberals want a more overt approach which forces Muslims to swear allegiance to western values, and puts pressure on nationalistic Islamic regimes such as Iran and Libya to desist from anti-western policies.

However, there doesn't seem to be much evidence to support the idea that "moderate" Muslims are a lot more tolerant of western values than fundamentalists, so moderating fundamentalist Muslims probably won't turn them pro-western liberals

For a long time in the West we've had fundamentalist Christian minorities, like the Brethren and Mormons that are clearly more tolerant of mainstream western values than many so-called moderate Muslims.

If western religious fundamentalists acted the same way Muslim fundamentalists did, we'd see Mennonites burning cars in Washington and Exclusive Brethren burning effigies of liberal leaders in Canberra and Wellington.

Furthermore, as Samuel Huntington pointed out, the Iranian Muslims seen on television burning effigies of Salmon Rushdie or US presidents aren't necessarily backward, fundamentalist Muslims - many are educated, moderate Muslims who don't wish to live alongside western liberalism, but want to replace it with a modern, internationalist Islam.

While modern, "moderate" Islam may be less extreme than the Islamic fundamentalism of radical traditionalists like the Taleban, it's still strongly anti-Western. Islamic moderates may be more progressive and egalitarian than fundamentalists in Afghanistan and Sudan, but they still support religious interference in politics, commerce, law and scientific research and have little respect for western notions of free speech (if they did they wouldn't be so touchy about a few cartoons in a Danish newspaper).

The most worrying aspect of modern Islam though, isn't so much it's cultural incompatibility with western values as its aggressive internationalism.

Echoing the dangerous "grow or die'" ideology of radical-liberal communism, modern Islam seeks to spread itself around the globe, undermine long established cultures and knock over rival ideologies.

If moderate Muslims were particularists, with little interest in spreading Islamic views to non-Islamic countries, than you wouldn't see so many Muslims around the globe protesting about 'anti-Islamic' events in far-off countries like Israel and Denmark. Since the native Danes for example, aren't Muslims, they have no obligation to respect Allah in there own country. Only if Danes travel to Muslim countries and insult Allah do Muslims have a right to complain.

Modern liberalism is also an aggressive, internationalist ideology and there's a danger that further liberal attempts to integrate Muslims into western society will only make Muslims more globalist and therefore more determined to undermine their host nations and network with Muslims in other countries to oppose western interests.

As a globalist ideology Islam also has the potential to be much more dangerous than communism, since communism was a secular ideology that fell out of favour when it was unable to provide inspiring real-world examples of its over-hyped potential.

Rather than ambitiously attempting to assimilate Muslims in a liberal manner, some European New Right thinkers believe Muslim immigrants should actually be supported in their efforts to remain culturally distinct. In their view, Muslims should be encouraged to built their own mosques, live in distinct areas if they chose to, set up there own schools and follow their own customs where practical.

That way the host populace doesn't need to seriously compromise it's own culture to appease the Muslims, and the Muslims immigrants are taught to appreciate the thinking behind particularist polices such as immigration restrictionism.

Since liberalism also preaches equality and materialism, and reduces traditional religion to a mere lifestyle accessory, semi-westernised immigrants who are unable to compete economically are likely to blame their hosts for their NAM (non-economically assimilated minority) status and seek solace in a globalist ideology/religion. Conversely, immigrants who are able to remain culturally distinct will be less inclined to directly compare themselves with their hosts in narrowly material terms and so will have less reason to want to undermine the host culture.

Instead of seeing a war between liberalism and Islam, the European New Right sees a war between particularism and globalism in which modern Islam and post-war western liberalism are both threats that need to be contained by strengthening sovereign states and opposing globalist NGOs.

There are however a couple of areas where it is difficult to argue with the assertive assimilation approach of right liberals like Wilders. These are language and freedom of speech.

Without freedom of speech particularists will not be able to get there message across, and there will be no way to contain either Islam or liberalism's excesses.

If Muslims living in western countries find such free speech offensive then too bad.

Similarly, all immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, should have to learn to speak the language of their host nation. It simply isn't possible for a modern nation to function if a significant percentage of the population is unable to speech the dominant language.

People who can't speak English in English-Speaking countries for example, can't understand the law and culture of the country in which they live, and can only work in a limited range of jobs within there own ethnic clique. This makes them a liability to both themselves and their host country.

Some thoughts on the BNP

Perusing the Internet from a conservative perspective, it's clear there aren't many British conservative blogs and websites devoted to issues like immigration and the preservation of western culture, but there are an increasingly number of bloggers who are supporting the British National Party.

This support for the BNP can also be seen in the comments left on centre-right newspapers websites like the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, and the party's strong showing in local elections in many parts of England.

The lack of a "conservative scene" in Britain seems a bit puzzling, given that since the Second World War, ethno-nationalism has been struggling to shake off its associations with Hitler and Mussolini, and has therefore been seen by most Britons as unpatriotic and extremist.

Nethertheless, few Britons appear aware or interested in the kind of populist traditionalism, which is gaining increasing support in the United States.

Nor is the Conservative Party, despite its poor showing in recent elections, very interested in tapping into traditional conservative sentiment regarding issues like Islamic immigration or membership of the European Union. Instead it has decided to become even less conservative by electing it's most liberal leader ever in David Cameron.

This leaves an increasing number of British conservatives with little option but to get behind the BNP and try to mould in into a more conservative party.

While the BNP has made major strides to shake off its fascist origins by denouncing anti-Semiticism and political violence, it still clings to many unworkable ethno-nationalist policies and its antiquated economic platform just isn't going to resonate with many educated middle class voters.

One of the parties biggest stumbling blocks is its racialist policy regarding party membership. Given that races have fuzzy boundaries, and that Britain has a significant number of mixed-race citizens, such a policy can only alienate many potential supporters and provide ammunition for its numerous critics in the media.

Equally unrealistic is its advocacy of corporal punishment, which has not been used in most western countries for over a century, and would probably be strongly opposed by the legal profession. In the economic field the party needs to work out a coherent set of moderate, pragmatic policies, which will be acceptable to both its working class support base and potential middle class voters who support orthodox economic principles like balanced budgets and low inflation.

Although opposition to EU is an important part of the BNP's raison d'etre, the party shouldn't be afraid to follow economic ideas from Continental countries like Denmark and the Netherlands or the Europhile Liberal Democrats. For example, Britain's struggling rail system could arguably be improved by allowing private companies to run the stations and rolling stock while nationalising the neglected network of tracks and tunnels. Making a firm commitment to nuclear power, as France and Finland have done, would also help sent a message that the party was serious about the country's long-term development.

In education, the BNP could take the initiative by introducing IQ testing to help identify working class kids with academic potential and those who are under-performing due to learning disorders. Given that Britain is one of the few western countries where class hang-ups still have a negative affect on academic standards, such a policy could give it a useful edge over its more egalitarian rivals.

Even if the Nu Consevatives manage to scrap through in the next election, the BNP still has an opportunity to draw substantial support from the growing ranks of disaffected voters with conservative or traditional commutarian views.

Liberals and nationalism

At the Gates of Vienna site Fjordman had come up with another fine post entitled The Roots of non-Discrimation, Liberalism or Maxism? which has generated a lot of good comments.

For example, a commenter by the name of Simon de Montford made the important point that while the Nazis are often cited as the ultimate example of the evils of nationalism, they were not really true nationalists.

"Fjordman mentioned, as others have, the hysteria against nationalism in Europe after WWII, but the irony is that the Nazis were supra-nationalists who thought in terms race, not nationality: they dragooned all sorts of 'Nordics' into the Waffen-SS and created their crackpot myth of a northern European Master Race that had virutally nothing to do with the borders of Germany or a German nation. The Nazis were anti-Communist lunatic totalitiarians--not nationalists and not really socialists.

"They wanted to destroy the whole concept of nationhood and replace it with an empire dominated by 'Nordics'. Somehow their anti-nationalist efforts ended up as the driving force for the anti-nationalism of the last 60 years."

Take out the Nazis, and the likes of Franco and Mussolini look relatively tame.

In contrast, communism dictators like Stalin and Pol Pot have gotten off far too lightly in liberal assessments of 20th Century history post WWI.

Christianity and Liberalism

On the “white nationalist” website Majority Rights there appears to be a lot of opposition to Christianity with the religious right in the US, for example, being blamed for the expansive immigration policies of the Bush administration.

In white nationalist circles the logic seems to be that Christianity spawned enlightenment liberalism, which in turn led to the excesses of modern liberalism, therefore the end of Christianity will lead to the end of contemporary liberalism

The French nouvelle droite intellectual Alain de Benoist blames Christianity for the rise of the modern liberal right in the United States and believes that a new post-modern conservatism can be developed from paganism.

The connection between Christianity and liberalism though, is far from clear cut.

In the United States there does appear to be a strong connection between right-liberalism and Calvinism, although the country’s staunchest economic libertarians are generally atheists.

However, in socially liberal European countries such as Sweden belief in Christianity is much weaker.

Catholic countries such as Italy and Chile further complicate the picture, since they tend to be more socially conservative than north European states and have a lukewarm view of economic liberalism.

Hence it appears that Christianity acts on a break on social liberalism, while sometimes promoting economic liberalism.

This perhaps explains why a socially conservative country like the US can also be the world’s leading exporter of pornography.

Given the strength of social liberalism in post-Christian North Europe though I find it hard to see why adopting paganism will lead to a revival of euro-centric nationalism.

While Christianity has often been allied with aspects of liberalism there has also been a strong counter-liberal Christian tradition. Edwardian Christian's like Chesterton and Henry George promoted intellectual common sense to counter rational utopianism.

In Australia and New Zealand for example, the popularity of the land tax movement gave governments the mandate to break up land monopolies and promote a landowning middle-class hostile to urban socialism.

Today Christian “common sense” opposition to liberalism has a growing presence on the blogosphere.

It has also influenced “post-liberal” thinkers like the British academic John Gray.

If Christianity isn’t the primary factor behind the excesses of modern liberalism then what is?

Three other possible factors are: global overpopulation, material affluence and the growing division between liberal ideology and western scientific empiricism.

Critics of modern liberalism probably need to focus more on how these and other important factors interact to create the excesses of modern liberalism.

White nationalists who blame liberal excess on Christianity are putting too much emphasis on the power of ideas. Religion is more a method of coping with conditions rather than a primary determinant of conditions. Considering white nationalists believe that biology is one of the main factors in determining human affairs, it is ironic that they are so concerned about the influence of Christianity.

Nationalism and Its Origins

From a western perspective the attitude of the Hezbollah rebels towards their fellow Lebanese citizens appears pretty callus. However, the current conflict in Lebanon demonstrates that Arabs tend to have a different attitude towards nationalism than people from European backgrounds.

In their determination to inflict damage on Israel, the Hezbollah rebels are provoking the Israeli’s into bombing Lebanese citizens. Since the Israelis are the ones being attacked, and have superior firepower, they are, not surprisingly, inflicting heavy damage on Lebanon. So far the Lebanese casualties have far exceeded Israeli losses, so the Hezbollah rebels are willing to sacrifice a lot their countrymen and infrastructure for a propaganda victory over Israel.

To a Westerner, this seems like a cowardly and wasteful strategy but it is sensible to many Arabs because they place more importance on their religious sect and extended family than on their fellow countrymen. Steve Sailer points out that there is extensive inbreeding in many Arab countries and that the loyalty to the extended family is much stronger than loyalty to the state.

Modern nationalism has its origins in Germanic tribalism and Roman governance and has slowly evolved into its modern form over the last 1500 years. The strongest states in Europe over the last 150 years have been France, Britain and Germany – all states with strong Germanic origins.
Nationalism reached its most infamous excesses in the Third Reich of the 1930s and 1940s. The French state first emerged under the Franks, a Germanic tribe which crossed into Gaul around 4OOAD. The British state was built up by the Anglo-Saxons between 500AD and 1750 at the expense of the less unified Celts.

In modern history books England is portrayed as a multi-cultural melting pot of people from Celtic, Germanic, Latin and Scandinavian backgrounds. However, recent DNA studies indicate that the ‘English’ are predominantly of Germanic origin with roots in Friesland, in what is now Holland. The Germanic English are also quite distinct from the modern Welsh who are of Celtic origin.

Nationalism has never been as strong in Southern Europe. Although the Romans have contributed to the development of the modern state, Rome itself was a city-state. For a developed country, modern Italy is characterised by a high degree of loyalty to the extended family and prosperous Northern Italy is characterised by an unusually high number of small family firms. The Italian state was formed out of necessity in the 19th century to protect the Italian city-states from French domination.

The Western nation state has been difficult to transplant into non-western countries with only a few East Asian countries, like South Korea and Japan, and the odd oil-rich Arabian monarchy, able to establish stable first world states through western-style nation building.

In nationalistic countries loyalty to the state comes before loyalty to the extended family. Nationalistic states tend to excel in warfare as seen in the Naval prowess of the British and Americans, and the tactical competence of the German Army from 1860-1945.

Where dictators of countries without a strong tradition of nationalism, or proto-nationalism, try to develop empires though military force, they usually fail- obvious example, Saddam Hussien.

In weak states with strong families the best military strategy is to adopt guerrilla tactics and use your enemies unity and firepower against them. The more Israel bombs Lebanon, the more support Hezbollah gets from Muslims in Middle-Eastern Countries. This strategy makes perfect sense when you don’t have any loyalty to your country as a whole.

Anti-Semitism and Right-Wing Populism

With right-wing populist groups of various persausions currently on the rise there is an increasing interest in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. However, the argument that Western conservative populism is deliberately undermined by Jews is deeply flawed. By promoting Jewish conspiracy theories and holocaust denial, right-wing populists alienate the very mainstream conservative support which they are trying to court.

The argument that Jews are consciously anti- populist is suspect for a number of reasons-

1. The spread of anti-conservative liberalism does not correlate with the geographic distribution of Jews. Scandinavia and New Zealand have relatively small Jewish populations but have a strong history of liberalism and socialism. New Zealand for example, was the first country to grant universal suffrage while Sweden is well known for its generous welfare state.

2. Jews have been disproportionately active in anti-conservative Marxist and Libertarian movements (largely because they are disproportionately well educated). However, such movements have gained little support from the wider population in most Western Countries. If the Jews really wanted to undermine traditional conservatism they would be better off supporting mainstream social liberalism.

3. There is little evidence that Jews in general are less Conservative than Westerners of European origin. However, Conservative Jews are less conspicious than Liberal Jews, who have are highly visible through their involvement in the Media industry. Conservative Jews in contrast are more likely to be found in small businesses and religious organisations.

4. Significant numbers of Jews did fight for Germany in the First World War. However, most Jews fought on the Eastern front. In the early 20th Century anti-semitism was stronger in Russia than in Western Europe, hence the Jews had a greater interest in fighting the Russians rather than the French. Hitler saw few Jews on the Western Front and presumed that few Jews were fighting for Germany per se.

5. It was the Germans that put the communists in power in Russia. This was a desperate attempt to get Russia out of the war, not a carefully thought out Jewish conspiracy.

6. Prior to the First World War there was relatively little anti-semitism in Germany compared with many other European countries. The sudden rise in anti-semitism in the 1920s was strongly related to the extraordinary inflation of 1923. Jews traditionally, had a lot of their money, invested in precious metals, shops and foreign currency, while middle class Germans preferred stocks and savings. Subsequently many Jews got richer while many Germans became impoverished. This was in large part due to the misguided actions of Woodrow Wilson rather than any fault of the Jews or the Germans.

7. The Holocaust is an historical fact. The Germans were excellent record keepers and left copious material and documentary evidence of their activities. The only real points of dispute are the connections of particular individuals, like Hitler, to the genocide and how much ordinary Germans knew about what was going on. This is because much of the high level correspondence was destroyed.

In the United States Jewish lobby groups, such as the Hubrew Immigration Aid Society, have been advocates of large-scale immigration. However supporters of limited immigration should focus their criticisms of Jews at these organisations and not attack Jews in general. It is alos interesting to note that in other Western countries there is no noticeable Jewish support for large scale immigration.


One point I will concede to anti-semite intellectuals is that communist crimes have been downplayed relative to Nazi crimes. More people have died at the hands of Stalin, Lenin, Paul Pot and Mao Tse-Tung than Hitler, yet the media overwelmingly focuses on Nazi atrocities. The Holocaust should not necessarily be downplayed but it should be put in a wider context.