NICK GRIFFIN TAKES ZIONIST LINE ON IRAN

politicalsoldier.net says:


Here is the result of Griffin's dalliance with Barbara Amiel. Iran is no threat to nationalists here. Iran is seeking to undermine the biggest lie of all time ( the Holocaust) .

For that reason, if none other, Israel wants Iran taken apart.

Thus the Zionist lobby pays off editors and columnists to spread the 'Iran's mad leader/nuke terror threat' lie to gullible Daily Mail/Telegraph/Sun readers.

Quite how many shekels the BNP leadership receives to push the same lies, dressed up in typical lawyer talk and the usual one step forwards two steps back language we're used to from the BNP leadership on Zionism, homosexuality, race-mixing etc.


This is Griffin as his re-invented self, the prophet of doom predicting "rivers of blood" in British cities. You wish!

"No deep understanding of Shia theology is required ...", he says here. Of course not, Nick, we do not want people to be in the know and work it out themselves. Let's keep it simple ... for simple minds.

"He is also, of course, by modern Western standards, stark staring bonkers.", he says of the Iranian president. Dismissing someone of whom you disapprove as mad is a judgemental non sequitur. The Iraqi president is most likely quite sane.

Listen to Bush and Blair and we have classic symptoms of pathological lying. Now that is a mental disorder. " ...or the dhimmi-nationalist rantings of cyberspace neo-Nazis ..." is straight out of a Lee Barnes diatribe. This is the lame argument that any patriot who is sympathetic towards Islam is nothing more than a servile lackey of Islamists. If you do not join in the Griffin/Barnes total condemnation of Islam as a religion then you are also a traitor to your people, so says Lee Barnes in e-mails to me.

" ...to equate Israel's unused nuclear deterrent to the nuclear terror capability being sort [sic] by Iran is absurd". Here we have yet another non sequitur from Nick Griffin. Used or unused, nuclear weapons (with Israel it is a "deterrent", with Iran it is "terror capability") are weapons of mass destruction and Iraq and the Iraqi people have suffered terribly for this double standard. Saddam Hussein not only did not possess "unused" nuclear weapons ... he had none at all.

Nick Griffin is serving the interests of globalist imperialism with this familiar scare-mongering. He could earn a very good living writing scripts for the occupiers of the White House. Messianic religious fervour aside, it would seem that Nick is more in the grip of a Doomsday mindset than he would like to admit.

Robert Edwards ---




Troubles in Iran and over here by Nick Griffin


If the media reports are anything to go by, everyone's writing a blog these days.

I do worry about what some celebrity bloggers, particularly taxpayer funded mainstream politicians do - or rather don't do - to make the time to write blog entries so regularly. I'd love to write more often for this blog, not least because it's enjoyable, but as I have a multitude of organisational commitments, and as I'm not a hermit without a family life, I find it very difficult. Even the Iranian President is a blogger now.

He is also, of course, by modern Western standards, stark staring bonkers. Even allowing for the spin of a hostile media, he clearly is in the grip of a Messianic religious fervour. His own speech to the UN, in which he spoke of being bathed in the light of the coming Shi-ite Mahdi, tells us all we really need to know.

President Bush's fundamentalist Christian policy wonks are, of course, cast from much the same mould, believing that Armageddon in the Middle East would pave the way for the Second Coming. And then there are the Jewish cults - which enjoy significant influence in Israel owing to its unusually pure form of Proportional Representation - which are busy with preparations to rebuild Solomon's Temple (starting with knocking down the second holiest shrine in Islam!) and carry out the assorted rituals that will mark the Coming of their own Messiah.

So the Iranian President (I can't begin to spell his name and, having my phone line down, can't go online to look it up) isn't the only head-the-ball out there. But he is a rather special one, because he's a Shia Muslim. That means he belongs to the world's Number One Death Cult. Fundamentalist Christians might look for the return of Jesus, but they want to live, and they don't think that their deaths - indeed death and destruction generally - will hasten that Day. Fundamentalist Jews similarly expect their Messiah some time soon, but the only death required to hasten the day is that of the red heifer calf needed for the sacrifice when the Temple foundation stone is laid.

All a bit kooky, for sure, but there's no comparison at all between the extreme Christian and Judaic Messiah manias, and that of Shia Islam. Christians and Jews want to live, Shia Muslims, even more than their Sunni counterparts, want to die. This is why it is impossible to equate the nuclear bombs built in defiance of UN Resolutions (though why any true nationalist should give a fig for the opinions of that shambolic but would-be One World Government escapes me) by Israel with the uranium bomb being worked on by Iran. Israel's bombs are built in the same spirit and for the same reasons as were those of Britain, the USA and the USSR in the Cold War, or India and Pakistan's more recently. They are all deterrent weapons of last resort.

No deep understanding of Shia theology is required to know that an Iranian nuke would be something very different. Just look at the 'festivals' where these people mutilate themselves and their own children and babies with knives and swords. This is Blood Sacrifice from a people unfit to have box-cutters, let alone nuclear bombs. Then look at the determination of Iran's Hezbollah proxies to bring the very maximum destruction to Israeli towns with suicide bombs and batteries of Soviet army surplus rockets. Self-evidently the only thing stopping them using a uranium nuke truck bomb is the fact that they haven't yet got one.

Whatever British and European nationalisms' past clashes with Zionism (in which, contrary to Politically Correct fiction, I maintain that individual Jews and Jewish organisations alike have very often been to blame) whatever our present concerns with - for example - the pressures exerted by the Israeli lobbies around Bush, Blair and in the media to push for our troops to be used in the Middle East in a conflict that has nothing to do with us, to equate Israel's unused nuclear deterrent to the nuclear terror capability being sort by Iran is absurd. A clutch of ten tonne Iranian uranium bombs wouldn't be a threat to Britain, so not a single British soldier or airman should be put in harm's way to prevent them being built.

But for Israel the threat is real, and Israel is as entitled as any other sovereign state on the planet to act as she sees fit in her own defence. So the chances are that, sooner rather than later, the Israelis - and quite possibly the Americans who are so closely allied with them - will launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

Realistically, what else are they supposed to do?

Wait until the Mullahs incinerate Tel Aviv?

What would we do if their future target was Birmingham? No one should be surprised and, apart from the unavoidable impact on oil prices, global capitalism and the stability of the liberal dictatorship which is genociding our people but is unlikely to survive the coming Clash of Civilisations (oh, dear, what a shame, never mind!), it has nothing more to do with us than the latest civil war in the Congo. It's got nothing to do with us, and the nationalist thing is to Mind Britain's Business and keep out of it all, not to join the leftist media wailing on behalf of another bunch of Third World pets or the dhimmi-nationalist rantings of cyberspace neo-Nazis who think that allowing our civilisation to be gang-banged by global Islam will somehow put right the fact that gentile 'elites' have allowed various capitalist toe-rags, including some Jewish ones, to loot our Commonwealth and manipulate our democracy.

The British Intifada?

There will be one other consequence in Britain of the likely coming pre-emptive strike against Iran: The outbreak of a low-level civil war in Islamic areas in British cities.

Muslim youths in these areas are already in a fever of alienation and heated discussions and militant semi-fantasies about 'attacks' on their religion, their communities and their rights, and their duty to 'defend' them. The fundamentally extreme nature of their religion, coupled with decades of media and school curriculum chip-on-shoulder propaganda about the evils of white racism and 'Islamophobia', and the tensions created by home-grown Islamic terror bombers and the precautions against them, have taken such feelings past the point of no return.

All that huge areas of West Yorkshire, Lancashire, the Midlands and London are now waiting for before going up in more dramatic flames than France last autumn is a single spark. Despite the Shia/Sunni divide at theological level, down on the streets an attack on Iran will be seen as an attack on all Islam, and after the relative success of Hezbollah ("The Party of Allah") in fighting the Israeli army to a standstill in the Lebanon, Iran has achieved iconic status among young Muslims in Britain.

They will not stand by and watch it flattened without coming out to demonstrate, riot and cause mayhem on its behalf.

The Bradford riots will have nothing on what's going to happen when Israel and/or the Yanks get stuck into Iran.


Finalconflict@Dial.pipex.com