Saturday, 24 March 2012

European spectre of banned political parties

Readers will know I've little time for the antics of either the BNP or the EDL, both of which target their nasty public face against immigrants rather than against immigration. As I've written many times before, it's hardly the fault of the immigrants for grabbing what the government have made so freely available; If Dubai offered me £250k a year and a luxury apartment for life I'd be there like a shot. Actually perhaps not. But you get the point. Unsustainable immigration isn't the fault of the immigrants but of our governments past and present.

However, if the government proposed to use the Supreme Court to ban the BNP and EDL as political parties, I'd be very worried indeed. This is exactly what's happening in Germany, as the Constitutional Court is asked to ban the zenophobic and anti-Jewish NPD. The problem is, the NPD enjoys enough popularity to qualify for State Party funding, something the big three parties would dearly love to see here. This puts a party with economically poor supporters on the same footing as one with wealthy donors. It also, under the German system, allows them to pose a threat to the established  political cabal of redistributive left-liberalism, Frankfurt School cultural radicalism, and Marxian socialism, something the big three will never allow, say, UKIP to do in the UK under their proposed State funding agreement which ringfences tax funding to, erm, themselves.

The spectre of banned political parties has haunted Europe through the twentieth century, under Salazar, Franco, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Tito and all their ilk. Banning the opposition is one of the first acts of totalitarianism. The collective left in Europe, and in Germany in particular, is scared at the support that Fidesz enjoys in Hungary - and fears the appeal of such policies to their own voters. 

If they succeed in banning the NPD, be afraid.  


Quiet_Man said...

The EDL are not a political party, nor do they oppose all immigration. What they are, are a single issue protest group against the activities of a certain religion of peace, not Muslims themselves either as the EDL recognise that the greatest victims of Islam are Muslims themselves.
So, whilst Islamists spit at and call our troops murderers and rapists, get ridiculously light sentences for beating up an innocent woman on the streets, groom and sexually abuse our underage girls, demand that gays receive the death sentence for being gay, threaten non Muslim shop workers for not wearing a veil in an Islamic dominated community, then the EDL will continue to exist and thrive.
If they ban the EDL, we'll just come back under another guise to defend the people of the UK from a fascistic totalitarian creed dressed up in the form of a religion.
You really shouldn't believe the MSM hype about the EDL, granted they are not saints, but rather diamonds in the rough and the nasty public face is mostly of the media and the EDL's opponents making.

G. Tingey said...

I reluctantly tend to agree.
On point though.
"fidesz" are really, really nasty, unpleasant people.
Catholic neo-fascists, of the sort that crawled to the good Catholic Adolf Shickelgüber

okjoe58 said...

'really, really nasty'? Do they decapitate people?

Anonymous said...

They'll start by finding dirt on members of their target political parties and if none can be found, they'll manufacture it, as we saw with Strauss-Khan.

Politicos of these parties had best keep their noses squeaky clean and take out a few insurance policies. They need also ensure that any dirt they have on "the system" is distributed widely, such that they can deliver /trigger quid pro quo when necessary - perhaps in the event of their demise.

Anonymous said...

Wish we could find a way for the vast majority of the British PEOPLE to gather together and banish -isms from government and education. a la Ferris Bueller :)

Sebastian Weetabix said...

@G. Tingey: Hitler was a good Catholic?

Please do your opponents the favour of actually understanding their views. It's a lesson rabid atheists such as Dawkins would do well to learn. Hitler's philosophical wellspring, such as it was, was social Darwinism as championed by the Fabians and G.B. Shaw, who all favoured eugenics and gassing "useless members of society". William Beveridge was a milder version of the species; he just wanted to prevent undesirables fathering children or having the vote. Marie Stopes on the other hand disinherited her son because he married a woman with myopia. (She would have preferred she was gassed to prevent this dreadful anomaly being passed on.)

If he was a good Catholic he would have paid heed to Pope Pius XI who said on September 6th 1938 (this is BEFORE the Pogrom of Kristallnacht) "anti-semitism is not compatible with the sublime thought and reality which are expressed in this text [a reading on "Abraham, our Father, our Ancestor"]. It is not possible for Christians to participate in anti-semitism. Spiritually we are Semites."

Hitler wasn't a Catholic. The clue is in the name. He was a National SOCIALIST. He was an atheist. The Nazis murdered many hundreds of Catholic priests.

Anonymous said...

Hitler was an atheist. Hitler was evil. Therefore all atheists are evil.

Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was evil. Therefore all vegetarians are evil.


DeeDee99 said...

If they do, the next target will be Mr Wilders and the Dutch Peoples' Party. Amongst his other 'sins' he has called for the Dutch to leave the Eurozone and return to the Guilder.

I hope he has good security personnel and only travels on public aircraft - I really wouldn't put it past the comrades to arrange a nasty little fatal 'accident.'

Anonymous said...

If, as Raedwald suggests, the elites are moving on nationalism (recently a group of Labour and Tory MP's have said the same) the first real war of the 21st century is about to be outlined.

The first thing they should know is we ain't going down to a bunch traitors and ideologues - in a democracy it's the people who change the government, not the other way round.


Anonymous said...

Is the UK actually a democracy these days?

G. Tingey said...

Adolf Hitler

For his catholicism and non-atheism I refer you to.....
and sub-sets:

The last, photos from the period are especially revolting.

STOP LYING, and GROW UP,please.

BTW,Communism is also a religion - it persecutes all the competing religions, it has sects and heresey and holy books and it kills millions - it's a religion.

Just because the Nazi party had an "S" in its' label didn't mean that it was "socialist" (If Röhm has lived - it MIGHT have been different?) any more than the label "People's Democratic Republic" means anything of the sort.

Edward Spalton said...

Not forgetting, of course, that in a referendum (perhaps on EU membership), the Electoral Commission gets to choose the the group which will represent the argument for leaving and obtain the public funding.

The lady who chairs the Commission is from the Charter 88/National Council for Civil Liberties stable with a career of political activism behind her.

The Commission will undoubtedly be "independent" and "impartial" - just like the BBC.

Happy the government which can nominate its own opposition.

Paul Wesson said...


The links are not to objective sites, but seem to be sites that set out to make a specific point. Some of the assumptions drawn from the photographs are not sustainable. It is clear that many are propaganda photographs that are typical of a dictatorship. There was a rush, after Hitler came to power, to consolidate the Nazi position and to settle the population following the Enabling Acts that suspended key elements of the constitution. The largely Protestant opposition in Prussia and elsewhere had to be put at ease and speeches, articles and photographs were needed to justify Nazism as a benevolent creed to those who might think otherwise. To say that Hitler was baptised a RC, and that proves he was one, is to deny the changes we all make as we grow. I know it is absurd to state that 'Greg Tingey was baptised a Christian therefore GT is a Christian'; I am surprised that anybody spouts this rubbish and expects the gullible to accept it.

Stalin was trained as a priest, but that didn't make him a Christian.

Both the Communists and the Nazis used and abused the Christian church and its symbols, with some collaboration. This doesn't make them Christian. It doesn't matter that Hitler was claiming to be a Christian, his actions showed him to be otherwise.

Christ said, 'Love your neighbour as yourself' and then explained the concept with the famously anti-racist parable of the Good Samaritan. The New Testament also tells us to 'love our enemies, do good to those who would harm us'. It is clear that Christ opposed racism and preached tolerance. It is arguable that 'thou shalt not kill', from the OT should have bound Hitler and his cronies. The fact that some of them might have said they were Christians clearly does not make them such; actions speak louder than words.

Hitler's cronies killed millions of Christians - hardly a Christian act.

Edward Spalton said...

I agree with Paul Wesson,having studied some of the accounts of Nazi persecution of Christians, particularly Catholics.

A German friend, who initially studied Protestant theology with a view to the ministry, told me that he felt that the RCs had put up more of a resistance than the Protestants. The Lutheran Church (like the Church of England) originated in a state Establishment and was not well placed to resist when the state went bad. There were no RC equivalents to the protestant "German Christians" who set up swastikas on the altars of their Churches.

The best book I have come across so far on Hitler's early political formation is "Hitler's Vienna - Apprenticeship of a Dictator" by Brigitte Hamann, Hitler was an early convert to the pan German parties which sponsored a "Los von Rom" (Free from Rome) movement, which had two wings - one tried to convert Catholic Austrians into Lutherans, so that they would get on with the protestant Prussians - the other went off into nature worship, mysticism paganism and stuff not dissimilar to today's New Age.I have found no trace of religious observance in accounts of Hitler's early life - apart from family funerals, weddings etc which he sometimes attended with a view to scrounging off relatives.

In the politics of the old Austrian Empire, the pan Germans were bitter enemies of the "Clericals" - the Roman Catholic, Church & Crown party which was "kaisertreu" (faithful to the emperor) of the multi racial Habsburg state.

Of course, the Nazis who had been brought up as RCs recognised the power of ritual and ceremonial which they adapted to their own purposes. The Bolsheviks did just the same. Some of their early parades included pictures of Marx, Engels & Co which were very similar in form to the icons of the Orthodox Church.

That did not mean an accommodation with the Church, as the two million "New Martyrs" of Orthodoxy to the Communist terror testify. The mighty revival of the Orthodox Church in post communist Russia is one of the most remarkable and least told stories of our time.

malvoisin said...

Hitler's cronies killed millions of Christians - hardly a Christian act.

God killed millions as well - hardly a christian act.

anon 2 said...

God killed millions as well - hardly a christian act

Much depends on whether it's better to be physically alive and suffering mortal evil, or to be physically dead and enjoying eternal good.

God alone knows; that's why He alone is qualified as Judge, and we are not. That's why His Son said "Father... not my will, but Thine be done" (Luke 22.42 KJV).
Those words, and 'Their' sacrifice, epitomise the Christian thing to do.

anon2 said...

PS: I mean, of course, that God alone knows who qualifies for the second option (to dwell in eternal goodness)....

Sorry. It's this fallibility thing, don't you know,