It is always difficult for any new entrants in what is basically a two party system with a government and an opposition.

I don't know the history of the Liberal Democrats, but they appear to be a viable third party that has had some success in winning lower house parliamentary seats, even with "first past the post" and voluntary voting.

Having seen what has happened to minor parties in Australia, it is worthwhile just being in the game, and minor parties contesting seats wherever possible, because the simple laws of mathmatics mean that the two major parties will eventually shift their policy positions, adopting popular minor party policies, just to stem the leakage of votes that they attract. The Howard Government famously stole many of Pauline Hansons One Nation policies before the 2001 election. The Government was re-elected, and One Nation disappeared, but the One Nation policies were implemented as government policy.

If the BNP and the BPP (and I have no idea of BPP electoral performance) or any other similar party contest every seat, then the maximum coverage that all the similar minor parties provide can be beneficial. Whether the major parties adopt BNP or BPP policies (assuming they are similar) the result is the same.

I can admit that in the US, but until I see some McDonald-esque research with regards to Europe, I am extremely skeptical. The type of sophomoric and simplistic thinking that somehow "dealing with the jews" will solve every other ill is childish.

The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (2002 Edition)
--Kevin MacDonald

Chapter 7: Jewish Involvement in Shaping US Immigration Policy
Appendix: Jewish Pro-Immigration Efforts in Other Western Countries
http://www.solargeneral.com/SG/cofc/cofc08.htm

The purpose of this appendix is to show that Jewish organizations have pursued similar policies regarding immigration in other Western societies. In France, the official Jewish community has consistently been in favor of immigration by non-Europeans. Recently the French Jewish community reacted strongly to pronouncements by actress Bridgette Bardot that “my country, France, has been invaded again by a foreign population, notably Muslims.” Chaim Musiquant, executive director of CRIF, the umbrella organization for French Jewry, stated that Bardot’s statement “skirt[ed] at the edge of racism.”

Jewish attitudes toward anti-immigrant sentiment in Germany can be seen by the following incident. A common (presumably self-deceptive) aspect of contemporary Jewish self-conceptualization is that Israel is an ethnically and culturally diverse society as a result of large scale immigration of Jews from different parts of the world, so much so that it should be held up as a model of ethnic relations and pro-immigrant attitudes for the rest of the world. Recently B’nai B’rith, acting in response to what it viewed as indications of a resurgence of neo-Nazism and anti-immigration sentiment in Germany, received a grant from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization to bring German representatives to Israel because Israel is “a diverse, formative society, which, under strains of war, terrorism, and massive, deprived, immigration, has strived to develop a just, democratic and tolerant society.” “Our view was that the multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-fissured, democratic society of Israel… could provide a credible and worthwhile point of comparison for others coming from a similarly highly-charged society.”

In England, as in the United States, there was an ethnic battle beginning around 1900 in response to the influx of Eastern European Jews fleeing czarist anti-Semitism. Jewish political activity was instrumental in defeating an immigration restriction bill introduced by the Conservative government in 1904. In this case, the Anglo-Jewish political establishment represented by the Board of Deputies took a moderate stance, presumably because of fears that further immigration of Eastern European Jews would fan the flames of anti-Semitism. However, by this time the majority of the British Jewish community consisted of recent immigrants, and the Jewish Chronicle, the principle newspaper of the British Jewish community, campaigned vigorously against the bill. The anti-restrictionist forces won when Nathan Laski, president of the Manchester Old Hebrew Congregation, got Winston Churchill to oppose the bill. “Later Churchill freely admitted that, in the Grand Committee of the House of Commons, he had ‘wrecked the Bill.’ Led by Churchill, the Liberals, Evans-Gordon [a restrictionist Conservative MP] asserted, ‘choked it [the Bill] with words until the time-limit was reached.’ … A jubilant Laski wrote to Churchill: ‘I have had over 20 years experience in elections in Manchester—and without flattery I tell you candidly—there has not been a single man able to arouse the interest that you have already done—thus I am sure of your future success.’” In the following month Churchill won election from West Manchester, a district with a large Jewish electorate.

Geoffrey Alderman [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019827436X/qid=1143301164/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2872064-9344767?s=books&v=glance&n=283155] shows that restrictionist legislation was popular except among the recent immigrants who had quickly become a numerical majority of the Jewish community, and, as indicated above, were already able to have a decisive influence on immigration legislation. However, a more moderate bill passed in 1905 despite Jewish opposition. In this case Jewish pressure succeeded in securing exemptions for victims of “prosecution” on religious or political grounds, but not “persecution.” Again the Board of Deputies failed to make a major effort in opposition to the legislation, and Jewish Ministers of Parliament did not rise in opposition. However, for the recent immigrants, many of whom were on the electoral registers illegally, this was a major issue, and “at the general election of January 1906 these electorates wreaked a terrible vengeance upon those politicians who had supported the passage of the Aliens’ Immigration Act.” Jews overwhelmingly supported candidates who opposed the legislation, and in at least two districts their votes were decisive, including the West Manchester district that returned Winston Churchill. The new Liberal government did not repeal the legislation, but enforced it more leniently. Since the law was directed against “undesirables,” there is considerable doubt that it prevented any significant number of Jews from entering, although it probably did encourage many Jews to go to the United States rather than England. It is noteworthy that in 1908 Churchill lost an election in his Manchester district when there were defections among his Jewish supporters displeased about his opposition to repealing the law as a prospective member of the cabinet and attracted to the Conservative position on support for religious schools. Churchill nonetheless remained a staunch supporter of Jewish interests until “in July 1910 Churchill, no longer dependant on Jewish votes, spoke in glowing terms of the 1905 legislation.”

As in the case of America, there are also indications that Jewish support for immigration extended beyond advocating Jewish immigration into England. The Jewish Chronicle, the principle Jewish newspaper in England, opposed restriction on Commonwealth immigration in an editorial in the October 20, 1961 edition. The editorial noted that Jews perceived the 1905 legislation as directed against them and stated, “all restrictions on immigration are in principle retrogressive steps, particularly for this country, and a disappointment to those throughout the world who would like to see the limitations on the freedom of movement reduced rather than increased. The issue is one of moral principle.”

During the 1970s the Conservative Party opposed immigration into Britain because, in the words of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Britain was in danger of being “swamped” by peoples who lacked “fundamental British characteristics.” Conservative politicians attempted to obtain Jewish support on this issue, but the anti-immigration policy was condemned by official Jewish organizations, including the Board of Deputies, on the basis that “Since all British Jews are, or are descended from , immigrants, it was unethical—even immoral, for a Jew to support immigration control, or at least tighter immigration control.” (In its editorial of February 24, 1978 the Jewish Chronicle supported a non-restrictionist immigration policy, but was careful to avoid framing the issue as a Jewish issue, presumably because a Conservative Jewish Minister of Parliament, Keith Joseph, had appealed to Jews as Jews to support restriction. The Chronicle was most concerned to deny the existence of a Jewish vote.) Jews who did support the government policy did so out of fear that increased immigration would lead to a fascist backlash and therefore increased anti-Semitism.

In the case of Canada, Irving Abella [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/088619251X/qid=1143301255/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-2872064-9344767?s=books&v=glance&n=283155] notes the important contribution of Jews in bringing about a multicultural Canada and, in particular, in lobbying for more liberal immigration policies. Reflecting this attitude, Arthur Roebuck, attorney general of Ontario, was greeted “with thunderous applause” at a 1935 convention for the Zionist Organization of Canada when he stated that he looked “forward to the time when our economic conditions will be less severe than they are today and when we may open wide the gates, throw down the restrictions and make Canada a Mecca for all the oppressed peoples of the world.” Earlier in the century, there were conflicts between Jews and gentiles over immigration that were entirely analogous to the situation in England and the United States, including the anti-Semitic motivation of many attempting to restrict immigration. As in the United States, Jews have strongly opposed majoritarian ethnocentric and nationalist movements, such as the Parti Quebecois, while remaining strong supporters of Zionism. Indeed, in the very close 1995 vote on Quebec separatism, the overwhelming support of Jews and other minorities for preserving links with Canada was blamed by separatist leader Jaques Parizeau for their defeat.

It is remarkable that the sea change in immigration policy in the Western world occurred at approximately the same time (1962-1973), and in all countries the changes reflected the attitudes of elites rather than the great mass of citizens. In the United States, Britain, Canada, and Australia public opinion polls of European-derived peoples have consistently shown overwhelming rejection of immigration by non-European-derived peoples. A consistent theme has been that immigration policy has been formulated by elites with control of the media and that efforts have been made by political leaders of all major parties to keep fear of immigration off the political agenda.

In Canada the decision to abandon a “White Canada” policy came from government officials, not elected politicians. The White Canada policy was effectively killed by regulations announced in 1962, and Freda Hawkins [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/077350852X/qid=1143301331/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2872064-9344767?s=books&v=glance&n=283155] comments, “This important policy change was made not as a result of parliamentary or popular demand, but because some senior officials in Canada, including Dr. George Davidson [Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and later a senior administrator at the United Nations] rightly saw that Canada could not operate effectively within the United Nations, or in the multiracial Commonwealth, with the millstone of a racially discriminatory immigration policy round her neck.” In neither Australia nor Canada was there ever any popular sentiment to end the older European bias of immigration policy.

The primary and identical motivation of Canadian and Australian politicians in trying to exclude first the Chinese, then other Asian migrants and finally all potential non-white immigrants, was the desire to build and preserve societies and political systems in their hard-won, distant lands very like those of the United Kingdom. They also wished to establish without challenge the primary role there of her founding peoples of European origin… Undisputed ownership of these territories of continental size was felt to be confirmed forever, not only by the fact of possession, but by the hardships and dangers endured by the early explorers and settlers]

Given the elite origins of the non-European immigration policies that emerged throughout the West during this period despite popular opposition, it is of considerable interest that very little publicity was given to certain critical events. In Canada, the Report of the Special Joint Committee of 1975 was a critical event in shaping non-European immigration policy of the 1978 immigration law, but “sad to say, since the press failed to comment on the report and the electronic media had remained uninvolved, the Canadian public heard little of it.”

Looking back on this national debate on immigration and population which lasted for six months at most, it can be said now that it was a very effective one-time consultation with the immigration world, and with those Canadian institutions and organizations to whom immigration is an important matter. It did not reach “the average Canadian” for one simple reason: The Minister and Cabinet did not trust the average Canadian to respond in a positive way on this issue, and thought this would create more trouble than it was worth. As a result of this view, they did not want to commit the funds to organize extensive public participation, and made only a minimal effort to mobilize the media on behalf of a truly national debate. The principle benefit of this approach was that the badly needed new Immigration Act was on the statute book only a little later than Mr. Robert Andras [Minister of Manpower and Immigration] and his colleagues [Hawkins emphasizes Andras’ Deputy Minister Alan Gotlieb as the second prime mover of this legislation] originally envisaged. The principle loss was what some would regard as a golden opportunity to bring a great many individual Canadians together, to discuss the future of their vast under-populated land. (Hawkins)

Only after the 1978 law was in effect did the government embark on a public information campaign to inform Canadians of their new immigration policy. Hawkins and Katharine Betts [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0522843514/qid=1143301509/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2872064-9344767?s=books&v=glance&n=283155] make similar points about the changes to Australian immigration policy. In Australia the impetus for change in immigration policy came from small groups of reformers that began appearing in some Australian universities in the 1960s. Betts in particular emphasizes the idea that intellectual, academic, and media elite “trained in the humanities and social sciences” developed a sense of being a member of a morally and intellectually superior ingroup battling against Australian parochial non-intellectuals as an outgroup. As in the United States, there is a perception among Jews that a multicultural society will be a bulwark against anti-Semitism: Miriam Faine, an editorial committee member of the Australian Jewish Democrat stated, “The strengthening of multicultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian.”

As in the United States, family unification became a centerpiece of immigration policy in Canada and Australia and led to the “chaining” phenomenon mentioned above. Hawkins shows that in Canada, family reunion was the policy of liberal Ministers of Parliament desiring higher levels of Third World immigration. In Australia, family reunion became increasingly important during the 1980s, which also saw a declining importance of Australian development as a criterion for immigration policy. Reflecting these trends, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry passed a resolution at its December 1, 1996, meeting to express “its support for the proposition that Australia’s long term interests are best served by a non-discriminatory immigration policy which adopts a benevolent attitude to refugees and family reunion and gives priority to humanitarian considerations.” The main Jewish publication, the Australia/Israel Review, has consistently editorialized in favor of high levels of immigration of all racial and ethnic groups. It has published unflattering portraits of anti-restrictionists and, in an effort at punishment and intimidation, published a list of 2000 people associated with Pauline Hanson’s anti-immigration One Nation party [http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/98/07/articles/Leibler100798.html].

It seems fair to conclude that Jewish organizations have uniformly advocated high levels of immigration of all racial and ethnic groups into Western societies and have also advocated a multicultural model for these societies.

It takes more brainpower to think three dimensionally than file everything under "jew", you dunce.

Like I said.

So where's the proof of this MASSIVE jewish influence?

I guess this shows the direction that the WN movement is taking, pathetic.

Like I said.

I guess this shows the direction that the WN movement is taking, pathetic.

It would be interesting to hear a Canadian perspective, and congratulations on the medal winning achievements of the Canadian Commonwealth Games Team.

What sort of electoral system do you have, and do WN parties contest elections?

Has there been a backlash in recent times to the immigration policies of last century, which we saw on television as the "Degrassi" years?

Which ethnic groups are causing the most problems?

Where do the French speakers fit into this? Are they either white or nationalists?

Please excuse my ignorance, but it is easier to get information on political events from the UK and the US, and we miss out on Canada news despite the fact that Australians probably have more in common with this Commonwealth country than those others.

This ought to be good.

Which ethnic groups are causing the most problems?

Like I said before everything is irrelevant when you compare it to what the jew has done and what the jew can do, until we remove the jewish powers we will not be able to accomplish anything.

Weak sisters like Nicky will not save the race.

Muslims are a threat independent from jews

Jews are certainly a more intellligent foe, aren't they? Double digit IQ moon shippers...well just makes you look mean.

Our lil' Anima E: VNN Forum's only tenured troll. He has a post count that rivals that of JP Slov.

"Jewish hegemony 'childish...sophomoric and simplistic'...Muslims are a threat independent from jews...These aren't the droids you're looking for."

There will always be disagreements and bitter arguments between people who claim the same political ground, as that is the nature of politics, and the nature of the sort of people involved in politics.

I know nothing of any of the personalities involved, and all I know about the BNP came from the BNPtv video downloads of the events of the Griffin trial.

Griffin was perhaps lucky to be charged, tried, and aquitted, because it gave him a personal platform and profile. Other people who have been around longer, or have given more to the cause, were pushed behind this one person by the chain of events. These others may have legitimate grievances, but like it or not, Griffin is now in the spotlight, and their personal arguments against him will not take the spotlight off him.

I am interested in the arguments that he makes, as we too have a well publicised muslim problem in Australia, and the muslim approach to taking over a country is the same in both places, because it is based on the same religion, instructed from the same islamic holy book.

If someone would go through the whole of Griffins' long essay and provide a comentary on each and every section, then that would be useful. Addressing each of the arguments that he makes would be interesting, while personal attacks on him are not.

As David Duke correcly said (in different words) -- and his words apply to ALL white countries -- Australia has a jewish problem, not a muslim problem. If you are typical of aware white people in Australia, then there is no one speaking the truth there at all and Australia is doomed. Only the truth will save us. If the jew falls, Australia's muslim problem will end within six months.

As David Duke correcly said (in different words) -- and his words apply to ALL white countries -- Australia has a jewish problem, not a muslim problem. If you are typical of aware white people in Australia, then there is no one speaking the truth there at all and Australia is doomed. Only the truth will save us. If the jew falls, Australia's muslim problem will end within six months.

If the jews stays, and you try to work out a compromise with the muslims (and the asians) -- the muslims and asians will stay and multiply and conquer you in the end. The jews will never allow you to deport the muslims or the asians while they, the jews, retain power over your country.

You have no choice. Go after the jews or be overwhelmed by the muslims and the asians.

The BPP are so new, that we will be standing our first electoral candidates this year. Unfortunately it is inevitable that the BNP will put their own candidates up against ours, thus dividing the votes. They know they won't get extra seats by doing so, but will do so to make sure we don't. They did this to Mark Cotterill&#8217]

I'm not so sure that either party would have won a seat, if they were in the contest without the other.

What was the method of electing the local council? Were they all single member council wards or ridings? There was no preferential voting? Was voting voluntary? Do you have the figures for every party and candidate available?

On top of the world.

 

The BNP is not welcome.

The BNP is not welcome.

Undoubtedly that would be view in Canada from French Canadians.

I don't think he was slamming American WN's at all, it's just that he took some of us to task for this inane attitude that you're a "zionist stooge" if you disagree with certain things such as the existance of an international jew conspiracy, and that a more sophisticated approach is essential when dealing with potential converts. I think he is right on.

I hope those lunatics who post their conspiracy tripe over on the 9/11 thread read this and take it to heart, but they won't. They'll continue to scream that anyone who doesn't "name the jew" is an ADL spy and a "kike".[/QUOTE]

Actually, no, you'll just be wasting your time if you don't name the dirty jew.

A jew can't handle "truth" with dignity, but refutes with lies of exaggeration.

Jews -- tall, tall, tall, tales they tell. Famous fairytale storytellers of the Holocaust.