Hungarian Nazis meet in Camden pub

Hungarian Fascists have met in a pub in Camden. The thugs from Jobbik, allies of the BNP, met at the Gloucester Arms pub on Leighton Road.

Hungarian Nazis have held a meeting at a pub in Camden. Fifty thugs from the far-Right Jobbik party – which sits alongside the British National Party in the European Parliament – met at the Gloucester Arms in Leighton Road, Kentish Town, last weekend.

Jobbik, like their BNP counterparts, have long been accused of violent extremism, anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, and were today described by the Leader of Hungary’s Opposition as an “extremist scandal-party” which has “violence written on its flag”.

Their slogans include “Who would like to live as Hungarians in Hungary”, and they have campaigned to decriminalise the banned paramilitary Hungarian Guard terror group.

Earlier this year an organisation allied to Jobbik called “The trade union of Hungarian police officers prepared for action” distributed a newsletter which said:

“Given our current situation, anti-Semitism is not just our right, but it is the duty of every Hungarian homeland lover, and we must prepare for armed battle against the Jews.”

It is not just Hungarian Fascists holding meetings in London pubs, however. South African white supremacist group “The Orania Movement” reportedly hold regular meetings at the Aardvark pub in Canada Water in Docklands.

A Searchlight investigation discovered that “the country that provides the largest number of visitors to the British National Party website is South Africa”, and that there are a growing number of South African BNP members – the most prominent being Arthur Kemp, editor of the BNP website.

The landlords of neither the Aardvark nor the Gloucester Arms were available for comment.

18 Responses to “Hungarian Nazis meet in Camden pub”

  1. Ebert

    Liz – Even though Apartheid was a lot more compassionate than the European Colonial Policies, it had to change, and none knew it better than Afrikaners themselves, but Apartheid could only have ended once the ANC was willing to change their Stalinist Ideology to a more liberal one. Had the Berlin wall fallen in 1969, then Apartheid would have been able to end in 1974. You cannot view these events in isolation. A peaceful transition would not have been viable if the only possible outcome was Stalinist Communism. The ANC’s hard line stance on ideology in support of Communism before 1989 made it impossible for progressive Afrikaners to negotiate change with their more conservative kinsmen and -women. Once the Berlin wall and Communism fell away as ideological possibilities for South Africa, Afrikaners were more than willing to end their minority rule over all.

  2. Liz McShane

    Ebert – a really interesting & novel analysis of why the inhumane, unjust and ugly Apartheid regime took so long to come to an end. It’s quite convenient to try and put a veneer of respectability on its slow but very welcome demise.

  3. Shamik Das

    Ebert, this is a quite extraordinary re-writing of history. Blaming the ANC for Apartheid not ending sooner! Are you insane?!

  4. Shamik Das

    Hungarian Nazis meet in Camden pub: http://is.gd/5ov2K <— Really kicking off over on @leftfootfwd – join the fun!

  5. Ebert

    Apartheid ended when the ANC and NP was able to negotiate a mutually agreeable constitution for South Africa. The fact that these parties could not reach an agreement earlier can hardly be blamed on just one of them, ANC or NP. What I am saying is that both parties contributed to the long stalemate in negotiations for a post-Apartheid South Africa. This is hardly extraordinary Shamik, it is politics and it is history. Liz, Afrikaners were just as thankfull to see the end of Apartheid as most other peoples, so don’t even try to patronise me. It was us who endend it, remember? What is even a greater pity is the fact that more people have died unnatural deaths annually in South Africa after 1994 than before 1994. I do not state this to try and justify Apartheid or even to say that it was better than the current regime, but rather to point out that our current political and social regime is still a very far cry from the ideal.

Comments are closed.