Holden Caulfield
19th September 2009, 19:15
An interesting post from a blog that is (usually) as good as gospel on the subjects around antifascism. I disagree on his end points and think them kinda pointless but we can chalk that up to the blogger being rusty (long time since their last post)
http://nationofduncan.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/affiches-le-pen-1.jpg?w=300&h=224
Yet another hysterical week it’s been in the press with the BNP. Acres of newsprint and comment on the net has been devoted to the decision to allow the BNP on Question Time with the usual doses of liberal handwringing and the Labour Party throwing toys out of the pram in protest (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/welsh-politics-news/2009/09/08/hain-to-boycott-question-time-over-bbc-plan-to-invite-bnp-91466-24629815/).
(If you’re interested in that subject, I’m not, see Phil at AVPS (http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2009/09/sky-is-not-falling-down.html) and Paul at Bad Conscience here (http://badconscience.com/2009/09/07/bnp-questiontime/) and then here (http://badconscience.com/2009/09/11/bnp-on-bbc-mapping-the-debate/)).
This has buried what is, in my opinion, much more significant news: the probable decision of the BNP to allow non-white members and drop their historic principle of organising on a racially exclusive basis.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission case (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/commission-issues-county-court-proceedings-against-the-bnp/) may be a transparently politically motivated panic measure brought by people who think the best way to deal with racism is to make it illegal but it has encouraged the BNP to make a very interesting political move.
Not long after the case was announced (August 24th) Nick Griffin declared bluntly in an email bulletin to supporters that surrendering rather than fighting this case was the only option:
It is now crystal clear to all concerned that we simply do not have a choice but to change our membership policy.
Adapt or die is the only decision left to make, for failure to adapt would lead either to our being bled white through the courts or crushed by new criminal laws.
I doubt there are large numbers of black or Asian people who have been fruitlessly queuing up to join a party aimed at saving the white race now cheering this announcement. While there have always been some deluded numpties seemingly with no concept of self-interest (http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=1154) the significance is not that at the next round of local elections the BNP will probably put up a small number of non-white candidates in seats they can’t win.
The real significance is that the leadership of the BNP were prepared to jettison what has been for decades a core principle of the far right, whites only membership, with such little fuss.
In a way this should not be surprising. For a decade now the BNP has clearly been moving along the path trod by their extreme right counterparts on the continent and part of that process is dropping an exclusive white membership (such as the Front National – see picture above) .
The ‘normalisation’ of the BNP is predictable, that leads to stuff like them appearing on Question Time, but this move took me by surprise. When reports of this legal challenge first came up I imagined the BNP would be laughing themselves silly at the chance of fighting this in the courts, gaining huge amounts of publicity and motivating supporters with a narrative of persecution just prior to a General Election. In actual fact they’ve simply rolled over and surrendered.
I’m not sure people have appreciated how significant this is.
In the last 10 years the BNP have dropped a lot of the historic commitments of the fascist right, such as Holocaust denial, previously considered sacrosanct but this latest move brings into serious question the basic point of the BNP. If your line of argument basically runs that people of different ‘races’ can’t mix without bad things happening the fact you are promoting a party in which whites and non-whites are hailed as British patriots is surely a bit of a contradiction.
The people who run the BNP, people like Nick Griffin and Martin Wingfield, are individuals who have spent the bulk of their adult lives campaigning to have non-whites forcibly removed from the country. For decades, in the case of Identity editor John Bean over half a century, they have endured opposition in the form of legal challenges, countless protests, media exposes and even physical assaults.
They’re proud of this as well. At the head of Martin Wingfield’s blog is his boast that he went to prison rather than pay a fine for being convicted for incitement to racial hatred in the 1980’s while Nick Griffin declared himself a free speech martyr after surviving the attempt at prosecution after the BBC’s ‘Secret Agent’ documentary (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3896213.stm) (one of the best pieces of publicity they’ve ever received).
Compared to their past form the latest move is, well, a bit pathetic.
It raises the question of where the long project of ‘modernisation’ will end up and what the end result will be: a non-PC version of the Conservative Party for people who have a bit of a fetish for Union Jacks? The BNP could gradually become indistinguishable from the other ‘patriotic’ parties to the right of the Tories, such as UKIP and the English Democrats, apart from a leadership with a dodgy past. If they do this then what is the point in the party?
They may be able to sell this move to supporters as a ‘necessary’ one needed to avoid extinction, and it may be the case that I’ve misjudged the significance of this move and it is a purely pragmatic one, but it seems more likely that as the BNP have come to resemble the political mainstream in another way, as people willing to drop every principle* they’ve ever held to secure power.
If they’re willing to comprise on something as basic as this how can anyone possibly be certain of their real attitude about any other issue?
(*It should be obvious I don’t think a racially exclusive membership is a particularly laudable principle)
Link (http://nationofduncan.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/surrender/)
http://nationofduncan.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/affiches-le-pen-1.jpg?w=300&h=224
Yet another hysterical week it’s been in the press with the BNP. Acres of newsprint and comment on the net has been devoted to the decision to allow the BNP on Question Time with the usual doses of liberal handwringing and the Labour Party throwing toys out of the pram in protest (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/welsh-politics-news/2009/09/08/hain-to-boycott-question-time-over-bbc-plan-to-invite-bnp-91466-24629815/).
(If you’re interested in that subject, I’m not, see Phil at AVPS (http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2009/09/sky-is-not-falling-down.html) and Paul at Bad Conscience here (http://badconscience.com/2009/09/07/bnp-questiontime/) and then here (http://badconscience.com/2009/09/11/bnp-on-bbc-mapping-the-debate/)).
This has buried what is, in my opinion, much more significant news: the probable decision of the BNP to allow non-white members and drop their historic principle of organising on a racially exclusive basis.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission case (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/commission-issues-county-court-proceedings-against-the-bnp/) may be a transparently politically motivated panic measure brought by people who think the best way to deal with racism is to make it illegal but it has encouraged the BNP to make a very interesting political move.
Not long after the case was announced (August 24th) Nick Griffin declared bluntly in an email bulletin to supporters that surrendering rather than fighting this case was the only option:
It is now crystal clear to all concerned that we simply do not have a choice but to change our membership policy.
Adapt or die is the only decision left to make, for failure to adapt would lead either to our being bled white through the courts or crushed by new criminal laws.
I doubt there are large numbers of black or Asian people who have been fruitlessly queuing up to join a party aimed at saving the white race now cheering this announcement. While there have always been some deluded numpties seemingly with no concept of self-interest (http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=1154) the significance is not that at the next round of local elections the BNP will probably put up a small number of non-white candidates in seats they can’t win.
The real significance is that the leadership of the BNP were prepared to jettison what has been for decades a core principle of the far right, whites only membership, with such little fuss.
In a way this should not be surprising. For a decade now the BNP has clearly been moving along the path trod by their extreme right counterparts on the continent and part of that process is dropping an exclusive white membership (such as the Front National – see picture above) .
The ‘normalisation’ of the BNP is predictable, that leads to stuff like them appearing on Question Time, but this move took me by surprise. When reports of this legal challenge first came up I imagined the BNP would be laughing themselves silly at the chance of fighting this in the courts, gaining huge amounts of publicity and motivating supporters with a narrative of persecution just prior to a General Election. In actual fact they’ve simply rolled over and surrendered.
I’m not sure people have appreciated how significant this is.
In the last 10 years the BNP have dropped a lot of the historic commitments of the fascist right, such as Holocaust denial, previously considered sacrosanct but this latest move brings into serious question the basic point of the BNP. If your line of argument basically runs that people of different ‘races’ can’t mix without bad things happening the fact you are promoting a party in which whites and non-whites are hailed as British patriots is surely a bit of a contradiction.
The people who run the BNP, people like Nick Griffin and Martin Wingfield, are individuals who have spent the bulk of their adult lives campaigning to have non-whites forcibly removed from the country. For decades, in the case of Identity editor John Bean over half a century, they have endured opposition in the form of legal challenges, countless protests, media exposes and even physical assaults.
They’re proud of this as well. At the head of Martin Wingfield’s blog is his boast that he went to prison rather than pay a fine for being convicted for incitement to racial hatred in the 1980’s while Nick Griffin declared himself a free speech martyr after surviving the attempt at prosecution after the BBC’s ‘Secret Agent’ documentary (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3896213.stm) (one of the best pieces of publicity they’ve ever received).
Compared to their past form the latest move is, well, a bit pathetic.
It raises the question of where the long project of ‘modernisation’ will end up and what the end result will be: a non-PC version of the Conservative Party for people who have a bit of a fetish for Union Jacks? The BNP could gradually become indistinguishable from the other ‘patriotic’ parties to the right of the Tories, such as UKIP and the English Democrats, apart from a leadership with a dodgy past. If they do this then what is the point in the party?
They may be able to sell this move to supporters as a ‘necessary’ one needed to avoid extinction, and it may be the case that I’ve misjudged the significance of this move and it is a purely pragmatic one, but it seems more likely that as the BNP have come to resemble the political mainstream in another way, as people willing to drop every principle* they’ve ever held to secure power.
If they’re willing to comprise on something as basic as this how can anyone possibly be certain of their real attitude about any other issue?
(*It should be obvious I don’t think a racially exclusive membership is a particularly laudable principle)
Link (http://nationofduncan.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/surrender/)