Friday, October 23, 2009

The Same Pair of Jackboots

BNP leader Nick Griffin’s appearance last night on the BBC caused a massive attack of the vapors within the British media. Our British correspondent Seneca III sends his observations about the uproar surrounding this event.

Do Star Chambers Serve a Useful Purpose, Or Do They Obfuscate the Issue?

by Seneca III

BBC shahadaAn exquisite battle of inadequate minds — so impartially touted by a slavering media — marked the appearance of Reichsfuhrer Griffin of the BNP on last night’s BBC Question Time as moderated (?) by David Dimbleby. The result was a joy to behold, and a wonderful example of how not to address the seminal question of our time.

Dimbleby’s highly lucrative family business, and far from impartial personal ego trip, yet again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory simply by ensuring that any dialectic was swiftly drowned in an all but questionless sea of posturing and histrionics. (Do you remember his cruel stitch-up of the American Ambassador before an audience, selected as usual with extreme prejudice, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11?)

All that last night’s farrago sufficed to accomplish was to illustrate that when the two wings of Socialism* meet to defecate upon each other behind the cesspit of ideology, spitting and snarling in righteous pursuit of votes, each squats with one foot in the same pair of jackboots. This leaves the rest of the political drones no option but to hop from one foot to the other in the hope of filling any upcoming vacancy.
- - - - - - - - -
It was, in short, the triumph of moral and cultural relativism over rational discourse and, as is always the case when one absolute goes head to head with another, the inevitable result was a zero sum. A plague on all their houses, particularly Dimbleby’s.


1. Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (abbreviated NSDAP) — National Socialist German Workers Party), commonly known in English as the Nazi Party.
2. ‘Fascism’ — “… an authoritarian and nationalistic right wing system of government and social organisation.” (The OED).
3. ‘Labour Party’— the obverse of 1 and 2 above, i.e.: same coin, different face. (Seneca III).

(Please note that in deference to the sensibilities of American readers I have studiously avoided use of the word ‘Democrat’.)


Rollory said...

This is light on content and doesn't mean much of anything to anybody not familiar with the details of English politics. What did Dimbleberry do or say, exactly? What are Griffin's socialist positions?

Frank Hilliard said...

This post is a travesty. Nick Griffin is not a Nazi and neither is is party the British National Party. He is, however, a British nationalist, worried that mass immigration, liberal utopianism and cultural relativism are gutting the traditional Judeo-Christian British virtues. If you want a more balanced view on what's going on, you can find it on my blog here.

Baron Bodissey said...

Rollory --

I agree. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to write up any of the material myself. I'm hoping that I may be able to get to it later on.

I can't tell you anything about Dimbleby; I don't follow the British media that closely.

But Nick Griffin is quite clearly a traditional Socialist. There's an article in last night's news feed (or maybe the night before) which shows that he is actually to the left of Labour on some issues.

His staunch opposition to immigration and his nationalist devotion to a British identity would justify labeling him a "national Socialist". If anyone qualifies for the term, he does.

As opposed to the Labour Party, of course, who are international Socialists, like Lenin and Trotsky.

So in a way this is a reprise of the 1920s and 1930s, with two versions of Socialism (Hitler's and Mussolini's variety versus Stalin's brand) duking it out for supremacy within the British body politic.

For some reason no one ever seems to learn the lesson that Socialism itself (of whatever flavor) is a bad idea, and generally ends up impoverishing and killing millions of people.

Rollory said...

Well, but National Socialism got forcibly smashed to bits before it reached its logical conclusion. Since Democracy and International Socialism were allied in that cause, and the current situation is in many ways a continuation of that alliance (or rather a subversion of the first by the second), it's not that suprising people go for the option they think hasn't been tried. Of course it's a wrong and self-defeating choice, but more thought and education is required to be applied to the matter than most people have time for.

I say hereditary monarchy, with the right sort of national population, is the most durable combination of libertarian yet responsible government. That makes me yet another crackpot.

thll said...

Griffin's not a national socialist. He's a nationalist who recognises the importance of private enterprise.

Henrik R Clausen said...

right wing system

I have an issue with this. Never in my life shall I accept Socialism as being 'right wing'. National Socialism is still Socialism, and even Hitler made no secret of his inspiration from Marx. It is a leftist, big-state ideology which promises to guarantee each citizen complete safety from the cradle to the grave.

Fascism is a variation hereof, with ownership to the means of production still nominally private, but in reality under control of the State just as in a Socialist system. Fascism just happens to be more deceptive, in that it pretends that private control still exists.

Free market, law and order parties, such as the Vlaams Belang in Flandern, are the diametrically opposite of fascism. That is the real right wing. I shall never accept the ugly company of 'National Socialism' here. Nor the hatred of Jews, Jewish bankers and/or bankers in general that several strains of Socialism have nurtured, and are still nurturing as of today.

Free Hal said...

I think the Baron’s instincts are dead-on here.

Whilst the BNP isn’t currently a fully fledged fascist party, and even though it has shed its anti-semitism and much of its race focus, you can see fascist DNA tucked away in its economic policies. These are little changed from its same old routine: more pensions, healthcare, government economic controls.

This is all part of “the religion of the state” which is Jonah Goldberg’s (Liberal Fascism) definition of fascism. See also Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. I think the Baron’s distinction between National and International socialism is better.

The reaction to Nick Griffin on BBC Question Time last night appears to be sympathetic to him, or contemptuous the liberal-left establishment, in light of the hostile reception the BBC made sure he got – see the comments on the BBC Have Your Say page.

We’re probably going to see more of this in the coming years. European elites have created problems that they have no idea how to solve. If Europe’s future is a mix of dictatorship and warlordism then the BNP is on the dictatorship end of this and Jønke is on the warlord end. Neither bodes well.

Best wishes,


Fellow Peacekeeper said...

Socialism itself (of whatever flavor) is a bad idea, and generally ends up impoverishing and killing millions of people.

Steady there, it worked reasonably well in Sweden while set in a socially conservative setting, and economically Denmark is still pretty socialist (high taxes, generous welfare, big on social equality) but works pretty well I'm sure we can agree ... because it is still socially conservative.

The real distincion is sooner that radicalism and totalitarianism is dangerous as opposed to socialism or conservatism in the economic sense.

The USSR and other communist states were clearly socialist, radical and totalitarian and murdered millions. Nazism is beter understood as national-radicalism than national-socialism (early post WWII Sweden was both nationalist and socialist, no?). National-radical Hitler and the nazis tried to remake Germany in their own image (disaster), while Fascist Mussolini started as a national-radical-socialist but then went to national-corporatist (which is now more associated with "Fascist" governance), eventually ended up pretty much a traditional petty dictator. This still ended disasterously as his radical orientation lead to a rather unfortunate alliance. How does this compare to a Franco or Pinochet? Also labelled "fascist" these governments were very much conservative and anti-radical .. favoring the old elites, church and state.

So where does that put the BNP, as opposed to New Labor for instance? I say this is historically clear : THE BNP IS CLEARLY FAR LESS DANGEROUS THAN NU LABOR IS NOW!

MORAL The modern left-right (conservative-socialist) spectrum is not adequate to describe all political models! It doesn't map well onto 19th century politics US or elsewhere, and on various issues wierd outliers like the Nazis have characteristics from all over the modern political spectrum (sometimes pro-worker, socially radical, often pro-corporate, nationalized finances, totalitarian, green, violently nationalist).

Indeed socialism and collectivism does not work - in radical contexts (which are the ones that marxism has unfortunately made us familiar with). In a socially conservative society (ie stable, with established principles, morals, duties and obligations as well as rights) is the only environment where some socialist economics can more or less work.

4Symbols said...

Putting aside the presents of Nick Griffin and the B.N.P. this was a neoliberal and multicultural HATE FEST. of anything White, Christian or British.

Bonnie Greer Dep.Chair, British Museum even invited him (Nick Griffin) to the British Museum for a lesson to understand once and for all that there is no such thing as "the indigenous English people".

One wonders if this is the British Museum's official policy.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Let me point out that Hitler was a bad nationalist, in that he didn't respect the nation-states around Germany...

Franco was not a fascist, he was a conservative protecting Spain from the onslaught of Communism. That this was done in a rather brutal way does not make him a fascist - fascism is evil for other reasons - that just makes him a brute.

Socialism itself (of whatever flavor) is a bad idea.

It is. Ludwig von Mises elaborated on that in his landmark tome Socialism (note: LvM Institute gives it away for free - just follow the link and click on 'in pdf').

Socialism runs contrary to natural instincts of ownership and responsibility, and will eventually lead to an incompetent elite ruling those of ability and thrift, leading to disaster.

Liberal Fascism is a great book, which I enjoyed reading. My understanding of fascism has moved on a bit from that, but he does break a significant barrier of understanding: Fascism is essentially a leftist ideology. And if you quote Mussolini for the opposite, I'll ask:

How on Earth can you trust that idiot?

I love learning :)

Sir Henry Morgan said...

This is where I wrote my take on the whole disgraceful episode.

Am I paranoid?

A conspiracy theorist?

Whatever, I believe it anyway. And we all know that it's the paranoid that survive.

Frank Kitman said...

This is an interesting discussion. I have myself been struggling with the concepts of national socialism, international socialism and fascism

I guess traditionally fascism and international socialism/anarchism are the arch-enemies. And more often than not, the fascist movements started as a response to the revolutionary efforts of the socialists. This is the reason why national socialists are rightly judged to be "right-wing" fascists. Because however one views it they fought the communist bolsheviks like no one ever did.
Secondly, the capitalists where once "left-wingers" or progressives, during the revolutions of the Bourgeoisies In denmark the official name of the right-wing conservative party is still "the left" because of this historical affinity. So, in the end there is plenty of room for confusion depending on where you pick your starting point.

All in all, I have come to the conclusion that it doesn´t really make sense to judge german national socialism as a system of government. It was from the very beginning engaged in an optimisation of a warfare economics, which makes it hard to compare to tradional social-democratic policies, capitalism or even socialism.
In my view German National socialism was in essense the collapse of the tradional germanic civilisation.
After Versaille they found themselves in a squeeze between french enlightenment, anglo-american parliamentary capitalism, and russian socialism.
One can only speculate how the german national-socialism would have dealt with peace-time economics - but if one is to believe some of the more influential leaders such as himmler, it would probably have evolved into a highly militariased totalitarian LOTR-like mordor state, believeing in astrology, genetics
and nuclear-physics. But I guess it really doesn´t matter much.
German national socialism was simply the death of a civilisation.
Civilisations tend to die like the stars up above. They can either fade away or explode like a supernova, causing immense damage for a couple of years after which they turn into grey dwarfs.

In a sense this is also what is happening within the islamic civilisation these years, only we have yet to see wether it is dwarfed, or sucks us all into a big black hole forever

roman said...

Yes, Baron Bodissey, you are right,
BNP is National Socialist party, and marxists indeed recognize their mortal enemies instantly, using six's sense.
But you are not right claiming that all brands of socialism are bad, because you probably do not understand importance of tribe and of necessity TO CARE about your extended family which your tribe is.
Yes, "National Socialism" is pretty much misleading as a name, since it is so similar to its jewish counterpart, but the difference between these two systems is unfathomable.
I'm not going to details, but my own switching from right-wing individualism was based on two logical pillars:
1. Any society based on unbridled capitalist principles will be eventually ruled by interests of big business, that's only drive is PROFIT. Highly immoral and degenerate and unworthy goal inconsistent with interests of people. Results, including outsourcing of means of production and mass immigration of cheap labor. PROFIT. So this is what we observe around us today.
2. Future human evolution requires not only isolated ethnic pool, but active CARING is needed to get it quick. If your want your garden to produce best fruits you are not going to let your plants to just compete with each other. You hire a gardener which stimulates fruition of best and discourages the worst. As all human traits are inherited to a large extent, careful selection will allow to produce Homo supersapiens within few generations. I dont see any real alternative to National Socialism in this enterprise.

Frank Hilliard said...

If you want to see the Nick Griffin news conference today, it was on Sky News. However, the reporter following Griffin around was cut off in mid sentence when he was about to say Griffin was well received by the public in Essex.

Here's a link to the news conference.

Avery Bullard said...

Bonnie Greer Dep.Chair, British Museum even invited him (Nick Griffin) to the British Museum for a lesson to understand once and for all that there is no such thing as "the indigenous English people".

She's filth. A black American lecturing the English on Englishness!

I'd rather live in a white socialist country than a non-white capitalist country. The quality of the people matters more than any ideology.

Besides, the BNP is only slightly more socialistic than Obama and Bush. The non-white immigrants are far more likely to support radical socialist policies than the indigenous population. So worrying about the BNP being too socialist is idiotic.

Henrik R Clausen said...

I guess traditionally fascism and international socialism/anarchism are the arch-enemies.

Not arch-enemies, arch-competitors.

During the 1930's, the German National Socialists duked it out with the Bolscheviks exactly because they were the ones who could be converted. Classical conservatives, with their capitalist/libertarian views and solid respect for private property, were not nearly that easy. My opinion is that nationalism was used as a ruse to trick them - that worked. The devastation of the 1923 hyperinflation had rendered them powerless and destroyed much confidence in tradition, too.

Roman, I believe that business can only get as huge as it is due to undue favors granted by the State (copyright is one, the limited responsibility of corporations another, the money-printing stimulating high finance a third). In a fundamentalist market economy, I believe - and this is hugely hypothecical, as it doesn't exist anywhere - that businesses would naturally have a more moderate size.

As for 'caring', the state has been coercing us into doing that for so long I'm getting to the vomiting point. 'Caring' for the climate is merely the latest and most ridiculous of those 'caring' obligations we're getting plastered with all the time.

I want politicians who can show us how to get better lives in the real world, not in some eco-fascist dream state 50 years in the future. I don't mind working hard for that, but I do want clear, tangible benefits.

Baron Bodissey said...

Roman --

I can't agree with you.

Your analogy fails because of the role of the "gardener", which presupposes a superior and more enlightened being who guides the ignorant people for their own good. In terms of Socialism, this was the "Party as the vanguard of the Revolution".

In practice, wherever such ideas were allowed to run unchecked -- Russia, Germany, China, and Cambodia -- they resulted in the gulag and the mass murder of millions of people.

The difference with Sweden and other social democracies is that the old social structures did not disappear entirely, which checked the power of the new radical versions of Socialism.

But wherever the Party succeeded in destroying all the other social institutions, mass murder and slavery were the result. There were no exceptions.

Fjordman said...

I usually agree with the Baron on political and economic matters, but what we are dealing with in Britain and indeed in most Western nations is now a matter of survival, not ideology. White Westerners are being actively dispossessed by their own authorities. Yes, I am increasingly convinced that this is planned and deliberate. The lies we are being served are virtually identical in every single Western country. I've had some discussions about this with my good friend Omhyrus, who thinks this is mainly about a structural failure in our political system. I don't disagree with that, but I also believe there is a planned long-term goal of breaking down all white majority nations to create a new global oligarchy.

We should start debating how to survive the coming crash. There will be a pan-Western and perhaps international economic and social collapse in the not-too-distant future. I fear that this is too late to avoid by now. It's too late to fix the current ruling paradigm. The people who support it are too powerful, and the paradigm contains so many flaws that it cannot be fixed. It needs to crash. We should focus on surviving this crash and on developing a new paradigm to replace the failed one.

We need to learn from our enemies, both internal and external. The one thing I reluctantly admire about Marxists and Leftists of all stripes is above all their ability to organize and focus on long-term goals. Unfortunately, their goals are usually destructive, but we can and must learn from their organizational skills so that we can beat them at their own game. They must be squashed, otherwise we cannot deal rationally with our external enemies such as Muslims.

We must get rid of Feminism, which is destructive and merely an extension of Marxism, anyway. We must prepare as best as we can for a collapse of the US dollar and perhaps the Euro. We must document everything that is happening and is being done to us by treasonous elites, for future reference. We must take steps to ensure our physical safety, and we must regain pride in our heritage.

DP111 said...

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a more multicultural country, a former Government adviser has revealed.

Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural

Baron Bodissey said...

Fjordman --

I don't think I disagree with you on these things. I just observe and describe what's happening.

By the commonly accepted definition, the BNP is a national Socialist party. That doesn't mean they are going to invade their neighbors or gas Jews. That's just what happened in the metastasized version in Germany. Nazi Germany was an aberration.

I don't approve of the BNP's ideology, but if I were British, I might vote for them over the available alternatives, God help me.

When it comes down to it, we have to take care of our own, and the BNP seems to be the only party in the UK willing to do that.

Which makes the British better off than we are, because here in the USA there is no party at all right now that is dedicated to the preservation of traditional American culture and liberty.

roman said...

Henric and Baron,
We are on the verge of great changes. I dont remember who said that "the first country which starts to apply eugenics will rule the world" - Galton perhaps, but both China and Singapore have already implemented eugenic laws. Behold.

Baron, Russia, oh my raped Russia, China, and Cambodia were socialist in jewish sense, with denial of role of genetics, indoctrinated in the "Blank slate" fallacy.
Now China slowly goes from murderous communist phase into NatSoc state as clearly evidenced by their "China-first" policies.

Yes, its always a problem with a good "gardener". But It WORKED in Germany up until the end. Remember how incredibly strong was Nazi's popular support. May be it is a matter of careful selection of leaders who care about THEIR people (who belong to the same ethnic group unlike in Russia after 1917). Maybe like in modern Israel (with working eugenic policies)? You cant say that Jews who run Israel do not care about their folk.

So in time of collapse people will naturally flock to those who were a lone (and vilified) voice of reason before, which means all National Socialist parties in Europe. it would be great if they are prepared by that time...

Baron, its good (forgive me that "good") thing that fall of America is happening so fast, with dramatic changes witnessed by the same generation, so people will likely revolt when there will be nowhere to flight. In 15 years non-whites will be majority under 18. Well. GOP should either be transformed or National Alliance revived.

kritisk_borger said...

There has been a lot of talk about the coming demise of the west, the destruction of the white race and the culpability of Islam and the ruling classes in the west, in this matter. Something that hasn’t been discussed to nearly the same extent is the theories of Thomas Malthus, and the possibilities that the world at some point will run out of resources to feed large parts of the population. Malthus claimed that human’s ability to feed themselves would be outweighed by a rapidly growing population, and that the notions that progress would take care of these matters, were false and based on ideological misconceptions.

The global population is at the moment growing at an alarming rate. Predictions from the UN estimate that it will reach 9 billion by 2050, and that this growth will occur in the third world. The problem with this scenario is that the third world is not even capable of feeding itself at the moment, let alone in 2050, when the population, according to the UN will have soared to 9 billion.

Throw climate change into this equation (not manmade, but natural climate change) and the possible effects this will have on food production, and the prospects soon looks bleak. At the moment there is an exodus of people from the third world to the west, what will the situation be like if the population soars to more than 9 billion?

It goes without saying, that this trend is unsustainable. Even the most naive leftists in the west will soon come to this conclusion when the consequences start to become more apparent. It is not unreasonable that forced or voluntarily political change, are going to be the result of such a scenario.

The other more plausible option, is that people in the third world, will be left to fend for themselves. The foreign aid that they have relied so heavily upon for the last five decades, and that has contributed to this staggering population growth, will stop, and the current population trend will be reversed. The next war that the west engages in could actually be one were we are fighting desperate third world immigrants, trying to reach the west.

AgentChameleon87 said...

If the BNP is National Socialist, then why does it favor a decentralization of power, with many decisions carried out by local communities?

The BNP is also very opposed to foreign intervention, a trait not known to fascist regimes, or the one national socialist regime to ever exist.

Yes, I find some of there economic views a bit too leftist for my taste, but you know what, I'm an American, the BNP is not American, and I think Brits are more comfortable with things such as the NHS; something Americans could never accept.

The fight for the survival of the white ethnic groups such as the English is much more important than beating the BNP with a billy club and calling its chairman clever slurs like "Reichsfuhrer" just because we don't agree on health care or government aid for the elderly.

Who knows, maybe if we reach out to the BNP rather than toss the Nazi slur at them, we could get them to see eye-to-eye with us on economic matters. I've been spending a lot of time on the Green Arrow's forum, and I've been talking with BNP veterans, who certainly aren't Nazis. They are patriots trying to save their people from genocide.

Baron Bodissey said...

AgentChameleon87 --

Once again, the term "national Socialist" is simply descriptive of the BNP's policies.

The BNP is Socialist: it advocates greater social welfare expenditures and nationalization of certain parts of the private economy. Those who favor state control of the means of production and the coerced redistribution of private wealth are commonly known as Socialists. Whether or not I approve of Socialism (and I do not), the term is correctly applied here.

The BNP is also nationalist: it proposes to return to the traditional modus operandi of the nation-state, in which the ethnic natives' rights are paramount over those of foreigners. Whether or not I approve of this stance (and I do), the term is correctly applied here.

When these two general policies are combined, they form national Socialism. This does not make the BNP into Nazis, nor Nick Griffin into a Fuehrer. The Nazis, as I said, were an aberration.

The distinction here is between national and international Socialism. If I have to choose between the two, I choose the former, because it will resist the destruction of the nation-state.

It's at least conceivable that a form of unbridled Socialism, whether national or international, could govern successfully without morphing into mass-murdering totalitarianism. But it has never happened so far -- all forms of coercive Socialism that managed to eliminate their rivals have turned into murderous monstrosities. My intuition tells me that this is inevitable, but I can't prove it.

As for the "Reichsfuhrer" in Seneca III's post -- I understood that to be bitter irony on the author's part, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he really does consider Nick Griffin to be a Nazi.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Roman, as for your proposal for eugenics:

Forget it - as far as I'm concerned. I'll fight that idea. What we need is to bring out the best in everyone - and we all have potential to behave much better than we do.

WAKE UP said...

All well and good (previous 25 posts) but is it not also fair to say that Griffin's BNP is providing the only energisewd rallying point against rampant Islamism (and traitorous cooperation), and that is the most pressing matter, the FIRST order of business ?

Chechar said...

@ German national socialism was simply the death of a civilisation.
Civilisations tend to die like the stars up above. They can either fade away or explode like a supernova, causing immense damage for a couple of years after which they turn into grey dwarfs. -- Frank Kitman

This strongly resonates with what Con Swede has said both here in GoV and in his blog.

The BBC is the most heinous MSM traitor of the English-speaking world. Here there are the words by a YouTube commenter on the recent BBC program, the subject of this post:

@This is the 1st time this show has EVER had a black woman, a Muslim and the so called European speaker for our country, AND set in London (which is also known for being full of foreigners) and look around the crowd at how many Asians, blacks and foreigners in it, and the BBC who we have to pay a f**n license for tries to tell us this was a neutral program lol bull***t!

Well said!

@ She's filth. A black American lecturing the English on Englishness! I'd rather live in a white socialist country than a non-white capitalist country. -- Avery Bullard

Absolutely… I’ve written a little on race issues in my blog the last couple of weeks. In those entries I said that what moves me the most is my desire to preserve the genotype of the English roses. Yes Roman: I am with you. Europe is like a train that is gearing back: a suicidal reverse into an abyss after the racialist crash of WWII. I find it rather primitive that the elites cannot see the golden mean between a genocidal nation like the Germany of the 1940s, and the most elemental preservation of how we look like (and our forefathers, and our children, and our most precious wives…). I lived one year in England and, had I remained there, I’d vote for BNP.

AgentChameleon87 said...

Baron Bodissey,

First off, I respectfully disagree with the labeling of the BNP as full-tilt socialist. They have some left-wing tendencies, but overall they are mildly socialist. They certainly favor less government at the top levels of power, which is something socialists rarely favor. They generally prefer capitalism, but capitalism that's within the context of the nation. They reject the global capitalist model, as do I, but I think what the BNP has in mind when they say global capitalism is really global corporatism (fascism) which is what the global elites are pushing on us. As you know, in a fascist model, corporations are economic arms of the state, and the British government engaged in fascist behavior by bailing out, and ultimately subsidizing the banks. The BNP is firmly opposed to bank bail outs, another thing that puts them at odds with socialists economically.

The BNP rank-and-file also strongly opposes green fascism, such as losing sovereignty in the name of global warming, or creating green jobs, or blighting the landscape with windmills, or draconian punishments for not recycling properly.

Even if we agree that the BNP is socialist, please understand that there is only one regime in history that went by the name of national socialist, as that was Nazi Germany. The Nazis in fact never used the term Nazi, that was an American term. They always called themselves national socialist. So when you label the BNP national socialist, you're inevitably going to equate the BNP with Hitlerism in the eyes of the public, even if privately you feel that the BNP isn't Hitler's brand of national socialism. Yet Hitler's brand of national socialism was the only brand, so Mein Kampf and the Wanasse Conference inevitably define what national socialism is. And when respectable blogs like yours label the BNP as national socialist, people who read this site will most likely think "Oh the BNP want to gas 6 million Jews and invade Poland."

And I think the BNP's definition of nationalism differs enough from Hitler's version they deserve to be treated as separate ideologies. The BNP believes that each ethnic group is entitled to have its own homeland and the right to preserve their people and culture. Which is why the BNP has been pro-Israel in recent times, as they recognize the need for the Jews to have their own nation. Whereas I'm sure I don't need to explain what Hitler's brand of nationalism was like. Needless to say they are leagues apart.

Perhaps the BNP could be called national social democrats? They favor a mild form of socialism that is democratic and de-centralized in nature, and they oppose war except when it comes to self-defense.

Really the BNP is straight forward ethno-nationalism; the belief that each ethnic group has the right to survive and exist in its own land, preferably ancestral (but that can't always be the case) and not be demographically displaced by millions of foreigners. Economic views are put in the back seat to ethnic concerns.

DP111 said...

The news tht "Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser", hides the real reason behind the policy.

Politicians do not do things to make a country more cultural or enriched, they do so because they wish to remain in power. NuLabour knows that immigrants will vote Labour, for the simple reason that Labour will continue unlimited Benefits for all. A similar situation prevails in America.

America has upto 15m illegals. I dont see them ever being forced to go back. Therefore, sooner or later they will be legalised. Even if they are not, their children who are born in the US, will be American. In the long run, Democrats in America, and Labour in the UK, are therefore
assured an inbuilt majority. Such gerrymandering is of a scale and intent, quite different from what happened before. It amounts to treason.

thll said...

Isn't the BNP the only political party in Britain to support Israel in its struggle with Gaza?

Frank Kitman said...

Henrik said: "Not arch-enemies, arch-competitors.
During the 1930's, the German National Socialists duked it out with the Bolscheviks exactly because they were the ones who could be converted."

well, they certainly duked it out in stalingrad aswell!

I think much of the confusion in these concepts stem from the fact that "conservatism" today means "american conservatism". - freedom, democracy and small government. This is because an american conservative seeks to protect and uphold his CONSTITUTION, which explicitly contains these very values. This is not the case in europe. European conservatism meant allegiance to the crown and to your country. And the german national socialists certainly had this allegiance.
What many americans don´t understand is that totalitarianism/socialism and conservatism are not mutually exclusive in a european context, because europeans dont have an american constitution. Only international socialism is irreconcilable with european conservatism. In many european kingdoms democracy is still to this day just a way for people to govern themselves in peace-time, but the monarch has to approve all laws and governments.

I would describe myself as an "american conservative" in europe, but I find it important to remain clear about this crucial difference, if the motivations and character of the european nationalism is to be understood.