Monday, 29 December 2014

Again, with the racist Christmas card.

The last time I was writing about the BNP and its Christmas cards it was 2013 and Nick Griffin was still the leader. Now not only has he lost his seat in the European Parliament, he has lost his role as leader, which he held for 15 years, and has actually been expelled from the party. He's since thrown his weight behind UKIP as the leading right-wing alternative to the Westminster consensus. The BNP haven't changed tactics drastically, they are still sending out fascist Christmas cards wishing us all a 'white' Christmas. The party is still wearing Nick's old jackboots.

What does this say about the BNP? Is this the Griffin legacy? Putting it succinctly, I would say 'yes' to the latter question, and refer back to my writing from last Christmas:

Under Griffin the BNP has been active in attempting to carve out a position of right-wing populism with its own self-sustaining momentum. To this end Griffin has set out to normalise the party as a modern cultural nationalist group standing up for the little guy. The enemy is defined as a coterie of multiculturalist liberals, radical leftist infiltrators and an assortment of foreigners. In plain speaking, the Left (and, of course, the Jews) have triumphed over Western civilization and mass-immigration is their tool in destroying the 'white race'.

Of course, the party is still completely enthralled by racial nationalism, just as its precursor the National Front used to campaign to "keep Britain white". The BNP, like all fascist parties, cannot abandon 'white' people, even as it can desist from talking about African, Jewish and South Asian Britons. The commitment to defending the 'white race' is its raison d'etre, and the hatred and oppression of non-whites is the only way it can further this agenda.


lyovmyshkin said...

I find the term "fascism" used quite a lot. It's always amusing. As Orwell noted the term, by 1946, was a useless catchall for Leftist angst and derision. 70 years hasn't changed much.

In your world is anyone allowed to explicitly advocate on behalf of their own ethnic group, or is this always immoral?

Do you find Western multiculturalism which practices an asymmetrical brand of identity politics (proscribing and shaming explicit, majority group advocacy while encouraging minority group expression) morally acceptable?

Finally, have you read the work of people like Steve Sailer and Nicolas Wade on heritable human differences? This is a fascinating topic in a fascinating field that has too long been the occupied territory of carefully concealed ideologues and egalitarian zealots.

I ask because I don't consider myself a fascist, yet I consider it moral for my people, like all others, to have self-determination.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

lyovmyshkin said...

Mr White,

Is there some reason you didn't allow my earlier comment to be posted? I would have thought that you would welcome some discussion on your blog. Also, there was nothing offensive or scandalous in what I wrote.


JT White said...

I didn't actually see your comments until now because I've been busy. I moderate all comments to prevent spam being spewed all over my blog, but I don't get notifications whenever I get a new comment. So I wasn't even aware of your comments.

JT White said...

Fascism may be a word too often abused, but I used it here because the BNP is descendent of the National Front and its leadership has always featured neo-Nazis - not just Nick Griffin, but John Tyndall as well. But I try to be very strict in its use.

Well, I would first unpack the term 'ethnicity'. It's actually very imprecise, just as 'race' is much more socially constructed than it is a biological reality. There are genetic gaps and overlaps between ancestral populations, but the differences are ultimately very slight. People may identify as part of groups, but it's the economic reality which really counts.

I'm actually quite critical of multiculturalism and identity politics. I think the former is basically a form of liberal regulatory politics, and I suspect the latter of being woefully reformist (though it's not always the case). I welcome hybridity, but I don't think cultures are or should be self-enclosed.

I've read those kinds of arguments in the past, such as Charles Murray, and I've watched interviews with Steve Sailer. I don't buy the argument about IQ because I don't think IQ represents anything except your ability to pass IQ tests. The level of logic here could be used to suggest ear-rings are a heritable trait among women.

All peoples should have the right to self-determination and this has been a staple of left-wing thinking for over a century.