Humpty Dumpty on the BNP

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone,"it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice,"whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

Through the Looking Glass - Lewis Carroll

Anyone who has been following news out of the UK recently will be aware that two British National Party (BNP) candidates were recently elected to the European Parliament in Strasbourg (or is that Brussels? Or Luxembourg even? In the labyrinthine EU one is never quite sure of these things). Moreover, most people will be familiar with this party (and others) being described by its detractors and supposedly neutral reporters alike as "nationalist", "far right", "racist" or even "fascist". The BNP may be some or all of these things (or then again it may not) but this raises the fundamental point inherent in our opening exchange between Humpty Dumpty and Alice: What do these words mean and who says what they mean? Can we use words such as "racist" and "fascist" any which way we please? This is particularly troublesome in a field such as politics where terms such as these can be used both descriptively and pejoratively. While it's one thing to call someone a "fascist" as a term of abuse (as Marxist-Leninists will of just about anyone who doesn't agree with their view of things -- even rival subgroupings of Marxist-Leninists), it's another thing entirely for a supposedly detached and disinterested observer to call that same person a "fascist". Over 60 years ago George Orwell was right to point out the fluidities in the use of the term "fascist" (HT: The Ugley Vicar). Nothing much has changed in the intervening years. In fact today we have not one but two F-words we drop when we want to ostracise someone from the bounds of civilised society: fascism and fundamentalism. While serving a purpose as political and theological "swear words", do they serve any purpose as useful descriptors of political or religious views? I think the answer is in theory yes but in practice no (or almost no). While it is probably not impossible to come up with a useful working definition of these terms, the common pejorative use of terms like these and the ideologically charged nature of politics have clouded most people's ability to make rational judgments in this regard.

I.

At this point I want to state two things: First this blog post is not an apology (in the sense of a defence) for the BNP; second (and perhaps more importantly), nor is it an apology for my own (critical) views of the BNP. On the first point, as far as I'm concerned it is up to the BNP (along with every political party) to make its own case. I'm not a member of that (or any) political party so it's not really up to me to propagate or defend its views. Moreover, I doubt the BNP would want me to defend them for the simple reason that I don't actually agree with their platform. But this brings me to the second point: Although I don't agree with the BNP's platform you're not going to hear a self-righteous monologue from me on (as James Delingpole put it) how "utterly disgusted" I am at "this victory for the racist 'far right.'" This is so for several reasons:
(1) While I do believe that the BNP is "racist" (although to what extent is a matter for debate, which of course is made all the more difficult by the fact that you can never be quite sure that the "public face" of the party is its true face), it is far from being a party of the far right. The BNP may be many things (including nationalist in addition to racist), but one thing it is not is "far right". This has to be one of the most significant -- and potentially dangerous -- mischaracterisations in modern politics. I'm not sure if it's deliberate or not. Do the opinion makers and chattering classes who slap the BNP with the label "far right" really believe that to be the case (in which case they are profoundly stupid -- which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest) or do they really see the BNP for what it is (a ragbag of populist ideas from the political right and left with leftist ideas actually predominating) but then in a calculated move to discredit the party or mislead the public label it as being "far right"? In fact I think it's probably a bit of both. Some of our opinion makers probably are intelligent enough to see the BNP for what it really is but then in an effort to undermine the party and/or shore up their own leftist ideology/agenda deliberately mischaracterise it as belonging to the "far right". In addition to this, however, is the majority of opinion makers and those belonging to the chattering classes who really are blinded by their own political ideology. In short their own leftist political ideology teaches them to view the BNP as "far right" so they do.

(2) In actual fact I'm not really "disgusted" at the election of two BNP caindidates to Strasbourg/Brussels -- well, at least no more "disgusted" at the election of two BNP candidates with whose views I strongly disagree than I am with the election of hundreds of representatives from the so-called "mainstream" parties (in the UK which is not home but is where I am currently residing that's the Labour Party, the Conservative and Unionist Party and the Liberal Democrats -- although in my view the Liberal Democrats are now a spent force in British politics and are in a state of terminal decline) with equally objectionable views. The racism of the BNP is no worse (although I'm far from claiming it's any better) than some of the ways the "mainstream" parties call evil good and good evil. I don't particularly want to vote for individuals (or in the European Elections parties since we're forbidden from voting for individuals and are forced to vote for a party on a list system) with racist views; but then again I certainly don't want to vote for individuals who espouse misanthropic views such as my local Oxford MP Dr Evan Harris of the (so-called) Liberal Democrats who is in favour of the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocents on a scale that far surpasses the Hitlers, Stalins and Pol Pots of this world. So if we're going to point the finger at the two BNP MEPs' objectionable views on race let's also have a look at the views of other supposedly more "mainstream" politicians who champion evil and injustice.

(3) Even assuming arguendo that I did believe the BNP to be a party of the "far right" and, moreover, that I was "disgusted" by the election of two of its candidates I still wouldn't engage in the kind of self-righteous preening on display by our opinion makers and the chattering classes for the simple reason that it is counter-productive (assuming of course you don't want people to vote BNP!). It is exactly this kind of behaviour by "political elites" which drives a wedge between them and people of the working classes, causing the latter to become increasingly disenchanted with the politically correct agenda of the elite and to go out and vote for parties like the BNP.

II.

So is the BNP a "nationalist", "racist", "fascist", party of the "far right" as is commonly claimed (and as Humpty Dumpty might want to say)? Well, let's look at these one by one, bearing in mind that we've already partially addressed the applicability of some of these descriptors above.

*"Nationalist"? I think yes, although of course it will depend on how we define "nationalism". Nationalism as a political movement can probably be defined as a kind of collectivism that focuses on the nation, perhaps even elevating it above all other forms of identity. To that extent then, I think the BNP is "nationalist".

*Racist"? Again, I think yes, but it will depend on what we mean by "racist". The BNP certainly espouses policies which are racially discriminatory -- i.e. treating people differently on the basis of race -- but then they would hardly deny the fact of that. The all important question is what we make of the fact of their racially discriminatory policies. Does the fact of racial discrimination ipso facto amount to racism or do we also need to look at the effects and motivation in a given case (distinguishing some instances of racial discrimination from others)? As it so happens, Britain (along with most Western societies) is currently full of officially sanctioned racial discrimination. Majorities are racially discriminated against in favour of minorities with the full blessing of the law and the "mainstream" political parties. Now whether this is good, bad or indifferent is a debate we need to have (and perhaps the presence of parties such as the BNP will enable us to have a proper debate on issues such as these which has previously been impossible under a strict regimen of political correctness imposed on us by the progressive liberal establishment). But simply calling the BNP "racist" because it espouses policies which are racially discriminatory doesn't prove the point. If you want to criticise the BNP for being "racist" you either have to (1) make the argument that some forms of racial discrimination (eg anti-majoritarian racial discrimination as is currently practised in several Western countries) are legitimate while others (eg anti-minoritarian racial discrimination) are illegitimate or (2) argue that the BNP is "racist" in some deeper and inherently objectionable sense of that word (eg that its racially discriminatory policies are based on a belief in the "superiority" of one race over another).

* "Fascist"? This is probably the hardest question to answer. "Fascism" as a political movement (as opposed to a term of abuse hurled by many leftists at their opponents) is hard to define. Mussolini said the following:

Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and heroism; that is to say, actions determined by no economic motive. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact of being the majority, are to direct human society... and it affirms the immutable, beneficial and fruitful inequality of mankind.

Fascism conceives of the state as an an absolute, in comparison to which all individuals and groups are relative, only to be conceived in their relation to the state. It seeks to influence the state not merely by words or majority vote but by action, holiness and heroism.

If this is what we mean by fascism (and of course it would be possible to come up with other definitions) then the BNP is far from being a classic or central case of a "fascist" party (although it would certainly display some elements of fascism).

* "Far right"? I've already commented on this above and believe that this is clearly not the case. The BNP cannot be easily placed on the political spectrum. (In fact most parties can't easlily be placed on the political spectrum; but I think the BNP is harder to place than most). It is (as things currently stand) clearly populist and espouses a ragbag of ideas from the political right and left with leftist ideas predominating in my view. It is probably best characterised as espousing some form of "national" (as opposed to "international") socialism (although certainly not Hitler's or the NSDAP's "National Socialism" from whence we get our word Nazism -- Nationalsozialismus in German) and best belongs to the extremities of the political left.

III.

Possibly the most ridiculous thing I heard on the BBC's Election night coverage tracking the results of the European Parliament elections in the UK was consternation among the so-called experts (mostly what I would refer to as members of the liberal progressive establishment, a prime example of which is Polly Toynbee of the Grauniad) as to why in this present "crisis of capitalism" we are currently seeing the electorate swinging to the "far right" to vote for parties such as the BNP when you would naturally expect people to swing to the left and vote for anti-capitalist parties. At the time I couldn't believe the profound ignorance of what I was hearing but on reflection this confirmed my suspicion that many of our opinion makers are profoundly stupid, blinded by their own ideology. They misunderstand everything: the nature of "capitalism" and "free markets", the nature of the current economic crisis, the nature of the BNP and most importantly what causes people to vote for the BNP. Whatever the BNP is, at least on economic matters it is not a "right wing" party in the sense of being in favour of the free market. The BNP is highly protectionist -- well to the economic left of all the "mainstream" UK parties (including Labour and the Lib Dems) and finds its place economically with good old fashioned socialists and communists. Moreover, people were not predominantly motivated by a crisis of capitalism to go out and vote for the BNP. The BNP hasn't actually picked up any more votes than 5 years ago when the country was in an economic boom. What changed this time was that under the form of proportional representation used for the European Parliament they secured a high enough proportion of the overall vote in two post-industrial and traditionally Labour Euro-regions (because the turn-out was lower and far fewer people voted for other parties, most notably Labour and the Liberal Democrats).

It is interesting to note where the BNP won its seats (post-industrial Labour heartland) and also who its core voters are (disaffected white working class Labour voters). It is predominantly people whom the major party of the left has claimed as its core constituents who are now voting for the BNP. Now the causes for this are no doubt many and varied, but if we were to distil it down to its essence the rise of parties such as the BNP is a reaction by the traditional (in Britain, white) working class against a sense of abandonment by the "mainstream" parties (especially the Labour party). Now obviously some of this has to do with inevitable change. Economies don't stand still but are forever evolving and many of the industries and jobs that existed in Britain 30, 40 or 50 years ago don't exist any more. Much of it, however, has to do with factors very much within the control of the mainstream political parties. Over the past 40 years or so, Western societies have undergone enormous social change only some of which was inevitable. Much of it was a conscious choice on the part of the progressive liberal establishment and the effects of this change have hit the traditional working class the hardest. It is they who have borne the brunt of the effects of mass immigration without assimilation in the name of "multiculturalism". It is the less skilled and educated of the white majority who have been hit the hardest by policies of "affirmative action" or "positive discrimination". Well-to-do white Britons can still get good jobs even if preference is officially given to people of ethnic minorities. It is the less educated and lower skilled working class white Britons who are passed over in favour of people from ethnic minorities. And the destruction of traditional forms of family and social life based on stable marriages has hit traditional working class people the hardest. All of these changes -- and several others -- have been an unmitigated disaster for the traditional working class. Most importantly these changes didn't "just happen" but were planned and positively encouraged by the progressive liberal establishment who wanted to replace the old society with their own new utopian vision. In voting BNP people are voting against the major parties -- most notably (although not exclusively) Labour -- who have sacrificed them on the altar of the god of their brave new world. The people who are voting BNP are realising that something is rotten in the state of Denmark (well Britain really) and are reacting against it. They are feeling that despite all the rhetoric about how the parties are listening to their concerns and working for them that they've been abandoned for something else. And the truth is they have. The question now is whether we will listen and act.