The world is huge, billions big, and we don't have to reflect it. I think one common foundational fact most mammals here can agree on is Hate Speech Is Not Cool. For instance -- no sarcasm -- I do cringe when slim endorses hatred against the rich, which has led to some (Lenin) very questionable (Mao) outcomes to date (Pol Pot). Not a great track record on any front.
As a "moderator" I hate to do anything, anything at all -- I'd rather not intervene, and I am deeply wary of the consequences I've invoked, long-term, by suspending two of the best contributors here. Still, I do think it is worth intervening over this: casual insinuations of racism and bigotry are just as destructive to our conversations as actual racism and bigotry.
For better or worse (spoiler alert "better") this is a forum that has room for parapolitics and the paranormal and we're too weird for average trolls to survive. So I think the biggest, and hopefully only, real boundary a moderator here would have to defend is personal attacks and angry post drama. It is noise we don't need, and I hope folks still feel there is room for a broad spectrum of thought at RI.
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I was definitely not endorsing opening the gates and allowing the savages in!
I think the moderating here is excellent, in fact this forum as a whole is excellent. If these electronic forums out in the ether had a sort of physical representation, I would see this one as a sort of smoky obscure section of a large old library. Surrounded by a large repository of information, the only people you'd expect to find there in the first place are more likely than not to be a cut above the norm, and somewhat thoughtful and measured with their words.
Ha, now I'm probably going to spend the next hour concocting a physical representation of every online public forum I know about.
"One measures a circle, beginning anywhere." -Charles Fort
Wombaticus Rex » 03 Jan 2014 03:18 wrote: I do cringe when slim endorses hatred against the rich, which has led to some (Lenin) very questionable (Mao) outcomes to date (Pol Pot). Not a great track record on any front. .
Which is why I normally incliude the term powerful.
Heres the facts as I see them. This world is essentially run a tiny cliquie of rich powerful people who are fucking it up for the rest of us. Some might prefer the term 'making it challenging', which is of course exactly what life is, however you look at it.
Nonetheless, the rich and powerful, have lobbyists in every major Govnt, and have quite literally hijacked them.
Which means we get shipped off to wars based on any number of lies, repeated ad nauseum, reinforced by what essentially is a complicit 4th estate.
It also means that sovereign citizens of this earth are forced to enrol within the most hideous system of monetary exchange, perpetuated by Fractional reserve lending, which heaps more burden upon our personal and collective experience.
If that wasnt bad enough, when the fakers of modern day finance fuck up, they can turn round to our "govnts" and effectively insist that the rest of civilisation needs to pay for their mistakes, through our future labour, through taxation.
Thats what I call the influence of the rich and powerful.
We have to eat food , which it is becoming increasingly clear is extremely unsafe and unhealthy. Same influence
A whole network of expensive, deeply intrusive security apparatus has been set up to spy into every aspect of our lives, which we have paid for. Same influence.
We have to take medicine, which in many cases is more dangerous than not doing so. Same influence
We are forced to buy coal, gas and oil for energy, neither of which we need, (at least to the extent that we use them). Same influence.
I wont continue to list the rest, I just wished to make the point about the world as I see it.
All of which means that we are effectively being coerced into a system that is so lopsided and unfair, its sometimes enough to make those of us who see this weep.
And I dont like it. Just like I dont like holocaust deniers, if not quite so strongly
I have spent some time amongst White nationalists and Neo Nazis, internet forums make it possible for me to converse with people that I find objectionable and who I would never otherwise have had a opportunity of exchanging ideas with.
Can you point me in the direction of some of the sites you conversed at? - I'd be interested to take a look at how these chaps operate, their justifications - and how you countered them.
Also, from your personal point of view, what were your motives in engaging these assholes - were you researching a book, a TV show, article or something like that?
There's only one major site I have come across these in a substantial fashion. I say substantial because you get lot of mentions of the subject matter (on the sites of the usual suspects) that don't add up to much and don't tell you much, one of their tactics is to know when to withdraw. Given this, you are only likly to see a substantial debate where they mix with their detractors ie, not really any of the strictly white nationalist sites.
The site I'm referring to is a right leaning political site called The British Democracy Forum. Before anyone rushes off and googles it, I should point out that (from about 4 months ago) you can only view it if you are a member, and memerbship seems closed ATM. As soon as it opens I'll direct folks to the one big thread where the majority of these issues were teased out and made quite transparent.
My motivation for being there in the first place was to have a good look at the British far right (they had a section for the BNP amongst other parties) and TBH, I didn't see any apparent white nationalists for a while. The reason for this is quite simply that WN's don't really get on with the traditional nationalisms of the older European counties, their aims are at odds in some significant ways. They are there all right though, and a 'traditioninal' nationalism provides them with enough cover to thrive. Ultimately, they need this parent to slowly die off (as British natinalism has done), and the adherents to trickle off in their various directions, which is often the WN's direction. This is what has happened in the UK ATM.
It was a sort of project though, in that it has had an end point. With the demise of British nationalism, and an understanding of where it has gone, my initial motivation had disappeared, and even though WN is fascinating, it is quite clandestine too. The final 'framing' of the subject was in starting to view WN as a civil religion/cult, and not as politics, it was at this point I decided to draw a line under the whole thing (hence my appearence here).
To sum up, you won't really see NG (aka 'the holocaust) denial broached particularly strongly on the notiously WN sites, but where they have an interface with their detractors. Often this interface bears no fruit as either the deniers or their opponents wither away before the thing gets started, now and again you will see a doozy though, and you really need to establish yourself in a good spot and wait for this, some bait is useful, but even that doesn't guarantee a catch.
Last edited by jakell on Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
American Dream » Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:50 pm wrote:Please do not post direct links to White Supremacist/Neo-Nazi Sites. Some people here have been known to use x's in place of vowels, e.g. "Stxrmfrxnt"...
Surely it's ok to use the name of the site. I know links are different though and I won't be posting any of those.
When/if the British Democracy forum throws open it's doors. I will link directly to sections of that. That is in no way a 'hate' site.
ETA: If anyone is intersted in viewing a WN site where the level of discourse is often comparable to here (ie not the imagined knuckledragging that Leftists project onto the Right) , then I recommend 'Majority Rights'. There, I've mentioned the name as a sort of test. If anyone who represents this site's PTB has a problem with this, please let me know
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
jakell, the material from your long post is excellent.
I’m not a mod but one may suggest that using X’s in certain names is to reduce linkage to racist sites. Using the name of a racist site, without an outright link still may result in linkage via keyword searches.
I would prefer to engage these types of folk somewhere other than at RI.
Rock on though and thanks for your comments and efforts.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
I’m not a mod but one may suggest that using X’s in certain names is to reduce linkage to racist sites. Using the name of a racist site, without an outright link still may result in linkage via keyword searches.
I would prefer to engage these types of folk somewhere other than at RI.
Rock on though and thanks for your comments and efforts.
My problem is that to actually censor a name (eg Stxrmfrxnt) actually enhances it it in the eyes of human readers, ie it adds an extra layer of meaning, as opposed to a plain vanilla repititon of the name. Bots on the hand, even though they don't see this when looking for keywords, are very likely though to be sophicticated enough to register common substitutions and mispellings anyway, the same as any standard search engine does.
I wouldn't mind a Mod's final word on this. I would say that by now RI has had an enormous amount of mentioned material related to various unpleasantness that it is unrealistic to try and remain 'above it all'
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
BrandonD, just using the quote as a launching pad -- no stones thrown or shots fired or harm intended there.
slim, I appreciate the clarification, that was an eloquent riff. I am still wary of 1) building a politics around bad guys of any persuasion, and 2) the implication that somehow The People can exact Justice using the same mechanisms of power currently yielding horrific results for society. I think black magic is black magic and "intention" is New Age security blanket stuff. Which is an explanation, not of why I think you're wrong, just why I personally have a hard time going along with that train of thought.
jakell, I think the relatively few conventions and rules we have abided by so far have served us well and are worth adhering to as a general rule of thumb. It is surely idiosyncratic stuff, I don't dispute it, but it has also worked alright and I am a Utilitarian Fundamentalist...at least, according to my eMeter results. I'm going to another Auditing Center to get a second opinion, though.
slim, I appreciate the clarification, that was an eloquent riff. I am still wary of 1) building a politics around bad guys of any persuasion, and 2) the implication that somehow The People can exact Justice using the same mechanisms of power currently yielding horrific results for society. I think black magic is black magic and "intention" is New Age security blanket stuff. Which is an explanation, not of why I think you're wrong, just why I personally have a hard time going along with that train of thought.
Thanks for the reply. I would probably have left it, were it not for point 2 you make above ( bolded). Can you tell me where you believe I have suggested that, cos its certainly not how I see it.
Wombaticus Rex » Fri Jan 03, 2014 7:44 pm wrote:jakell, I think the relatively few conventions and rules we have abided by so far have served us well and are worth adhering to as a general rule of thumb. It is surely idiosyncratic stuff, I don't dispute it, but it has also worked alright and I am a Utilitarian Fundamentalist...at least, according to my eMeter results. I'm going to another Auditing Center to get a second opinion, though.
I was looking for a more specific response. Are you saying that to avoid qouting verbatim the exact names of certain sites is one of RI's conventinos and rules? It seemed like opinion above.
In this case, the name of the site I referred to previously would be mxjorityrxghts (I tried x-ing every vowel, but that just looked weird)
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
My previous forum is now open for membership again, you will still have to register to view the contents though. I offer up this thread in particular as a magnificent example of this thread topic:
It's a long one, but one that I may archive as it's full of great examples. For tireless researchers, the first 95 pages consist of the deniers on one hand versus regular forum members on the other, some of whom do a fairly good job.
The real deal though comes with the arrival of a new poster at post #949, who is a fecking Superman in this business. He doesn't chime in again till post #1023, but he then goes on to utterly destroy and dismay the deniers with his depth and breadth of knowledge. It's beautiful.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
jakell » Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:48 am wrote:My previous forum is now open for membership again, you will still have to register to view the contents though. I offer up this thread in particular as a magnificent example of this thread topic:
It's a long one, but one that I may archive as it's full of great examples. For tireless researchers, the first 95 pages consist of the deniers on one hand versus regular forum members on the other, some of whom do a fairly good job.
The real deal though comes with the arrival of a new poster at post #949, who is a fecking Superman in this business. He doesn't chime in again till post #1023, but he then goes on to utterly destroy and dismay the deniers with his depth and breadth of knowledge. It's beautiful.
Wonderful! Now jakell is linking us to Nazis- and directing readers to their site. Thank you, for the great respect you are showing to Jeff Wells and to this board:
They hope the new British Democratic Party will kill off the BNP, while security for the launch meeting will be provided by EDL activists.
8 FEBRUARY, 2013
Andrew Brons, a former Chair of the National Front and until recently one of the British National Party’s MEPs, will launch a new far-right party this weekend – one he and his supporters hope will finally kill off the BNP.
The British Democratic Party (BDP) launches tomorrow in a village hall in Leicestershire, as the hardline alternative for disillusioned BNP members and supporters.
Security for the meeting is being provided by EDL activists, bussed into the area from as far as Newcastle, to provide protection from the possibility of attack – not from antifascists, but from the rival BNP who are meeting in nearby Leicester.
Ageing Brons, who is 66 this year, has positioned himself as the new party’s ideological mentor and president.
The interim chairman of the new party is former BNP organiser Kevin Scott from Newcastle. Scott has maintained a steady line of attack for nearly two years against what he and Brons’ supporters allege is the ongoing corruption and watering down of the BNP.
The new party comes eighteen months after Brons failed to unseat BNP leader and fellow MEP, Nick Griffin, in a bitter leadership election for control of the ailing party. Since the party’s disastrous showing in the 2010 General and Local elections, hundreds of disillusioned BNP members have made their way to smaller parties like the English Democrats. Thousands of others just quit the far-right altogether. Brons however, waited patiently, believing the perilous financial state of the party would eventually account for Nick Griffin.
Brons finally resigned from the BNP in October of last year, claiming that he had been “constructively expelled” by what he considered to be merely the “rump” of what was left of the BNP. Griffin loyalists had already launched a series of claims for unfair dismissal and religious and sexual discrimination against Brons’s European office in anticipation of his departure.
In over fifty years of far-right activity, Brons has maintained an impressive collection of hardline “admirers”. A speaking tour last year drew audiences from such groups as the National Front, British Movement and Combat 18. Many of those attendees were former BNP members who either left or were driven from the BNP during its drastic modernisation in the 2000’s. Brons did not join the BNP himself until 2005. He and Griffin had previously shared a passionate hatred of each other during their time together in the NF during the 1980’s.
Brons began his political career way back in the 1960s when he joined the openly Nazi National Socialist Movement, before going on to become Chairman of the National Front in 1980. Under Brons’s tutelage, the BDP is expected to re-focus efforts on promoting scientific racism, calling for the compulsory repatriation of non-whites and push heavily the notion that the Holocaust is a hoax – core policies that Nick Griffin tried to either disguise or extinguish entirely after taking over the BNP in 1999.
Others backing Brons include London-based Barrister Adrian Davies who registered the party and is a long-term opponent of Griffin. As well as registering the party and writing its constitution, Davies most recently defended (unsuccessfully) a businessman from Northern Ireland convicted and jailed for sending death threats to Griffin and his family.
John Bean, a former Mosleyite who previously edited the BNP’s monthly periodical and was often and openly lauded by Nick Griffin, has also now thrown his weight in with Brons, as has Dr James Lewthwaite, who split from the BNP to form his own, Bradford-based, National Democratic Party in 2010. Andrew Moffat who works for Brons in Brussels, and has previously worked closely with Holocaust Denier David Irving, will be the party’s Deputy Chairman.
Despite claiming it will be a democratic party, the new party has no plans to hold elections for posts. All positions in the party were decided weeks ago.
Nick Lowles of the antifascist campaign group Hope not Hate says the new party will be a serious challenge to Nick Griffin’s BNP. “The BDP brings together all of the hardcore Holocaust deniers and racists that have walked away from the BNP over the last two to three years, plus those previously, who could not stomach the party’s image changes.
“They and the BNP already have a mutual hatred of each other and neither party will stop until they’ve killed the other one off. The gloves will be off and it will be toxic”.
UPDATE 9 February 2013 14:30:
Shortly after nine o'clock this morning members of the British Democratic Party (BDP) arrived at a small village hall in Leicestershire and began setting up for the party's launch meeting.
Six miles away, in the car park of a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, neo-Nazis and far-right activists from across the UK were arriving to be redirected to the secret venue.
Despite the secrecy surrounding the meeting, members of the Hope Not Hate research team were able to infiltrate the redirection point and photograph a number of well known far-right activists, many of them disgruntled former BNP members.
Among those providing security for the redirection point was Gary Pudsey from Bridlington, in Yorkshire. A former BNP and C18 activist, Pudsey is one of a number of "former" extremists who made their way into the English Democrats when the BNP began imploding in 2010.
The village hall had about sixty far-right activists inside listening to a serious of speeches from people like Andrew Brons MEP and Kevin Scott on why they have quit the BNP. According to Lowles, there is great anger that the details of the meeting have been leaked by Hope Not Hate researchers. "A number of EDL activists [who were there to provide security for the meeting] are currently prowling the inside of the hall to look for hidden cameras, such is their paranoia.
"They're not happy, obviously. But I think people have a right to know that these groups of people are lying and cheating their way onto public property to cultivate their message of hate. There should be no hiding place for hatred."
Andrew Brons (left) August 1981 in Fulham, campaigning with the National Front and BNP leader Nick Griffin (photo David Hoffman http://archive.hoffmanphotos.com/)
jakell » Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:48 am wrote:My previous forum is now open for membership again, you will still have to register to view the contents though. I offer up this thread in particular as a magnificent example of this thread topic:
It's a long one, but one that I may archive as it's full of great examples. For tireless researchers, the first 95 pages consist of the deniers on one hand versus regular forum members on the other, some of whom do a fairly good job.
The real deal though comes with the arrival of a new poster at post #949, who is a fecking Superman in this business. He doesn't chime in again till post #1023, but he then goes on to utterly destroy and dismay the deniers with his depth and breadth of knowledge. It's beautiful.
Wonderful! Now jakell is linking us to Nazis- and directing readers to their site. Thank you, for the great respect you are showing to Jeff Wells and to this board:
Well, now you have the opportunity to actually check the place out and see how wrong you have been.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
...Andrew Brons will become its President. Newcastle-based Kevin Scott is acting as the Secretary of the Steering Group and Andrew Moffat and Ken Booth its deputy chairmen.
Around them will be former BNP organisers and activists, people drawn from small and hardline groups such as England First and the Democratic Nationalists and a number of former National Front activists who were prominent in the 1970s and 1980s.
The new party will include some of Britain’s most hardline racists, antisemites and Holocaust deniers. It will be BNP mark II but even more toxic.... Its strength will initially be in the North East, Yorkshire, East Midlands and London, though it is likely to quickly attract other disillusioned BNP members from across the country.
Britain’s most hardline antisemites and Holocaust Deniers will be joining...
Security for the meeting is being provided by EDL activists, bussed into the area from as far as Newcastle, to provide protection from the possibility of attack – not from antifascists, but from the rival BNP who are meeting in nearby Leicester.
Analysis ‘Waking sleeping lions’: Fascism and the English Defence League
In the wake of the movement's rise to prominence, Malte Ringer takes a look at the ideological anatomy of the English Defence League.
By Malte Ringer
Spare a thought for the English Defence League. They want Britain to be about British, keeping out the Muslamic infidel and his interracial law, like anyone would. But bless them, they’re just not terribly good at convincing the world at large of their benign intentions. They kept pushing the Sikh guy to the front until he resigned because they’re not racist, honest. They tried to co-opt a gay pride march. Alas, all their efforts are continually undone by their members’ inability to refrain from saluting inappropriately or indeed from opening their mouths.
And yet the rise of the EDL over the last two years is worrying. While they have never been able to amass huge numbers, EDL marches are reminiscent of National Front tactics in the 1970s. Individuals and communities on the receiving end of the EDL’s racism and associated hate, as most recently in their attempt to march through Tower Hamlets, will find drunk skinheads hounding them more terrifying than ridiculous. During the recent English riots, the EDL were more than willing to play the part of racist vigilantes keeping ‘chavs’ in check.
But is the EDL a fascist organisation? This is more than an academic question. There is an unfortunate long-standing tendency on the Left to describe anything far-right as fascist. Being careful about our choice of words, however, has its rewards. It will help clarify what the EDL want, how they go about getting it, what impact they can be expected to have on other far-right and conservative forces, and consequently how we can best fight them.
‘What is fascism?’ is an infamously difficult question. Revolutionary and pro-establishment, extremely hierarchical yet populist, fascism has often defied attempts to pin it down. Nevertheless, the most broadly accepted definition is Roger Griffin’s, which broke through the conceptual impasse in the early 1990s. Carefully distancing himself from essentialism by stressing that ‘as a generic concept “fascism” could have no empirical essence to serve as the basis of an objective definition: the “fascist minimum” had to be invented “not discovered” through a process of “idealizing abstraction”‘, Griffin argues that
Fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism.
… [T]he ideological driving force of fascism which informs all its empirical manifestations (organization, style, policies, behaviour, ethics, aesthetics etc.) and determines its relationship with existing political, social and cultural realities, including rival ideologies, is the vision of the nation being capable of imminent phoenix-like rebirth from the prevailing crisis and decadence in a revolutionary new political and cultural order embracing all the ‘true’ members of the national community. (emphasis in original)
This emphasis on palingenesis (rebirth), central to all fascisms, allows us to cut through fascists’ attempts to rebrand themselves. There’s a good British example, of course. After winning the leadership of the BNP from the relatively openly neo-Nazi John Tyndall in 1999, Nick Griffin set out to rebrand the BNP in the mould of the successful ‘popular nationalist’ parties like France’s Front National or Austria’s Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, emphasisising euroscepticism and hostility to Islam rather than the white supremacism that had been the party’s bread and butter.
But the BNP attempt to detoxify the brand did not mean an abandonment of fascism, argues Nigel Copsey. Rather, it was a ‘recalibration’: an attempt to dress up the party’s aims in the rhetoric of the European ‘national populists’ whose successes Nick Griffin coveted.
Unlike fascism, national-populism, otherwise referred to as radical right-wing populism, is a variety of ultra-nationalism that is reformist rather than revolutionary. Both fascism and national-populism are anti-systemic but national-populism does not present a truly revolutionary alternative to the liberal-democratic order. While still part of the extreme-right political family, the national-populist party offers a more moderate (yet still illiberal) form of ethnocentric nationalism. If fascism is intent on the destruction of democracy, then national-populism, as Kevin Passmore usefully describes it, ‘attempts to ethnically homogenize democracy and reserve its advantages for the dominant nationality’.
By contrast, the BNP envisages
‘a revolutionised Britain, with massive changes affecting all levels of society—economic, social and cultural’. It is this deep-seated discontent with the existing liberal system that gives rise to the totalitarian impulse within the party even if, at present, this impulse is being restrained. Moreover, the visceral urge to destroy democracy separates the BNP from genuine national-populist parties that, in the fine words of Kevin Passmore, ‘seek to exploit the racist potential of democracy rather than overthrow it’.
Fascism pervades the BNP’s programme. For example, the party has replaced its traditional policy of deporting immigrants with a programme of ‘cultural and biological separation’ of ethnic groups from each other – which could, of course, only be effectively realised by apartheid and the creation of ‘Bantustans’ for ethnic minorities. The BNP has applied a ‘national-populist’ veneer to what is at bottom still a fascist party.
The EDL, by contrast, is not officially fascist, even though its leader Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, a.k.a. ‘Tommy Robinson’, is a former BNP member. Its ‘mission statement’ is a rather confused document. After opening with a quote from ‘Albert Einstein, refugee from Nazi Germany’, it defines the EDL as
a human rights organisation (!) that was founded in the wake of the shocking actions of
a small group
of Muslim extremists who, at a homecoming parade in Luton, openly mocked the sacrifices of our service personnel without any fear of censure. Although these actions were certainly those of
a minority
, we believe that they reflect other forms of religiously-inspired intolerance and barbarity that are thriving amongst
certain sections
of the Muslim population in Britain… (emphasis mine)
The qualifying phrases signal the group’s desire to be considered acceptably mainstream. Apparently the author of the later part of the document didn’t get the memo, though:
Islam is not just a religious system, but a political and social ideology that seeks to dominate all non-believers and impose a harsh legal system that rejects democratic accountability and human rights. It runs counter to all that we hold dear within our British liberal democracy, and it must be prepared to change, to conform to secular, liberal ideals and laws, and to contribute to social harmony, rather than causing divisions.
The ‘mission statement’ certainly has unpleasant implications in its essentialist understanding of ‘culture’. (As argued by others and recently demonstrated by David Starkey, when culture is understood as an inherent quality rather than a process it replaces the discredited signifier ‘race’.) The amusing notion that the EDL is primarily about educating the public rather raises the question how such aims are served by intimidating street marches and chants of the ‘Allah is a paedo’ variety.
But unpleasant or not, the ‘mission statement’ is not fascist. To quote Passmore again, the EDL’s declared aim amounts to ‘exploit[ing] the racist potential of democracy rather than overthrow it’: to push public opinion and political elites in an anti-Muslim direction to realise its aims, much like the ‘national-populist’ parties of other countries.
Such are the organisation’s official aims, anyway. Go to the ‘testimonials’ section on the website, however, and a different picture presents itself. The messages of support posted here are presumably moderated, but they’re still strong stuff. Here’s a particularly rank example, immediately endorsed by another commenter (the author is not in the habit of inserting spaces after commas, which I have corrected for your convenience):
This silent invasion has to stop.
This disease called Islam will slowly kill us unless we stand firm and not just stop it, but push it back to the roots from where it came and then kill it.
This disease is getting into the infrastructure of our nation, muslims [sic] as doctors, lawyers, mp’s [sic], councillors, police, teachers, the list goes on, all influencial [sic] careers.
We need the EDL to wake up the sleeping lions of this nation and take back our jungle.
STAND FIRM, BE PROUD, BE BRITISH
Let’s look at this with the attitude a zoologist might adopt towards a rare species of tapeworm: unpleasant, sure, but endlessly fascinating. The fascism on display is quite pure, although one doubts the author realises this. The nation is imagined as a ‘body’ infiltrated by Islam, a ‘disease’ which has captured key positions. The nation must ‘wake up’ and cleanse itself. The exterminationist implication is clear in the demand to ‘not just stop’, but ‘kill’ Islam. (How does the author imagine this would happen? His demands imply at the very least the exclusion of Muslims from public life.)
Replace ‘Muslims’ with ‘Jews’ or ‘Bolsheviks’, and you have a remarkable facsimile of European fascist rhetoric from the 1920s and 1930s. The call for Britain to ‘wake up’, repeated by numerous EDL supporters on the ‘testimonials’ pages, embodies fascism’s ‘mythic core’ of palingenesis, reminiscent of the Nazi slogan Deutschland erwache! or, closer to home, the British Union of Fascists’ Britain Awake!.
Paradoxically the EDL not only tolerates, but encourages the participation of fascists, as well as adopting the marching styles and clothing favoured by British and continental neo-fascists. Yet its officials ape the rhetoric of the most successful ‘national-populist’ European parties. In other words, the EDL appears to adopt the garb of fascism but not the substance. Unlike the BNP and most traditional fascist groups, the EDL has no strategy for winning power. It hopes, instead, to influence political elites through highly publicised rallies and marches, and listening to David Cameron it appears they haven’t been entirely unsuccessful.
The argument that the electoral strategy of the BNP and the street marches of the EDL are two prongs of a single fascist movement fails to make sense of the evident distrust between the two groups, exemplified by Nick Griffin’s dismissal of the EDL as a ‘Zionist false flag operation, designed to create a real clash of civilisations right here on our streets between Islam and the rest of us’. EDL marches are the antithesis of Griffin’s attempt to detoxify the far-right brand and gain electoral successes by appearing moderate. (It’s an attempt that’s largely failed: while the BNP has come to new prominence in the last decade, its electoral successes, always short of a real breakthrough, have mostly been reversed due to the hard work of anti-fascists and trade unions, as well as the competition of UKIP.)
Martin Smith argues, correctly in my view, that the EDL represents a right-wing attempt at a ‘united front’ strategy: an attempt to unite fascists and non-fascists in terrorising Muslim communities and shifting policy. But the EDL grows out of the failure of Britain’s far right, not its strength. It is a reaction to the repeated failure of right-wing parties to achieve electoral breakthroughs, caused in no small part by the ‘first past the post’ system, and the subsequent failure of a British equivalent to Europe’s far-right anti-Muslim parliamentary parties to emerge.
Sadly, this does not mean the EDL can be dismissed. Racist views find increasing resonance among the general public after New Labour’s endless attempts to outflank the Tories to the right. In 1997, three per cent of the electorate thought race or immigration was the most important issue facing the nation; in 2010 that figure stood at thirty-eight per cent.
‘Blue Labour’ is merely the latest iteration in a series of attempts within the Labour Party to ape the radical right. Maurice Glasman’s infamous statement that Labour should seek the involvement of EDL supporters is indicative of the danger, although we should be pleased that Glasman undid himself by mimicking BNP rhetoric in his call for a total freeze on immigration to ‘put the people in this country first’.
As Richard Seymour argues, the progressive patriotism sought by some traditionally associated with the Left is a chimera, likely only to help the right.
Instead of pandering to right-wing populism, the Left must construct a strong narrative emphasising the social dislocation brought on by Thatcherism and continued by New Labour. In many ways, our response to race-baiting must be the same as that to the cuts: that the dominant discourse is blaming a crisis caused by elites on the most vulnerable members of society. Attempts to shift discussion of race and immigration to the right and the EDL’s ‘united front’ approach must continue to be resisted by a broad alliance of anti-fascists, trade unions and minority groups.
Malte Ringer is a writer and activist based in the UK. He blogs at campuskritik.blogspot.com.
Can't see anything in the above about confronting holocaust denial. Can anyone else?
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
