Charles, at LGF, is concerned that the “extreme right white supremacist” (his phrase) BNP party in England is gaining political ground. If you check out the party’s blog, though, racial purity a la the Nazis or the KKK is not part of the party’s platform. As far as I can tell, it wants to close Britain’s open borders, back off from European union control, and clamp down on out-of-control multiculturalism. All of these seem like reasonable positions. After all, under current British policies, traditional Britain is truly vanishing. The place is ground zero for antisemitism, its Muslim influx is unending, Britain is ceding all political control to the EU, and the nation is effectively committing “we hate ourselves” suicide. Wanting to turn back that tide doesn’t strike me as being the same as being Neo-Nazis: desiring a totalitarian state dedicated to world domination and the eradication and enslavement of all inferior races.
Charles’ fight with the European far right is totally valid insofar as he is fighting the true neo-Nazis. The problem seems to me to be the Orwellian one, with the degradation of language pushing people into positions that do not match the facts on the ground.
You see, thanks to the Left, words no longer mean what they used to mean, but the change is often so gradual, we don’t realize it. (That happens without politics, too, with the very old Bethlehem Hospital for the Insane in London morphing into the word “bedlam.”)
Because the Left consciously controls language (“man caused disasters” anyone?), things can get confusing. The easiest example is the way in which Nazis are defined. As their full name establishes (“National SOCIALISTS”), the Nazis were a socialist (i.e., Leftist) political organization. Nowadays, however, they are routinely referred to on the Left as “rightist” so as to conflate them with the Left’s political enemies. In fact, like the Left, they were statists. Unlike the average Lefty, however, they added to their garden-variety belief in state control a poisonous measure of racial hatred.
Linguistically, things are very confusing in Europe, where even the “rightist” political parties (say, the Tories) are to the Left of the American middle. Add to that the fact that, in Europe, there are both genuine neo-Nazis, who want to replicate the Nazis vision of racial purity, AND are concerned moderates who don’t like the political control being ceded to multicultural pro-Islamists, and you’ve got word soup.
For that reason, it would be useful if people who use the phrase “far right” with regard to European politics would define that term. Technically, “far right,” if we’re measuring it against “far left,” simply means less government, not more. After all, if Marxist-style Leftism is the party that seeks total government control, than its opposite — “Rightism” — must be veering into pure anarchy, without any government control at all. That’s clearly not what Charles means when he speaks of the Right, though.
I think that, by saying “far right,” Charles is stating that the BNP party is racist, a la the Nazis or the KKK (and with visions of lynchings and ovens dancing in its political brain). The website, however, indicates that it is only “racist” as the Left would define it, meaning anyone who doesn’t like Obama or is concerned about sharia.
Given the abuse language undergoes daily, the way in which words are folded, spindled and mutilated in ways that take them in the opposite direction from their original meanings, it’s entire possible that a lot of the intellectual fights on the conservative side arise because people THINK they mean the same thing, but they actually don’t. As Dennis Prager says, “I prefer clarity to agreement,” and as I’ve noted listening to his show, clarity often brings agreement.
I loath the stench of truly racists politics (e.g., KKK and Adolf worship blended with a desire to have a strong government making these deadly dreams a reality). However, I do think there needs to be a political home for Europeans who are worried about the Islamification of their nations. And as long as governments in Europe hew Left (even those that are called right), I suspect that the governments and their media outlets are going to tar all anti-Sharia people with the same ugly “far Right” brush.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
UPDATE: Two comments I want to bring up to the post itself:
UPDATE II: From Mike Devx, who actually did the research:
Well, I downloaded the BNP’s Constitution. If you want to take a look it’s at the link below on their site. It’s formatted to be assembled as a booklet, so you have to jump around from page to page on the web…
Section 2 – Membership – is clearly racial. ’Nuff said, for me. I’ve got no use for a political party that restricts its membership based on race solely to Caucasians of variously described “British descent”.
Seeking to preserve culture is one thing. You can recognize that your beloved culture is disappearing and resolve to fight to retain it. That’s legitimate, especially when all of your current political leadership in power is doing nothing, at best, to preserve it. But these guys have clearly defined a racial component within their own Constitution by allowing only native Caucasian British to be members of the party.
Their activities and statements ceased to be overtly racist at about 2001, it appears. Having seen the Stealth Candidate Obama succeed at his own deception of an entire country – well, enough of a deception to fool 53% of the people – it’s entirely possible that the BNP remains as virulently racist as their relatively distant past would indicate.
I can’t say I agree with Poosh’s virulent hatred of the <b>current</b> BNP. Speaking for myself, though, I’ve seen enough to indicate that I would never associate myself with them in any form whatsoever.
Hopefully the BNP is not the only organized party in Great Britain to actively promote and value their traditional culture and values. If so… then where else are the British people to turn? They certainly won’t be willing to simply surrender…
That’s good enough for me too. But I’ll go back to my original point, which is that the mainstream political parties have closed the doors on moderate Brits who are opposed to the fundamental change in the nature of English, from a Christian country tied to traditional British values, to a multiculturalist society with a rapidly growing, and increasingly vocal and powerful, extreme Islamist population. These people are going to flock to the BNP, despite its ugly racist ideology, because it’s the only game in town.Email This Post To A Friend
29 Responses to “I prefer clarity to agreement *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.