Tuesday, June 09, 2009

BNP: Left-wing party

It seems appropriate, after the Euro-elections, to recall that a little while ago, there was some discussion about whether not the BNP were a Left-wing or Right-wing party. Personally, I am surprised that there is still any debate.

While those of us who have steeled ourselves to read the BNP's manifesto long ago realised that their programme of nationalisation and protectionism were collectivist policies—and thus of the Left.

However, if you are in any doubt, Dizzy did a comprehensive fisk of their economic policies a little while ago.

"Ah!" I hear you cry. "But they are racists and that must mean that they are Right-wing!"

In answer to this, I shall repost this quote that I found at the Nameless Libertarian's place...
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.

"By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.

"Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity."—Ron Paul

Still, one thing does rather puzzle me...

How is it that that stout bastion of the free-market capitalism, individual achievement and competence—known as the North of England—actually elected two of these disgusting far-Left BNPers?

29 comments:

Rob Farrington said...

Don't look at me, I voted for UKIP and so did my father! My mum voted for the Conservatives.

I do know one person who voted for the BNP, though. I work with him and he was telling me "Don't be a cunt, vote for The Front!". I really couldn't work this one out; he's one of the nicest people I know, and I've never seen any evidence of racism in the five or so years that I've known him.

When I said that I could never vote for someone whose attitude towards a British soldier who was awarded the VC was that he should be kicked out of the country because of his skin colour, his reaction was 'Well, it's only a protest vote - it's not as if they'll win a majority, or anything.".

WTF? If you're going to cast a protest vote, then at least vote for a minor party whose policies you can agree with. LPUK weren't standing, so I voted for UKIP instead. My third choice would have been for the Tories (while holding my nose and going with the 'least bad' option). It'll be a cold day in hell before I'd ever vote for a bunch of racist fucknuts, though.

Frank Davis said...

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals.

Then isn't dividing people into "left-wingers" and "right-wingers" another example of group mentality at work?

Is the distinction between these two groups a real one anyway? Is anyone ever entirely collectivist, or entirely individualist? Aren't I being a bit of a collectivist when as a baker I bake 100 loaves of bread for other people to eat? Isn't just about all the work we do - as bakers, plumbers, lawyers, bus drivers - done for the benefit of other people? Isn't it only when I knock off work and go home that I become an individual, pleasing myself? Is it not that at work we are all collectivists, and at leisure we are all individualists? And in this manner we alternate between the two conditions, rather than permanently occupy one or other of them?

Why use this left-right terminology anyway? Isn't it rather meaningless and obscurantist? I have ceased to care whether I belong to the 'left' or the 'right'. Perhaps you should too.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Frank,

Yes to all of that. I am an individual, as is everyone else.

That doesn't change the fact that people like to identify with groups.

And in this case, it just amused me that I could bait Lefties and Northerners at the same time...

DK

Devil's Kitchen said...

P.S. As for your baker argument... Have you not seen the old Adam Smith quote...?

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages."

Me, I enjoy my work and partly I work willingly for my company, but mainly I do it for my own self-interest. Don't you?

DK

Rob Farrington said...

What's wrong with us Northerners?

I bet you have something about cloth caps and whippets, don't you? And even against Coronation Street, probably.

You're discriminating against my culture. I demand that you be arrested, and then have to pay me ten thousand quid in compensation.

This, of course, has nothing to do with my tab at the pub or the betting shop. It's about justice.

Devil's Kitchen said...

;-D

DK

Frank Davis said...

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages."

That is to say that we take heed of what other people want, not just of what we ourselves want. The same applies to the baker in his dealings with his customers. He bakes them the sort of bread and buns and cakes and pastries that they want. He sets out to please them rather than himself. He works in their service, rather than his own. That's what a baker practically spends most of his time doing. And while he's selflessly working on behalf of other people, not thinking about himself, he is working on behalf of the society around him, the collective.

It's only at the end of the day, when he empties the till, and counts up his takings, that he becomes an individual who can do what he pleases, or what pleases himself rather than anybody else. And so he takes the money and he goes into a betting shop and and he bets the lot on I'm The Winner in the 5:30 at Newbury at 20 to 1.

So this baker is for all practical purposes a selfless member of a collective all day while he is baking bread and cakes for his customers, but a footloose and fancy free individual all night, as he gambles away the money he's earned in the day. So how can we say whether he is self-interested individual or a selfless drone serving the collective? He is neither one nor the other. He alternates between the two.

I am an individual, as is everyone else.

No, you're not. You were only a free individual at 3 a.m. when you posted your reply. Tomorrow morning, when you're again baking madeleine cakes in the bakery, you'll be working on behalf of other people, and there won't be the faintest trace of individuality about you as you selflessly work on their behalf.

Me, I enjoy my work

If you enjoy your work, then you enjoy working selflessly on behalf of everybody else. Your pleasure is in fact your customers' pleasure, as they greedily bolt down the delicious madeleine cakes you have baked for them.

You only become DK when the bakery closes down for the night, and you can return to what you enjoy doing, which is writing the Devil's Kitchen. While you are busy in the bakery, nobody calls you DK. Nor do you think of yourself as DK. The transition from the one to the other takes place about 5:30 pm, when Dr Jekyll turns into Mr Hyde.

Am I not right? That you have such a dual nature, rather than a single individuality?

Vicola said...

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for them. I'm embarrassed that anyone did because now my southern mates are giving me grief about it. I can't help it if 20 odd thousand fools thought it would be clever to send a message to the government by voting for a bunch of hairy-arsed, knuckle-dragging morons can I? Left or right, the debate could go on, but one thing remains constant and true - Nick Griffin is a twat of the first water and I'd pay good money to see someone wipe that smirk off his face.

David Davis said...

As you buggers may or may not know, I have the grand-sounding title of

"Director of Northern Affairs, of The Libertarian Alliance".....

(Don't all hoot and ROTFLOL at once: I think it's a grand sinecure, and I don't even cost anything.)

The reason that "the North" elected two BNP MEPS is that, its once-pround and grand cities and towns now being Labourised post-industrial wastelands, and its remaining once-indigenous "old white working class" voters having become ignored and despised by the new metroLabour-Enemy Class, the only party that has _pretended_ to listen to them (by saying things they wanted to hear) was the BNP.

It is very sad, for the BNP will if in office do nowt to help such people either: it can't for it is a left-wing-collectivist party itself.

Paul Lockett said...

The reason that the BNP got elected in the North West was that people stopped voting for Labour.

The BNP got fewer votes than they did in 2004, but the Labour vote collapsed so dramatically that the BNP took the third seat they had.

There has been no increase in support for the BNP in the North West; in fact, the only parties which lost votes were the big three and the BNP. If the BNP can't hold on to votes in this political climate, they've got no hope of growing beyond where they are.

John B said...

Paul is right, and this is good news for all of us.

On the original point - it's disingenuous of right-wingers who aren't bigots to suggest that left vs right is primarily an economic distinction. Yes, that's what the Political Compass says - but it's not how the terms evolved, or how they've generally been used throughout history.

In 18th century France where the terms emerged, "right wingers" supported a powerful, authoritarian state; "left wingers" supported freedom and democracy. Similarly for the right-wing, anti-free-trade, anti-individual-freedom Tories and the opposite-of-that, left-wing Whigs in the UK.

The BNP's defining feature is their extreme social conservatism, expressed as bigotry. Yes, their economic views are collectivist: they're a collectivist-conservative party. Putting that onto a 1D axis, unless you're a dishonest hack, it maps onto "right" not "left".

cuthhyra said...

So by those definitions John, there are a lot of dishonest hacks calling Libertarians "right wing" and trying to conflate them with the BNP on the "extreme right", when really being pro-freedom and socially liberal (as historically used) makes Libertarians of the "left" on your 1D axis?

I think the main criticism of the way the 1D axis is used generally, especially by the self-defined "left", is that it allows both those who are pro-free market and those who are bigoted racists to be branded as "right wing", conflating the two as if there is some kind of causal connection or general relationship.

peter carter-fuck said...

I would imagine people voted BNP because they were sick of being colonised by Muslims. Simple as. British people were never, ever asked if they wanted mass immigration, if they wanted the racial and social character of their nation changed for ever. The BNP have moved into the space vacated by the moral cowards of the so-called mainstream parties.

Stan said...

Protectionism and nationalisation are not inherently left wing policies. Both were practiced by right wing conservative British governments in the past. Ok - not so much nationalisation which is a relatively recent idea, but the idea of state owned and run industry is certainly not new and not left wing.

John B said...

@cuthhyra I see your point, but in general free-market libertarians IMX are happy to refer to themselves as 'right-libertarians', and to pick the economic rather than the social component of the 2D axis when deciding which 1D mainstream parties to support (especially in the US, where the free-market libertarian movement originated).

On the same basis I class myself as left-libertarian because I view the social-liberal side as absolutely vital, and the economic side as markets-better-but-hell-France-isn't-exactly-Somalia.

@pcf, but they haven't been, you ignorant prick. The country's still 90% white and 3% Muslim.

Gabriel Ishmael Khan said...

90% white and 3% muslim?

Hmm, someone does appear to be a little ignorant!

Still, that's libertarians for you, liberty for all except those who don't agree with you.

By the way, you daft cunt, muslim is not an ethnic group.

john b said...

90% white and 3% Muslim (non-exclusively; of course there are some white Muslims) is what the actual data researched by actual researchers, as opposed to made up by ignorant bigots, says. If you have a link to well-sourced data on UK demography that backs up your point, then by all means post it.

& last I checked, calling someone an ignorant prick wasn't an infringement on their liberty...

Anonymous said...

Peter, not just Muslims I'm afraid. People are sick of mass immigration full stop.

'The country's still 90% white', dream on. That figure is dropping like a stone.

I've tried multiculturism and it's thanks but no thanks. Are the Libertarians intent on totally destroying England, the English and their way of life?

The real extremists are those who would cynically use and manipulate ethnic minorities in order to 'change' Britain. They're still in power.

John B said...

'The country's still 90% white', dream on. That figure is dropping like a stone.

Not according to any actual data.
Evidence, or fuck off back under your rock.

I have evidence. It says England was 88% white in 2007; that's down from 91% in 2001, although the absolute number of white people has actually risen slightly.

John B said...

(the UK was 92% white in 2001 due to Wales, Scotland and NI, so the whole country will now most likely be 89% white).

Also, note that the places where the BNP perform strongest are the ones where the numbers of non-white people are below the national average: their top 3 Euro election constituencies were Stoke - 93% white - Barnsley, 98% - and Havering, 91%.

The areas with large minority populations but with white majorities - ie the ones you'd expect to vote BNP if the theory about 'OMG WE'RE BEING SWAMPED' were accurate - actually showed fairly low BNP votes. See Lewisham: 55% White British, 4% BNP share. That compares to 6.2% nationwide (so the average White British Lewisham-ite is barely any more BNP supporting than the average White British person overall, despite being besieged by hordes of darkies whenever they leave the house).

Anonymous said...

Not according to any actual data.
Evidence, or fuck off back under your rock.

It's the often found smug self righteousness and quick resort to abuse that I find so unappealing about 'libertarians'.

I was referring to this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050593/Only-babies-born-England-Wales-white-British.html

64.4% in 2005. I'd say that indicated a fairly substantial drop.

Look, if mosques, temples and ethnic street gangs are your thing fine, but can you please stop imposing it on the majority of us who don't want it. It has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with wanting to preserve our own way of life. I've watched the area I live in become transformed in the last 10 years. It hasn't been for the better. I'd like it to stop now before any more damage is done.

John B said...

So divide all the numbers by the 10.9% 'ethnicity unrecorded' and that's 72% (which is a massive understatement, because it assumes an even mix of races across non-reporters, whereas people who don't give their race are overwhelmingly likely to be white).

And if you include the kids with Irish/other white parents - c.f. Winston Churchill - and that's 79%. Not including the many mixed-race and non-white couples I know who're as secular-law-abiding-British as anyone... at least, I assume you don't care about them, because you're not a racist, you're just worried about mosques and temples and street gangs.

(and the Mail is truly revolting for suggesting that white, British babies whose parents happen not to be don't count as White British...)

500 quid says the area you live in hasn't been transformed at all. But go on, please do list this area, and perhaps it'll turn out to be some strange anomaly - at least that way there'll be evidence rather than angry verbiage.

Diogenes said...

John B,

I notice from your link that Stoke,Barnsley and Havering are not the top 3 BNP constituencies. They are in fact 2nd, 4th and 6th.

Does your theory hold true for Barking and Dagenham, Thurrock and Rotherham? It probably does, but it misses the point. These are 'white ghettos'. A significant proportion of people in these areas are afraid of their hometown changing like neighbouring towns have. It doesn't help to suggest that they are imagining mass immigration. BNP voters are morons but they are not blind. Half of children born in London are born to mothers from outside the UK.

These white working class communities feel under siege and their traditional representation, the Labour party, has caused the situation.

As to the left/right question. You are what you eat and right now the BNP are feeding almost exclusively on working class ex-Labour voters.

john b said...

59% of BNP voters would prefer a Tory government (more than the overall population) whereas 17% would prefer a Labour government (less than the overall population). 51% of BNP voters think the party is left-wing whereas 14% think it is right-wing.

The BNP is picking up votes from the right-wing end of the working class: the people who guaranteed Thatcher's stay in power, and who killed the Tory government by deserting it for Blair.

& finally - OK, so people in those places 'are afraid of their hometowns changing like neighbouring towns have' - why on earth don't the white people in towns that *have* changed, with 20% or 40% minority populations, vote BNP? *Because it's really not that bad and the bigots of Barking are ludicrously overhyping it*, perhaps...?

Revolution Harry said...

Ok. for the sake of argument, let's say white British is in the low 70's percentage wise in 2005. The figures are only moving in one direction. Let's also not forget that were the figures to be based on England (where the majority of recent immigration has taken place) that figure would be much lower.

'(and the Mail is truly revolting for suggesting that white, British babies whose parents happen not to be don't count as White British...)'

I've no idea what this means I'm afraid.

I wouldn't take your money off you. At least the Marxists in NeoLabour attempt to pretend that were being 'enriched' or that 'diversity is wonderful' etc. Strange anomaly? Are you really claiming that extensive areas of towns and cities across the country haven't been transformed by Immigration?

*Because it's really not that bad and the bigots of Barking are ludicrously overhyping it*

As I said before, each to their own. Multiculturism isn't for me or for many others. Thanks but no thanks. You obviously enjoy it and that's fine but please stop trying to enforce your views and way of life on me.

John B said...

1) Wales is tiny, so won't skew the stats much. Scotland and NI are excluded.

2) National Statistics tracks babies born to parents of different ethnicities, including white-not-British. The Daily Mail reported babies born in Britain to non-British parents as white-not-British. This is a lie; the babies *are* British.

3) You aren't engaging with the main point: in areas that have above-average levels of ethnic minority immigration, white people don't have a problem with it. It's only people who *actually don't know what it's like to have non-white neighbours and hence fear it's terrible when it isn't* who support the BNP.

Anonymous said...

3) You aren't engaging with the main point: in areas that have above-average levels of ethnic minority immigration, white people don't have a problem with it. It's only people who *actually don't know what it's like to have non-white neighbours and hence fear it's terrible when it isn't* who support the BNP.

Absolute rubbish. Believe me I have many many friends and family who 'have a problem' with it' and we have 'above average levels of ethnic minority immigration'. Just because they don't vote BNP doesn't mean they like what's happening. It means they don't want to vote for the BNP. It means their points of view aren't represented by a party they want to vote for.

Indeed only today a friend of mine who has a mixed race child told me how depressing she found spending time in our city centre due to the level of ethnic minorities. Last week I had the pleasure of the Indian who lives on the top floor of our flats telling me what a nice area this was before all the Africans moved in. Oh the irony. I could go on.

Werner Patels said...

I think it's safe to say that most people who voted for the BNP did so only because they wanted to send a clear anti-EU message, and not because they're racists.

Also, most Europeans have a big problem with the EU's open border policy, which has been responsible for a major rise in (violent) crime in many parts of Europe. Therefore, any party that opposes the EU will gain support -- now and, increasingly so, in future.

Anonymous said...

Far-left: Communist
Far-right: Fascist

The BNP bare some resemblance to the Nazi party. The Nazi party are fascist, just as the BNP are fascist.

I consider myself left-wing, I believe in social justice and equality. The BNP do not consider non-white races to be equal.

Yes, protectionist laws are against right-wing, free-market ideology. This is one policy in a whole mix of right-wing oppressive thought. The BNP are far-right, possibly the most right-wing party in the UK. Do not confuse this.