Explaining the BNP

In a recent post, a reader pointed out that the British National Party, despite its official rejection of anti-Semitism, continues to sell some anti-Semitic books. Robert Locke, who follows the BNP carefully, replies.

* * *

Sam H. writes from the Netherlands:

I don’t understand why you keep paying so much attention to marginal, fringe groups like the British National Party. The BNP is an irrelevant group filled with misfits, cranks, racists, anti-Semites and other people with low IQ and even lower social status. They will never play any role whatsoever in British political life. Every now and then they get some media attention, but they are being used by the left-liberal media as evidence that “right wing” or “nationalist” views are unpalatable. The only function the BNP serves is to keep such views beyond the pale in polite society. Each item you pay attention to them you therefore, indirectly, help that left-liberal agenda (and diminish the moral authority of your own site).

LA replies:

I pay attention to them because (1) they are virtually the only organized entity in Britain that seeks to defend Britain from national suicide, (2) they have done something that no anti-Semitic organization has ever done before, intelligently argue against anti-Semitism and officially reject it within the party, and (3) articles in BNP publications such as the one I recently discussed about Israel point toward a key component in the possible salvation of the West, namely the possibility of race-conscious white Westerners defending Jews and Israel, and of Jews realizing they are on the same side as white Westerners.

All these things make BNP noteworthy, interesting, and even promising. Is there anything in the Labor party or the Conservative party that make them noteworthy and interesting, other than their embrace of British national suicide?

Sam H. writes:

I understand that. Yes, none of the mainstream parties are, at the moment defending Britain from national suicide, but the Conservative Party has come quite close. They have, even in the recent past, led the way on Euroscepsis (indeed, invented it) and immigration control. [LA interjects: This is a wildly off-base statement given that the current head of the Conservative party is rushing in the direction of “Inclusion.”] People like us should work to re-take control of the Tory party (or at least help those conservatives in Britain who are willing to do so). The Tory party is probably the soundest of mainstream parties in Britain. [LA says: I don’t think the Conservative party as it now exists can be called sound in any sense.]

The BNP is nothing but a sick joke, believe you me. They will never, ever, ever play any role whatsoever in British political life. None.

Their views are therefore completely irrelevant. I’m afraid that to the extent you devote much attention to their views and those of your emailers who are interested in their views you make your site and its important and relevant argument “beyond the pale”.

We will not be able to reform the West from the lunatic fringes. We will have to fight to take back the mainstream.

Don’t you agree?

Sam continues:

Maybe it’s a European thing. Allow me to try to make an analogy. David Duke, as I understand it, is a completely irrelevant person in American politics (despite some past electoral successes) who will never, ever be a force in American politics. Now you could spend a lot of time discussing his particular policies and other doings, but that would be a wasted effort, and the very act of publicly discussing him would turn off certain people from your site, wouldn’t it?

I just think that important people, intellectuals, writers, good bloggers, who otherwise might read and link to you will be scared away by some of the perceived radicalness of the topics you discuss.

Even if you completely disagree with me and think the BNP is crucially important, prudence and a desire to be “politic” might be a reason not to discuss this—and similar things.

PS: Judged by their Wikipedia entries both the BNP and its leader are certainly anti-Semitic.

LA replies:

I think you have not read carefully the things I’ve had on the BNP. Every single article has expressed caveats and cautions. I have not given it a clean bill of health. I have not endorsed it. My discussions have been cautious and have always laid out the reasons why I thought this was worth discussing, therefore I don’t think thoughtful VFR readers would be turned off by my mentioning it.

One of Robert Locke’s articles on the promising developments in the BNP was published at a pro-Israel website.

I do think you are looking at this through European eyes. You’re acting as though I was pushing David Duke, whereas what I’m actually doing is discussing interesting developments in the BNP.

A reader writes:

Nick Griffin has a law degree from Cambridge.

Does your interlocutor have one from Harvard, seeing as he’s worried about the BNP’s inferior “IQ” and “social status”?

Also, your correspondent should understand that the “Conservative” party is a money-grubbing fraud, which has recently abandoned even its token fake opposition to immigration, as documented in this story.

In fact, prior to Blair, the Conservative Party had actually, quantitatively, let more foreigners into Britain over the years than Labour! I would not give my pocket lint to elect a Tory to every seat in Parliament.

The reader continues:

Regarding the idea that the BNP is insignificant, for one thing, the BNP doesn’t have to win a Parliamentary majority to affect policy.

For another, observe the numerous alarms about the BNP’s potential significance from its opponents:

One in five ‘would consider voting BNP’

White working class losing faith in Labour, says MP

Ex-minister’s immigration warning.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 08, 2006 11:17 AM | Send