Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Are the bnp a fascist party?

It's not odd if you're interested in politics and political history. Theres no standard definition of Fascism so its an old debate, I remember writing an essay on whether Franco was a fascist at University (my conclusions was he wasn't).

I wrote an essay arguing the opposite actually.
 
You can argue it either way, which is why its a good essay subject.

IIRC my arguement was that he was a deeply traditional ultra-catholic nationalist who used fascists when it suited, but with no real ideological commitment.

Wish Urban had been around in those days I could have just started a thread and nicked the best posts :hmm:
 
You can argue it either way, which is why its a good essay subject.

IIRC my arguement was that he was a deeply traditional ultra-catholic nationalist who used fascists when it suited, but with no real ideological commitment.

Wish Urban had been around in those days I could have just started a thread and nicked the best posts :hmm:

my argument was that it made no more sense to group Mussolini with Hitler than it did to group them with Franco. The common dominator the first two shared was being populist social movements hostile to liberal democracy, that were principally reacting to strong revolutionary movements. All of which they shared on some level with Spanish Fascism. You can also see parallel movements, all of which with substantially different characteristics in almost every European country in the same period.
 
A political party is defined by its programme and not any particular means it utilises to achieve these ends. For instance, the end the BNP is pursuing is not only to establish a fascist state in Britain, but a more racist country, and this brings it closer to the Nazi version of fascism than other forms.

Fascism is a counterrevolutionary, extremely nationalist movement which comes to power on the basis of mass support and proceeds to abolish civil liberties and bourgeois democracy, a process which, by the way, begins before the fascist assume power. The BNP is such a party.

so is New Labour to some degree (contempt for democracy/authoritarianism, hatred of the poor/disabled)
 
Contempt for democracy is not abolishing it and when did hating the poor/disabled become the declared policy of any party?
 
they are racist to the core and ultimately want Indians, Irish, West Indians, and all indigenous peoples OUT.

You don't really mean that Cheesypoof, it is the indigenous British Griffin wants to vote for him!

It's not odd if you're interested in politics and political history. Theres no standard definition of Fascism so its an old debate, I remember writing an essay on whether Franco was a fascist at University (my conclusions was he wasn't).

I would like a clear definition of fascism, it would help, without it it is just people bandying a nasty word around, enough that the BNP are racist. Really it's enough.
 
I would like a clear definition of fascism, it would help, without it it is just people bandying a nasty word around, enough that the BNP are racist. Really it's enough.

There aren't any clear definitions. An understanding of the historical context of it's development is a good place to start though.
 
Are they fascist? Well the definition I always use for fascist is harking back to a bygone golden age - and on that front they do go on about only having the 'indigenous' population - but the definition of indigenous seems a bit ropey - I am only a couple of generations away from Russian immigrants etc... but i'm white, so that's ok...

Of course their propaganda is just a front for white supremacy :facepalm:
 
Are they fascist? Well the definition I always use for fascist is harking back to a bygone golden age - and on that front they do go on about only having the 'indigenous' population - but the definition of indigenous seems a bit ropey - I am only a couple of generations away from Russian immigrants etc... but i'm white, so that's ok...

Recent Polish immigrants are white and they definitely aren't OK with the BNP, so that line of argument isn't entirely correct.

Their constitution, which gives the real BNP policy rather than the airbrushed versions in their website and publications, gives some weird definitions of "indigenous Caucasian". They are based on people from various "Ethnic Folk Groups" being allowed to be members of the BNP. Examples are "The Anglo-Saxon-Norse Folk Community" and "The Anglo-Saxon-Indigenous European Folk Community". :hmm:
 
Are they fascist? Well the definition I always use for fascist is harking back to a bygone golden age - and on that front they do go on about only having the 'indigenous' population - but the definition of indigenous seems a bit ropey - I am only a couple of generations away from Russian immigrants etc... but i'm white, so that's ok...

Of course their propaganda is just a front for white supremacy :facepalm:

An utterly useless definition i'm afraid. Meaningless in terms of analysing historical and contemporary fascism. At least it shows the way that the term has been emptied of any useful content i suppose.
 
the definition I always use for fascist is harking back to a bygone golden age

Yes - sorry - this is a rubbish definition. It might be something of a common theme in fascist movements but it's not enough to definite it. And who runs the economy? Where does religion - if any - fit in? Which is the group to which one belongs and/or owes allegiance?

Here's a half-baked idea on this theme: is the failure of the BNP to fix on a past time to celebrate and romanticise as a golden age one of (the many) reasons it has failed to expand its reach? Can't celebrate anything after the war; can't really celebrate ww2 spirit and Churchill (PM, not insurance dog) because it's all about defeating fascists; can't really romanticise the 1930s because, well, you know. 1910s/1920s - no easy visual images of Britain. Victorian era off limits because of Major's appropriation of Victorian Values. So what else is there which is a) easily identifiable by morons and b) a good time to be British? Not for "us" the shiny impressive armour of the Romans, right? Medieval knights and stuff, I suppose? Seems a bit ridiculous, though.
 
Ice age Britain, according to Nick Griffin on Question Time.

I thought it was Bonnie Greer who brought up the Ice Age, guess I'll have to go to iPlayer and double check now.

What Griffin was banging on about was that studies of mitochondrial DNA have suggested that the bulk of the inhabitants of these islands had remained essentially the same people despite the successive waves of Celts, Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans etc.

Prof Stephen Oppenheimer, whose work Griffin was citing, isn't a very happy bunny, as you might imagine: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6887552.ece
 
I thought it was Bonnie Greer who brought up the Ice Age, guess I'll have to go to iPlayer and double check now.

What Griffin was banging on about was that studies of mitochondrial DNA have suggested that the bulk of the inhabitants of these islands had remained essentially the same people despite the successive waves of Celts, Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans etc.

Prof Stephen Oppenheimer, whose work Griffin was citing, isn't a very happy bunny, as you might imagine: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6887552.ece

It was Griffin who started on about indigenous Britons from 17,000 years ago. Aren't the Welsh the indigenous Britons anyway?
 
What Griffin was banging on about was that studies of mitochondrial DNA have suggested that the bulk of the inhabitants of these islands had remained essentially the same people despite the successive waves of Celts, Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans etc.
[/url]

Damn right. I can trace my ancestors right back to the long-tailed shrew.
 
Yes - sorry - this is a rubbish definition. It might be something of a common theme in fascist movements but it's not enough to definite it. And who runs the economy? Where does religion - if any - fit in? Which is the group to which one belongs and/or owes allegiance?

This is why I tend to avoid the word 'fascist' - it is simplistic and it is simply not accurate enough for the purpose - i prefer to argue against those who are arguing for more authoritarianism and fewer freedoms and rights etc
 
Yes, last time out you were arguing in support of the thesis that fascism was a left-wing phenomenon. Aside from that being wrong, it totally contradicts your latest rigourous definition.
 
It was Griffin who started on about indigenous Britons from 17,000 years ago. Aren't the Welsh the indigenous Britons anyway?

Yeah, he did. Viewing that programme second time round is really tedious btw, especially all that bloody self-congratulatory whooping. :facepalm:

The Welsh are the main descendants of the Romano-Celts who were displaced by the Anglo-Saxons, yes.

But it's not the case that each successive wave of new arrivals completely replaced their predecessors. Many of the Romano-Celts stayed in what is now England and adapted to the Anglo-Saxon culture, the DNA studies show this.

Griffin makes a big deal of these DNA studies but they're a big "so what" really. Race in the sense that he sees it does not exist. There are bigger genetic differences within the ethnic groups that he identifies than there are between them. It's all nonsense. We're one race, the human race.
 
I saw a television programme some time ago where they checked the DNA of several people including some prominent British nationalist minded ones, only to discover that there was a high incidence of genetic material origination from Attila the Hun in the British nation.

Britain is a very small piece of land in relation to the mass migration of peoples throughout history. If it had somehow only reproduced within its own population over that time, it would have become very inbred and weak.

The whole Master Race theory is flawed by the very fact of inbreeding leading to weakness, which is the opposite of what Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf. The human animal needs to be adaptable unlike carefully bred dogs or horses which are bred for specific narrow purposes.
 
It was Griffin who started on about indigenous Britons from 17,000 years ago. Aren't the Welsh the indigenous Britons anyway?[/QUOTE it is simply unknown :) which is why it is all bollox :D though sadly he is smart .. if every onbe else has their 'societies/ethnicities/clubs' then the indigenous brits ( whoever they are ) can demand one too
 
Back
Top Bottom