April 29, 2006

I'M NOT A NAZI, I JUST VOTE THAT WAY:

'Vote BNP and you're as bad as they are' (Melissa Kite, 30/04/2006, Sunday Telegraph)

With fears growing that the BNP will harvest a big protest vote and gain council seats on Thursday, particularly in east London, the Tories are effectively telling people toying with the idea of voting for Nick Griffin's gang that they ought to be ashamed of themselves. [...]

Eric Pickles, the Conservative deputy chairman and local government spokesman, told The Sunday Telegraph yesterday: "We are not differentiating between the candidates who stand for the BNP and the people who vote for them. We believe it is a shameful act to vote for the BNP, no matter how badly you feel you have been let down by Labour. These people are motivated by race and it is not an acceptable use of a protest vote to vote for the BNP."

The Conservative attack tells its own story. Put bluntly, the Tories do not have as much to lose from insulting prospective BNP supporters as Labour does. Mr Pickles's comment is a clear indication that the majority of BNP support this week will come not from the Right, but from the Left and disaffected Labour voters.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 29, 2006 8:46 PM
Comments

OJ, when you get to Leftism, check the footnotes for a map overlaping the NAZI and the Social Democrat voting patterns. Quite the eye opener.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 29, 2006 8:57 PM

The BNP protest vote will be coming from blue-collar labour supporters, working people in working class suburbs fed up with the influx of degenerate muslim barbarians and the unaccountability of the idiotic PC ruler class. In my opinion they are justified in voting for racist xenophobes in the same way youíre justified in using a gun if youíre backed in to a blind alley by violent street thugs. The BNP isnít pretty, neither is a gun, in this case itís the last resort of desperate people.

And I reiterate my point: The BNP are revolting people, but nobody is talking about a BNP government. The most theyíre going to get is 20%, their significance will be as a massive, much-needed kick in the backside to a political class that has grown staggeringly arrogant and contemptuous of the welfare of itís citizens.

Once theyíve done their job, they can return to their actual 4% share of constituency.

Posted by: Amos at April 29, 2006 11:38 PM

If I understand correctly, such a result for the BNP would be unprecedented. But immigration into Britain has been going on for generations. If these voters are all motivated by racism, why did they not all vote BNP in the last three decades? So the questions is, what changed and why do the people currently in power not blame themselves?

Posted by: wf at April 30, 2006 3:51 AM

Because the people in power aren't white nationalists?

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2006 8:29 AM

Amos:

Germans had perfectly good reasons for becoming Nazis too, no?

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2006 8:40 AM

So a disenchanted German who wanted to send the Social Democrats a message was justified in casting a protest vote for the Nazi candidate?

(I don't think that this is a violation of Godwin's Law, as the subject being discussed is racist nationalists.)

Posted by: David Cohen at April 30, 2006 8:41 AM

I do not know very much about this BNP. I do know a fair amount about the history of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. If the former resembles the latter, then they are very bad men and deserve our opposition and condemnation.

But I at least suspect that the judgement against them above is a rash one.

The question we need to ask is whether the argument BNP voters make against the aliens among them is racial or cultural. It is unjust to mistreat, and I should say, unethical to disfavor, someone for a feature over which he or she has no control, such as race or nationl origin.

On the other hand, a people is well justified to object to aliens who either give support to foreign enemies or who follow ways of living antithecal to its own laws and customs.

By way of illustration, if separation of church and state is one of a people's foundational principles, rejection of the cultural influence bearers of a system of theocracy is understandable.

Rash judgement concerning the reaction of a people to enemy aliens only superficially looks like anti-racism. In truth, it partakes of multi-culturalism.

Posted by: Lou Gots at April 30, 2006 9:30 AM

Not just not rash but understated. They're an anti-semitic party. Just Google the words BNP and anti-semitism and you'll find plenty.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2006 9:37 AM

David Duke's European American Conference: Racists Gather in New Orleans

http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_in_the_news/White_Supremacy/new_orleans_052005.htm?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_the_News

Over three hundred white supremacists gathered in New Orleans for the "2005 European American Conference," convened May 20 - 22 by David Duke. The theme of the conference was the unification of Europeans and Americans in opposition to Jews, who were demonized as blood suckers and parasites who dominate media and government around the world. A significant number of politically affiliated European racists addressed the crowd, including Nick Griffin and Simon Darby from the far-right British National Party, Karl Richter and Marcus Haverkamp from Germany's far-right National Democratic Party (NPD), Vavra Suk and Lennart Berg of Sweden, Jean-Michel Girard of France's far-right National Front, and Deirdre Fields of South Africa. It remains unclear whether these disparate American and international white supremacist groups will be able coordinate their anti-Jewish rhetoric and cooperate in their activities, but the simple fact of their participation in Duke's New Orleans meeting is a significant development in the world of white supremacy and anti-Semitism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin

www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2002-3/uk.htm

www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=69

www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=324

Posted by: h-man at April 30, 2006 10:13 AM

Thank you for your thoughts Mr. Cohen. The people voting for the Social Democrats were leftists? The Left cannot achieve their goals under the rule of law, and turn to parties that will not be stopped by the rule of law. Envy drives the left to total goverment control. It was not disenchanted Social Democrats voting for Nazis to send a message, it was enchanted Leftists voting for a party strong enough to express their hate. Some, like Amos, always think they can ride the tiger......

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 30, 2006 12:08 PM

The Social Democrats were the party of the center left in pre-war Germany. The Christian Democrats were the party of the center right. The SD is the labor/socialist party in Germany. It formed the last government before the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor and was the only party to vote against giving Chancellor Hitler the extra-constitututional powers he so-famously wielded. Shortly thereafter it was banned.

Posted by: David Cohen at April 30, 2006 12:37 PM

Thank you for your thoughts Mr. Cohen. If you look at the voting patterns before and after Hitler, the Nazis can from Social Democrats, and to the Social Democrats they returned. The Social Democrats formed a goverment with Hitler thinking they could ride the tiger. Of course they(S.D.) were banned by Hitler, the small envious men who spark the flames of Revolution are never ready for the monsters their hate call forth(see:France,Russia,China,Iran).

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 30, 2006 12:49 PM

Sorry, came not can.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 30, 2006 12:50 PM

There's a lot of good analogies here. The BNP are hard-socialists and racists, just like the Nazis. They are drawing votes from the left wing of Labour, from socialists who despise Blair's New Labour. I don't know the history of the rise of the Nazis in detail, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Nazis split the left, with the center-left Social Democrats playing a similar role to New Labour.

I do believe that in 21st century Britain, New Labour will be more successful and BNP less successful than their 1930s German counterparts. But maybe things are really as bad as Dalrymple says they are.

Posted by: pj at April 30, 2006 12:52 PM

Robert - What's this "Leftist" you refer to with the maps?

Posted by: pj at April 30, 2006 12:55 PM

I'm wondering if the EU will be playing the part of France in the remake...

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 30, 2006 1:01 PM

Sorry, PJ, Leftism is a book I highly recommend. I sent a copy to your brother. If it's handy, see if he can send you a scan of the voting maps of Germany in the footnotes(endnotes?).

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 30, 2006 1:06 PM

Can you tell me author and full title?

Posted by: pj at April 30, 2006 2:04 PM

Dang, make me check the stacks.......
Leftism From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot,
by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 30, 2006 2:14 PM

the chart is on page 405.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 30, 2006 3:21 PM

David Cohen

Your comment does violate Godwins law, though only slightly. (OJ's manipulation of my post also violates some law, but I don't know which one). The issue is not whether this Nick Griffin is a Nazi, because he is, which I indicated clearly in my original post. The issue is whether an otherwise non-Nazi citizen can rationally vote for a party he is in fundamental disagreement with in order to "send a message" to other political parties that they should change their position.

As indicated in my original post, before creative editing by OJ, Nick Griffin is in the poccess of "pretending" to forgo his anti-jewish message in order to sucker Brits into feeling they can safely vote for him. Because of that fact, the analogy to Hitler/Nazi is weakened. Hitler's message was always anti-jewish, was always socialist, and the support he drew from the Social Democrats was socialist and anti-jewish.

Now OJ can ignore the contradictory facts regarding Nick Giffin, but the fact still remains that for now anyway Nick Griffin is chastizing those in his party for their anti-jewish sentiments. Silly perhaps, maybe ineffectual, but Nick Griffin feels it must be necessary, and he feels that way because (get this) he knows a person opposing loose immigration laws is not a racist.

Posted by: h-man at April 30, 2006 3:55 PM

h:

People aren't as stupid as you wish them to be. If you vote for a racist anti-semite you are one.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2006 3:58 PM

Then answer me why Nick Griffin, would want to communicate his distaste for anti-semitism.

(nothing I've said suggests, that I want people to be stupid. Unfortunately many are regardless of what I desire)

Posted by: h-man at April 30, 2006 4:09 PM

He's just trying to stay out of jail. He already penned his Mein Kampf [http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/uncovered/pg08.htm].

He's beat the rap a couple times:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/4620762.stm

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2006 4:13 PM

Good point.

Also I oppose such stupid laws because they are Nazi-like. Don't you.

Posted by: h-man at April 30, 2006 4:22 PM

No, it would obviously be better if we were still robust enough that when people used such language the crowd would stone them, but in lieu of that prosecution for anti-social is perfectly justified.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2006 4:44 PM

Robert Mitchell Jr. :

Leftism is indeed an interesting book and a revised edition (Leftism Revisited) was issued about 1990 or so. I thought Kuehnelt-Leddihn rather overcontemptuous of democracy and I didn't trust his judgment on Churchill, etc., but the book is full of interesting oddball information, even if the text wonders from point to point.

William F. Buckley said he frequently disagreed with it but always enjoyed it.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at April 30, 2006 10:05 PM

Thank you for your thoughts Mr. Murphy. I own Leftism Revisited, but couldn't find a copy to send to OJ. This book ate my brain. Such a different, intellegent, strange way of looking at things. I wanted to disagree with much of what he wrote, but I wasn't up to the task. The first book I ever read that changed my mind by arguement. I have shown it to other people and gotten screams, and once had it thrown back at me....

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at April 30, 2006 10:17 PM

Robert Mitchell Jr. :

One more great comment Buckley made about Kuehnelt-Leddihn, because the guy knew about 20 freakin' languages (quoting from memory here):

"Erik will make presentations before any group of people and will speak any language on request, but if it is a tongue he is unacquainted with, he will require two weeks advance notice."

Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 1, 2006 4:07 AM

Robert, when did the Social Democrats in Germany form a coaltion with the Nazi Party as you claimed?

Posted by: Chris Durnell at May 1, 2006 12:04 PM

Mr. Durnell, that would be January 30th, 1933. A goverment was formed including the Social Democrats and the Nazis, and others I believe. One of the special moments of a Parliamentarian system. Rather then collapse the goverment, and probably the country, they tried to use the system to control Hitler, but he proved to be better at playing the game...

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 1, 2006 12:48 PM

Also, Mr. Durnell, check the voting record for Germany before the war. The Social Democrats kept losing voters, and the Nazis kept gaining them. Soft Leftists became unhappy with the weakness of the Social Democrats and became Nazis, the Hard left.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 1, 2006 12:51 PM
« HMMMM, PIE: | Main | HEY, ART DOESN'T HAVE TO SUCK! (via Mike Daley): »