I have been discussing this issue desultorily in a tory group. This issue being the attempts by the BNP to now let non-White people into the political party to avoid the impact of the discrimination act. Anyway, I find it very funny and amusing to read about this. Just the very idea of the BNP trying to recruit non white people to support a party whose policy is to chuck out the said non white people is ferociously funny. This is what I wrote on an email:
This promises to be a most promising sociological and political development but ultimately destined for failure if history is any guide. I am hard pressed to think of any other historical example where a situation like this has succeeded without changing the home exclusivist party irrevocably. The non whites will be looked as quislings by their fellow group members or mere tokens by others or plain mad.
When the exclusive party really wants to form a broad tent manifesto to really attract more members, it has to spend an extraordinary amount of time and resources. And the move leftward will splinter the party on the right. There are couple of excellent books on this evolution and behavior of extreme parties. Will dig it out sometime.
And then replied to a query about its narrowness:
I am not so sure. Based upon my review of its manifesto, i cannot see any part of the manifesto which is anywhere near the centre or even right or left of centre. The idea behind the concensus is what defines the centre. If one draws a multi dimensional matrix with its social, economic, political and diplomatic policies, it will be several standard deviations to the left (and in some cases, to the right).
Secondly, as I said, the historical evidence suggests that it will remain in the extreme end always if it sticks with its rather interesting policies.
I am also not sure why asian and black citizens would join in. After all, the party actually does not consider them as indigenous (their definition seems to be based upon the level of melanin in their skins, preferably something weird called as white european...). So if blacks and asians do join in, presumably they would do so in the full knowledge that its like turkeys voting for christmas.
I dont think I have come across anybody who is a black/asian who is supporting the bnp based upon this race based immigration policy? They might say that they hate say romanian immigration, but when faced with the rather unhappy logical conclusion that if the BNP does come to power, not only the romanians will stay back (white european race), its the non white population which will be invited to leave. Would love to hear if you have read about anybody who is non white who says so?
And muslims joining the BNP because of afghanistan withdrawal? Hmmm, could you suggest some examples of any muslims who have said so?
But this promises to be quite interesting to see the gymnastics it performs. It is absolutely fascinating to watch.
As I mentioned, I didnt find anything in the historical record, and I went back to check on the journal articles as well as books which would lead me to consider this step to have any chance of broadening the BNP's electroral base without compromising on its basic principles and splintering. The odds are that it will splinter before it went broad based.
Anyway, lets see...
When a Sikh chap announced that he wants to join the BNP, this is what I wrote:
Heh. The inconsistencies just keep on piling up. Reminds of that movie, Mel Gibson and that black fella. Who go to the South African embassy of yore and pointing to the black chap, say that he wants to emigrate to south Africa. The face of the immigration official was priceless. Mr Singh doesn't seem to have twigged to the racial aspect yet.
…..
oh! what I meant was the immigration reviews that the BNP seem to go for are based upon race. No? Its not purely religious so to say. In effect, he is supporting a party which is asking for the voluntary or otherwise repatriation of people like him. As I said, turkeys voting in the affirmative for christmas :)
…..
We are mixing up two things here. 1. Anti Islam feeling and 2. Anti non White immigration.
Any non White fella will fall foul of one or both of these policies. For mr Singh to actually support the first but not the second doesn't really make sense to me.
Why support the first when the result will be immaterial to him as he would be on a plane with the Muslims as well? I know this is a theoritical question but as I said, this is absolutely fascinating :)It is a pressure group and for what its worth, its working. I am a fervent believer that the state has to be colour blind and in its infinite wisdom, this government has actually given in too much to caring about minorities and not enough about what British means. And I do not consider being British is defined by the colour of skin but the strength of character, history, etc. etc. :)
……..
But it was with some pleasure that I found myself being vindicated to a certain extent. I quote from this site.
Now however, things seem to be coming to a head with the resignations of former contender for the BNP leadership (in a rigged election that he couldn’t possibly win) Chris Jackson (pictured), his former campaign manager Mike Easter and someone named Kev Bryan, who was apparently the Rossendale Branch Organiser. The resignations are announced in an open letter posted on the mostly defunct jackson4leader site:
‘Disbandment of reform Group
What is the point of the BNP if you admit foreigners?
Sadly we have come to the conclusion that the BNP is breaking up and there is no practicable likelihood of it recovering.
In our opinion the root cause of the failure is the Constitution of the Party. The Constitution, that is the Party Rules, makes the Party Leader a dictator. The current leader rather than reforming the Constitution toward that of a normal English association has (probably illegally) made alterations to the Constitution making his removal virtually impossible.
The Party is now a nationalist party in name only and has abandoned many of the fundamental principles on which it was founded.
A further major problem is that of money. Under the Constitution, all money is controlled by the Party Leader. The Party Leader appoints the Party Treasurer and Party Auditor. The Leader has carte blanche to dispose of the funds as he pleases.
This has never been a satisfactory situation, and now that the Party is alleged to be turning over a million pounds a year, is nothing short of a scandal. There have been four different Treasurers this year and the 2008 accounts are way overdue. The Party has been fined by the Electoral Commission for late publication of accounts. This is a re-run of last year when the accounts were also late and when published were endorsed by the Auditor as unsatisfactory.
A separate, but related, issue is the Trafalgar Club. This Club raises money directly to support the Party Leader. No accounts for this club have ever been published and they have not been appended to the Party accounts, as clearly they should be.
We recommend that no further money be sent to ‘Head Office’.
Whilst the BNP has been going downhill, the National Front has reformed itself and now is led by a group of reliable people and has the Constitution of a normal democratic association. Consequently, we believe that BNP members should transfer to the National Front.
Mike Easter
Chris Jackson
Kevin Bryan‘
Some more comments on that site makes for very nice reading. Also check out this site.
What next? Well, the BNP has 2 choices as I mentioned, it has to either move to the right and merge with the National Front. Or it has to move to the centre and thus has to lose its exclusivist racist angle. In either case, its in a horn of a dilemma. The problem with simplistic and frankly intellectually challenged (read idiot) policies is that sooner or later, the holes become too big for even morons to swallow. This is why I am relatively sanguine about this party’s progress. It will be a shame but should be good to provide some more fun and games over the next few months and years.
No comments:
Post a Comment