English nationalism vs. the BNP
At the English nationalist site Steadfast can be
found a 2004 article by Tony Linsell with some interesting
criticism of the British National Party, or at any rate of many of
its members (see jpegs of the scanned article here and here). He claims that the BNP has been backing what he sees
as a dying horse in the form of British nationalism, which is
based on an artificial British political identity, as opposed to
English nationalism, which arises out of a true ethnic identity.
"Britishness" has become identified with a multicultural society
holding little appeal to Scottish, Welsh or English nationalists,
while English nationalist feelings seem to be on the rise.
BNP-style British nationalism appears, meanwhile, to be linked
to a sense of White racial identity which Linsell rejects as
"shallow and contrived"
Labels: BNP, Nationalism
posted by Mr. Spog | 5:04 a.m.
3 Comments:
Linsell is confused, as you say, but so are you.
I'm not sure why you blame the BNP for this: you answer Linsell's query by quoting Griffin, and he answers yours by explaining that English nationalism is a sub-European and therefore White identity.
The BNP are moving in the right direction and are ahead of the other unionist parties. For some time they have been talking about the indigenous peoples
of Britain.
Also, while they have long agreed with the other unionist parties on rejecting imperialism, and on the issue of native-rights and self-determination for African and Asian peoples, they are again ahead of the game in affording the same respect to Brits and fellow Europeans.
That's because the most important thing for the BNP is not the 'Whiteness' of these peoples, or their rich cultural heritage, but their survival as distinct peoples and the return to them of control of their homelands.
The 'English nationalism' of Simon Heffer, the CEP, and the Witanagemot crowd, which reifies an 'English culture' and seeks to protect that rather than the English people is not nationalism.
I note you are 'A Friend of Israel'; consider that the Jewish state exists primarily to ensure the survival and self-determination of the Jewish people; now that been done, the Jewish cultural heritage is secured and provided with a community focused upon its unique development.
Well, the same is needed for other peoples happening not be Jewish. There are non-Jewish academics who know far more about 'Jewish culture' than many Jews, but they are no replacement for Jews. Thus the national-homeland is necessary, for Jews and for the English.
Peoples beget cultures, human life -individual and national- matters far more than the works of humans. Neither Zionism or English Nationalism is 'coarse race-nationalism', they are the only real defences against the blending out or killing off of the Jews and the English. You support one, you really ought to support the other.
You make some interesting points, which I don't have time to think about adequately at the moment. But let me point out that the Jews officially accept as members of their people converts of any race who adopt Jewish religion and culture, while the BNP, the last I heard, had no intention of accepting Anglicized Blacks, for example, as bona fide Englishmen.
This series of posts was an attempt on the part of someone with no direct contact with English politics to get a "handle" on the BNP, so I don't mind admitting to some confusion. What I have come across, however, leaves me highly distrustful. What do you say, for example, to Nick Griffin's apparent opinion, contradicting the promises to restore traditional English liberties, that a nationalist government will have to take control of the private news media?
There certainly is a "coarse race nationalism" in the air these days, in North America as well as Britain, though I may possibly be wrong in thinking that it permeates the BNP. It stems from a debased philosophy which sees human beings in purely biological, Darwinian terms. This sort of belief is likely to lead eventually to Nazi-like movements, even if it is currently propounded by people as civilized as, say, Darwin.
the Evil Empire: religion, armies, monarchies and politicians...are the causers of all wars
Post a Comment
<< Home