Did UKIP ignore concerns about BNP?


11:25 am - May 17th 2012

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

Last week, when this blog revealed that UKIP chair Christopher Monckton had called on the far-right British Freedom Party to “come back and join” UKIP, they immediately distanced themselves from his comments.

While Monckton remains UKIP’s ‘Scotland Leader & Head of Policy Unit’, he was unceremoniously removed as a spokesman for the party. This prompted some party members to grumble that the decision was taken swiftly and without any democratic assent.

We asked UKIP’s Gawain Towler about the decision to sack Monckton as spokesman but he did not respond to queries.

But should Christopher Monckton’s sympathetic call to far-right come as much of a surprise.

A former member of UKIP emailed Liberal Conspiracy to say their response to our story was “rather weak spin”.

If they were so serious about the far right not joining UKIP how come they did not – to my knowledge – investigate when numerous concerned party supporters (not me) raised (on UKIPs unofficial BDF forum as well as locally) the verified fact that the details of the Orsett ward (Thurrock) 2012 UKIP council candidate Steve Mason appeared on the 2007 leaked BNP membership list?

One does indeed wonder about questions like that. Hopefully Gowain Towler will respond this time.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Chaise Guevara

Well, it’s possible that they did investigate, but your correspondant isn’t aware of it. Or possibly the guy in question is seen as valuable enough to validate breaking the rules.

It’s worth pointing out that UKIP is the only party which does not accept new members if they have at any time been BNP members.

3. Chaise Guevara

@ 2 Paul

Good point; in a way, UKIP are being accused of not being perfect at being better than other parties here. (Assuming refusing party entry based on previous affiliation is a good thing; I’m not convinced.)

I don’t really get this; are we saying BNP members should stay BNP forever and never move into the area or less ridiculous politics – which UKIP, comparatively speaking, is? Are BNP voters/members inhuman monsters, or are the ignorant people/people with ridiculous views, which may actually change?

Aren’t Labour trying to win support from BNP supporters, many of whom are disillusioned Labour voters in the first place? They should be.

Dare I say that possibly, possibly, possibly, this is actually an example of how Labour make would-be Labour voters feel unwelcome and lose their votes?

NOT that I think Labour should pander to the BNP on policy! I am talking about debate, engagement, changing of ideas, not changing policies to suit the ignorant and racist.

Regarding ”concerns” over the BNP.
I think the thinking goes, is that: once a ”Nazi” – always a Nazi.

And if you want to be rid of that label, you have to do a major and public announcement and denounce your past and former associates.
A few people have made that journey. One guy became a mole inside the NF or the BNP and wrote a book about it. I think you have to do something as public as that to be detoxified.

I’m not that concerned about the BNP myself, but that’s how it goes for the anti-fascist left I think.

6. Chaise Guevara

@ 4 Lou

The problem is that connecting someone with the BNP, however shakily, is a great way to smear them. Hence Warsi’s ridiculous (and politically short-sighted) attempt to insinuate that UKIP’s gains in the recent local elections were due to it sucking up former BNP support.

UKIP know this, and are aware that as a strongly right-wing party with an anti-immigration raison d’etre they are more exposed than most parties to accusations of racism. Hence the attempt to distance themselves from the bigoted party. For much the same reason, right-wing tabloids whose editorial line basically reads like the BNP manifesto go out of their way to say the BNP are evil, usually by the subtle tactic of talking about “the evil BNP”.

7. Christof_ff

Whilst I don’t think you should shut the door to people who reconsider their views (I’ve voted Labour, LibDem, Green & Socialist Alliance in my time), a drastic change in stance can sometimes be a bit suspicious – in my area we have a Labour Councillor who had previously been a BNP member and England First candidate: http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/english-democrats/91813-ex-bnp-member-now-labour-party-candidate.html

There’s a pretty big difference between being a BNP voter and being a BNP member. UKIP, because it does attract people who think the Empire was a great idea, and who don’t like foreign influence in the UK, they tend to overlap with the middle class support for the BNP. The BNP have previously tried entryism into UKIP, and have done pretty well with entryism into the English Democrats.

The BNP is splitting and UKIP, as a very right wing (but not Neo Nazi) party could pick up support from that. The British Freedom Party coming along and grabbing a chunk of the far right vote, and overlapping the ‘The Empire was brilliant and not at all racist!’ UKIPers and the ‘Kill the muslim peados!’ EDLers is an obstacle to UKIP benefiting from disenchantment from BNP voters.

The Lib Dems had a by election candidate last year who was a former National Front member, who accused working class people who didn’t vote for him of being ignorant racist bigot scum.

All three main parties have produced racist material in the past. UKIP is not really anything special, and have taken some steps to prevent neo-nazi entryism into their classist and xenophobic party.

It’s unsurprising that BNP members are attracted to UKIP, but they are just one strand of white supremacists, nationalists, bigots, libertarians and cranks who are, and the UKIP ban on members of Neo Nazi parties has kept them from rolling in and taking over.

9. Abdul Abulbul Emir

Mrs A says

Abdul

BNP got about 1 million votes in the last Euro elections, but like many other liberal types I am not at all dismayed by these racists and refuse dialogue with them.

After all principle is everything.

UKIP are an anti-foreigner party. They don’t like foreigners and a foreigner is anyone who doesn’t conform to their very narrow definition of what constitutes British.

They are racists. It’s the only reason the party exists. It’s a party for bigots, racists and xenophobes. Their claim not to be racist is laughable.

11. Robin Levett

@Paul #2, Chaise #3:

I never got a response (from either Farage to my original post, or Trooper to my subsequent post) on the earlier Monckton thread – the later post is at:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/05/09/ukip-spokesman-calls-on-far-right-party-to-join-them/#comment-381689

Essentially, UKIP’s rule banning former members of far-right groupings is clearly cosmetic only. They didn’t defend Monckton on the basis that he didn’t know that the BFP were far-right – they defended him on the basis that he didn’t know they’d changed the rules to exclude BFP members.

12. The Great White Elephant in the Room

“UKIP are an anti-foreigner party. They don’t like foreigners and a foreigner is anyone who doesn’t conform to their very narrow definition of what constitutes British.

They are racists. It’s the only reason the party exists. It’s a party for bigots, racists and xenophobes. Their claim not to be racist is laughable.”

Errr,,,,right……

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage

Nigel Farage : “In 1999 he married Kirsten Mehr, a German national, by whom he has two more children, Victoria (born 2000) and Isabelle (born 2005).”

Winston McKenzie :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F61OUzNE6KM

UKIP member Sanya-Jeet Thandi – Young and gifted, September 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMQVOliGlP8

UKIP MEP, Marta Andreasen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marta_Andreasen

“Marta Andreasen (born 26 November 1954) is an Argentine-born Spanish accountant”

UKIP : Rusty Lee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqBfOouXR7k

13. Mr Potarto

Did you delete my comment referring to a Labour councillor?

14. Vicky the Viking

How do UKIP actually stop Ex BNP members joining them?

15. Chaise Guevara

@ 11 Robin

I don’t actually blame them for that. While they could aggressively seek out and outlaw former BNPers, it still wouldn’t be all that effective. And it’s essentially unreasonable that they should need to. A former BNP member, reformed or otherwise, might be attracted to UKIP for all sorts of reasons that aren’t racist. The fact that UKIP has to defend against the PR damage of being a BNP haven is down to the fact that people aren’t fully rational about politics (or anything) – it’s based on ad hom.

If they want to defend against that I can’t hold it against them, even if their methods seem cynical and hypocritical. It’s a lie fighting a lie; whatever.

16. Robin Levett

@Chaise #14:

I think you’re missing the point. UKIP don’t seem to have a problem with people with far right extremist views joining – they do seem to have a problem with people with identifiably (by previous affiliation with known far right groups) far right extremist views joining. They are a BNP haven because they are a respectable version of the BNP that pretends not to be. Look at the BFP and UKIP statements on the addresses above, and note the lack of actual difference.

bnp members are mostly indigenous british and anyone or party that discriminates
against indigenous people, in their own land whilst allowing non indigenous people to join is missing the point.
ukip are a fraud.

18. Chaise Guevara

@ 15 Robin

I don’t like arguing with you, because you’re easily one of the most informed and aware people on this site. But you seem to be the one missing the point. The point (or at least my point) is that UKIP and the BNP can be as similar as they want, and none of this will justify attempts to link UKIP with the BNP when the connection doesn’t come down to racism and bigotry.

If you have a problem with UKIP, attack UKIP. Don’t smear them by association. It shouldn’t be necessary, UKIP come off as a party run by incredibly selfish 12-year-olds.

We are all getting too used to desperate politicians and wana be political nothings smearing those who hold different views. “Racist”, “homophobic”, “swivel eyed”, “nasty little englanders” Honest debate is to be avoided at all costs, and when you are losing the argument, denigrate and cast slurs on your opponents. What a sad state of affairs.

All political parties have membership policies.

No one has to let racists and anti-semites into their political parties. Most political parties also pay at least lip service to the concept of democracy, something the BNP and it’s members would get rid of if they could.

There are existing hate groups they can join, specifically for the sort of people who’d have sold us out to Hitler if they’d had the chance.

UKIP – BNP in better suits, why are people so surprised that two parties based on xenophobia attract the same voter demographic?

Meanwhile I have to laugh at the suggestion in one post that BNP members are ‘indigenous British’, any Anglo-Saxon claiming that may want to check a history book.

22. So Much For Subtlety

Virtually all of Blair’s Cabinet except Blair himself had a background in totalitarian parties. Virtually all of them had a background in pro-Soviet politics. Many of them took money from the Soviet Union.

So is it LC’s position that actual involvement with a genocidal political party is fine but mere membership in a party that does not want to murder anyone is beyond, so to speak, the Pale?

Bloody hell.

@Ben2

“No one has to let racists and anti-semites into their political parties”

That’s Livingstone out then.

I think the tactic must just be to regularly link UKIP with the BNP, just to make that association. Anti-fascism is a popular cause and can be banged on about and support built for it, even against phantom legions of would-be Nazis …. who never really seem to materialise in the way envisaged. But it was good for the left and parties like Respect to have these elusive bogeymen to rail against. Just see some of the anti-Nazi type demonstrations in places like Tower Hamlets in the last couple of years with people like George Galloway and SWP speakers scaring people born in Bangladesh with the prospect of fascists pulling their beards and their womens hijabs off.
This OP is probably just a bit more of the same, but not so blatant.

25. John p Reid

2 well said and what of the 4 famous ex NF or nazi’s who joined labour ,Comedian kevin Day, Or Ricky tomlinson there’s even a prospective Cllr standing for labour now who was A ex Nazi See order-order.com

26. Robin Levett

@SMFS #22:

<blocckquote.Virtually all of Blair’s Cabinet except Blair himself had a background in totalitarian parties. Virtually all of them had a background in pro-Soviet politics. Many of them took money from the Soviet Union.

Evidence for any of that?

27. Robin Levett

@Chaise #18:

The point (or at least my point) is that UKIP and the BNP can be as similar as they want, and none of this will justify attempts to link UKIP with the BNP when the connection doesn’t come down to racism and bigotry.

I suppose actually that most of what I refer to as “far right extremism” is racism and bigotry. I do have a problem with that within UKIP. The Bolivian cat story is a classic case of racism and bigotry; and was in its essentials made up by the leader of UKIP. I refer to the similarities between the policies of UKIP and far right extremist groupings not to tar UKIP by association, but to show that any justification UKIP may offer for barring members of those groupings cannot be founded in policies (and therefore their political views).

Going back to Monckton, the line that UKIP took in his defence is telling. They didn’t deny that he was aware of the views of BFP members. Such a defence would have been consistent with UKIP actually having a problem with those views.

28. Chaise Guevara

@ 27 Robin

“I suppose actually that most of what I refer to as “far right extremism” is racism and bigotry. I do have a problem with that within UKIP.”

I imagine UKIP supporters show higher levels of racism and bigotry than members of most parties. But the party’s manifesto isn’t inherently racist; it appeals to racists, but that’s not the same thing. So accusing the party as a whole of racism is a distraction tactic that avoids dicussing its actual concerns.

“The Bolivian cat story is a classic case of racism and bigotry; and was in its essentials made up by the leader of UKIP.”

I’m not convinced. It could have been motivated by racism. Or it could have been motivated by Farage’s desire to believe that the authorities have been emasculated by bleeding-heart liberalism. The story was more about rejecting human rights than political correctness.

“I refer to the similarities between the policies of UKIP and far right extremist groupings not to tar UKIP by association, but to show that any justification UKIP may offer for barring members of those groupings cannot be founded in policies (and therefore their political views).”

Fair enough, and I’m not saying it’s you doing the brush-tarring.

“Going back to Monckton, the line that UKIP took in his defence is telling. They didn’t deny that he was aware of the views of BFP members. Such a defence would have been consistent with UKIP actually having a problem with those views.”

I shouldn’t comment from a position of ignorance here. What do the BFP stand for, exactly?

29. Robin Levett

@Chaise #28:

I shouldn’t comment from a position of ignorance here. What do the BFP stand for, exactly?

There’s a link in my comment linked above – pretty much the same as UKIP, actually…

30. Chaise Guevara

@ 29 Robin

So I see… so why is it controversial for them to defect to UKIP then?

31. Chaise Guevara

OK, they’re worse than UKIP. Apparently Muslims rape people because they’re simply living by the 7th century rules of a desert warrior, and this is the fault of liberals and something called the Politically Correct Police Force. So it’s like UKIP except crazy rather than goofy.

Hello all, I am the said candidate for UKIP ‘Steve Mason’ and i find it astonishing reading the comments from all the people here who are quite eager to state we are a free and open culture / country! (as long as you believe in what they believe in otherwise you are a neo Nazi bigot), not one person as said “I wonder why he joined the BNP” well let me tell you, I joined them for the same reason I joined the conservative Party the Labour party the independent party etc etc, because I am sick of small minded people telling me what I should and shouldn’t think, I truly believe that you have to taste the pie to see whether you like or not! and unfortunately let me tell you this, I went to 1 meeting at each of the parties (except conservatives which i attended quite a few) I got the same message from each meeting I went to and that was very simple and not from skin headed tattooed yobs trying to prove a point but from the general public, ordinary people I may add. The main concern was there is NO representation for ordinary people in this country to say you are a proud Englishman is almost counter mount to murder and carries the whispers of neo-Nazi empire loving slave trader . Yes immigration is one of the biggest problems we have in this country, yet we cannot speak about it for fear of incriminations, I truly believe we live in an ever increasing censored and controlled world and one I wish to change!

33. Chaise Guevara

@ 32 Themase

“Hello all, I am the said candidate for UKIP ‘Steve Mason’ and i find it astonishing reading the comments from all the people here who are quite eager to state we are a free and open culture / country! (as long as you believe in what they believe in otherwise you are a neo Nazi bigot)”

Yet another person who doesn’t know what freedom of speech is! You have the freedom to express your views. Other people have the freedom to criticise your views. Freedom of speech isn’t reserved for you personally, so get over it.

“The main concern was there is NO representation for ordinary people in this country”

If the BNP are so “ordinary” (whatever that even means), why do they have so few supporters? Ordinary is Conservative or Labour. I get the sense of what you’re trying to say, but happily the solution is not in racism. Whatever the BNP likes to tell itself, the majority of Brits are not hoping for racist policy to be brought in.

“to say you are a proud Englishman is almost counter mount to murder”

You mean “tantamount”. Commit murder and you go to jail for years. Say you are a proud Englishman and nothing happens. This is a ridiculous, pathetic attempt to paint yourself as a victim by complaining about non-existent oppression. You are campaigning on the basis of a lie. Grow up.

“Yes immigration is one of the biggest problems we have in this country, yet we cannot speak about it for fear of incriminations, I truly believe we live in an ever increasing censored and controlled world and one I wish to change!”

Recriminations. What do you mean we can’t speak about it? We’re talking about it now, aren’t we? Do you mean people sometimes disagree when you do speak about it? Are we back to you being the only person who should be allowed freedom of speech?

Chaise Guevara:

Hello

A proven point that YOU have focused purely on the BNP and total ignored the fact I was referring too all the meetings I went to regarding what I found out from ‘ordinary people’ (ordinary people = the people who pay the bills i.e. tax in this country) this is their country

Secondly what did I find out about the BNP, after 10 minutes I had seen more pictures of Winston Churchill and spitfires to last me a life time,policies made up like jokes from xmas crackers and what looked like a manifesto anchored in the 1930’s!!!!!! However I maintain it’s not wrong to properly find out what a ‘party’ like rather be told via others!

Do I believe in white supremacy of course not I have met and witnessed far too many white scum bags to ever think ‘We’ are better because of the colour of skin.

I am never a victim and have never sort to be viewed as one, can we have a reasonable debate outside of forums like this with regard to immigration the EU? no we can’t because whether you like it or not there is a taboo covering all of this, so be quiet and accepting is the rule of thumb.

and also your right, tantamount is correct! lol

35. Chaise Guevara

@ 34 Themase

“A proven point that YOU have focused purely on the BNP and total ignored the fact I was referring too all the meetings I went to regarding what I found out from ‘ordinary people’ (ordinary people = the people who pay the bills i.e. tax in this country) this is their country ”

Um, because you said you were explaining why people join the BNP. You specifically said that was the question you were answering. It’s hardly unreasonable for me to talk about the BNP when it’s already the topic of conversation.

What point has been “proven” here is beyond me.

Incidentally your definition of “ordinary people” includes pretty much anyone who isn’t in a coma. And the majority of “ordinary people”, by your definition, are Labour or Tory voters.

“Secondly what did I find out about the BNP, after 10 minutes I had seen more pictures of Winston Churchill and spitfires to last me a life time,policies made up like jokes from xmas crackers and what looked like a manifesto anchored in the 1930?s!!!!!! However I maintain it’s not wrong to properly find out what a ‘party’ like rather be told via others! ”

Heh, good analysis. I agree with you here, by the way, and I’m not about to smear you for going to check the party out.

“I am never a victim and have never sort to be viewed as one”

Then why are you making things up that paint you as being oppressed? Why make the ludicrous claim that saying you are proud to be British is tantamount to murder? What was your motive in making this false claim if not to make yourself appear the victim?

“can we have a reasonable debate outside of forums like this with regard to immigration the EU? no we can’t because whether you like it or not there is a taboo covering all of this, so be quiet and accepting is the rule of thumb. ”

Completely untrue. Whether YOU like it or not, debates on immigration and the EU are found everywhere: in the papers, on the TV, down the pub. The airing of anti-immigration and Eurosceptic views is common. The idea that “we’re not allowed to talk about it” is a myth, a lie created to allow people to pretend they are victims. Allowed by whom? You didn’t invent the lie, but you are repeating it.

36. Charlieman

From Sunny’s OP
Sunny quote: “A former member of UKIP emailed Liberal Conspiracy to say their response to our story was “rather weak spin”.”

Part of the email: “If they were so serious about the far right not joining UKIP how come they did not – to my knowledge – investigate when numerous concerned party supporters (not me) raised (on UKIPs unofficial BDF forum as well as locally) the verified fact that the details of the Orsett ward (Thurrock) 2012 UKIP council candidate Steve Mason appeared on the 2007 leaked BNP membership list?”

The leak of the BNP’s membership list was an abuse of privacy and (probably? sub judice?) illegal under UK law. The exposure of members’ names was amusing (internecine conflict on the far right is almost always fun) but the list of names is untouchable. It is not valid data for excluding anyone from membership of your club.

Steve Mason’s alleged BNP membership should be questioned on the basis of what he did and who he is today.

37. So Much For Subtlety

26. Robin Levett

.Virtually all of Blair’s Cabinet except Blair himself had a background in totalitarian parties. Virtually all of them had a background in pro-Soviet politics. Many of them took money from the Soviet Union.

Evidence for any of that?

Are you serious or just wasting my time? This is the Cabinet that included David Blunkett, formerly leader of the People’s Republic of Sheffield, Jack Straw, the teenage Trot, John Prescott, former official for the Communist controlled National Union of Seamen, John Reid, former member of the CPGB and its Youth League, all of which was presided over by the former activist in the Communist Youth League, Peter Mandelson.

Why is any of this completely irrelevant while former membership of the BNP is a mark of Cain no one can remove for life? Mandelson took money from the Soviets. He went to their youth jamborees and generally had a nice time. But then so did Bea Campbell and she is still welcome to write here.

The double standard is absurd.

SMFS channels the spirit of Senator McCarthy. Awesome!

Meanwhile:

I joined them for the same reason I joined the conservative Party the Labour party the independent party etc etc, because I am sick of small minded people telling me what I should and shouldn’t think

Personally, if I were sick of small-minded people telling me what I should and shouldn’t think, joining *any* political party would be toward the bottom of my to-do list. And I’m fairly sure that if we were to hire a phrenologist to investigage, the BNP’s activists would show up as the very smallest-of-mind.

39. Trooper Thompson

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION

by Sunny Hundal

part 94

In which we investigate UKIP’s refusal to distance itself from the British Union of Fascists, following revelations that Nigel Farage was seen drinking a pint of Bombadier, the favourite tipple of Oswald Moseley’s chauffeur.

Three toxic streams flow into the current Political Class. Stream One is that of John Reid, Peter Mandelson, Ralph Miliband, and the Communist Party of Great Britain, in those days the paid agency of an enemy power, though not a militarily expansionist one, but, far more insidiously and far more successfully, an ideologically expansionist one. That of my distant cousin Alistair Darling, Bob Ainsworth, Geoff Gallop (Tony Blair’s mentor at Oxford), and the International Marxist Group. That of Charles Clarke, Jack Straw, and the nominally Labour but entirely pro-Soviet faction that then controlled the National Union of Students. That of Alan Milburn, Stephen Byers, and Trotskyism; Milburn’s only ever job outside politics was running a Trotskyist bookshop called Days of Hope, known to its clientele as “Haze of Dope”. That of the most powerful man in the voluntary sector, an old university friend of Tony Blair’s, the recently knighted Sir Stephen Bubb, who was one of the surcharged and disqualified Lambeth councillors. And so on, and on, and on. Including the assembled New Labourites who sang, not The Red Flag, but The Internationale, at the funerals of Donald Dewar and Robin Cook.

Like the American neoconservatives, they remain Marxist in their dialectical materialism, only changing the ending so that the bourgeoisie wins. They remain Leninist in their vanguard elitism, and in their identification of religious and other “Useful Idiots”. They remain Stalinist in their belief that a transcontinental superstate should establish the dictatorship of the victorious class and then export that dictatorship around the world, including by force of arms, while vanguard elites owe their patriotic allegiance to that superstate instead of to their own respective countries. And they remain Trotskyist in their entryism, and in their belief in the permanent revolution. They have followed a section of academic Marxism away from economic and towards moral, social, cultural and constitutional means, but to the same ends as ever: the withering away of the family, of private property, and ultimately therefore of the State, since none of those three can exist without the other two.

They have very cleverly described themselves as “Social Democrats” in the knowledge that, while almost all Britons on hearing or reading that term think of it as referring to the non-Marxist and anti-Marxist tradition within the British Labour Movement, it was also the name of the party of the Russian Revolution, to the Bolshevik majority within which looked back the Communist Party, the International Marxist Group, the Labour pro-Soviet faction, and the Trotskyists, partially overlapping as those, and many more besides, often were. So it is arguable that they have not lied directly. But it is indisputable that they have used a term in such a way as to assume its meaning within the tiny Leninist subculture, rather than its meaning in ordinary usage even among the politically well-informed. In so doing, they have monstrously deceived the electorate. At the same time, they have demonstrated their direct dependence on the American neoconservatives, among whom the name “Social Democrats, USA” is used by the successors of Max Shachtman, the true, Trotskyist founder of neoconservatism. Those Trotskyist successors openly aspire to take over the Democratic Party, but they also enjoyed considerable control over the foreign policy of the Reagan Administration and almost total control of foreign policy under George W Bush.

Stream Two is that of the old cheerleaders for the Boer Republic set up as an explicit act of anti-British revenge in a former Dominion of the Crown, as well as the old defenders of Pinochet’s Chile and of other Nazi-harbouring pioneers of monetarism in Latin America. In those circles, it was also normal to demand the dismantlement of the public services, the legalisation of all drugs, the abolition of any minimum age of consent, and so on. Again, these views have never been recanted; indeed, they have largely come to pass. And Stream Three is the self-styled Social Democratic Party, the SDP.

These streams are by no means entirely distinct. For example, the upper classes were the only section of society in which, right up to the fall of the Soviet Union and even beyond, it was perfectly respectable to profess oneself a Communist. It was just dismissed, in an attitude unknown to the rest of Britain at the time, as an amusing little eccentricity such as any proper toff is obliged to have. Anyone who was sufficiently grand has always been able to secure advancement in the Conservative Party, and it was considered vulgar to enquire as to specific political opinions, then as now, and really at every point in between.

Who would look for them in the Conservative Party? Yet the utterly posh world of MI6 and the upper echelons of MI5 was absolutely riddled with them right up until the bitter end, to the point that it had become a standing joke even among the general public. Everyone knew that the KGB’s main recruitment ground was not the patriotic, socially conservative trade union movement or anything like that, but Oxbridge in general and Cambridge in particular, and only the public school rather than the grammar school circles even there. The perfectly preposterous idea that Harold Wilson, of all people, and for heaven’s sake even Ted Short and George Thomas in the more recent versions, were somehow Soviet sleeper agents continues to serve what has always been its purpose, that of pure distraction from what ought to be the blindingly obvious.

In 1981, Michael Foot refused to endorse Peter Tatchell as a candidate for the House of Commons; in 2010, David Cameron offered Tatchell a seat in the House of Lords. The only British Minister ever known to have been an agent of the Soviet Bloc (specifically, of Czechoslovakia) was John Stonehouse, the Labour MP most closely associated with the proto-Thatcherite Institute of Economic Affairs in the days when it was still trying to persuade both main parties, and later the only MP ever to have sat in the English separatist interest, before, having left Parliament, he joined the SDP. In Stonehouse, the three toxic streams met. He cannot have been the only one. He was not. And he is not. Chris Huhne had very close ties to the International Marxist Group while at Oxford. Sue Slipman, one of David Owen’s closest allies, had been a Communist Party member of sufficient prominence to be made President of the National Union of Students, a position by then openly in that party’s gift, only a very few years before joining the SDP that she told to “retain the classless opportunities provided by Thatcherism”, to “civilise the Thatcherite project”, and to “be a friendly critic of Thatcherism”.

One could go on.

I thought the BNP was run by the security services to destroy any hope for the nationalist cause. Is that not correct? MI6 ran the German Neo-Nazis, so it would make sense to round up some old Nazis and set up a British equivalent, run by MI5, presumably.

The BNP platform, from what I have seen on their website, is entirely non-racist unless you are one of those people who maintain that it is racist to advocate the majority view on mass immigration (opinion polls show 70% of Brits are against it, I believe) — And anyway, why is opposing mass immigration assumed to be racist. Mass immigration increased competition for jobs and housing and it increases the demand for infrastructure and therefore it means higher taxation — all good reasons for opposing it. The fact that those of long British descent will within a generation or two be a minority in their own country is another reason for opposing mass immigration, I suppose, but it is not the only one. And even if it were the only one, is opposing the genocide of your own people as a racial, cultural and religious entity, truly racist?

But however non-racist in theory the BNP may be, Griffin has repeatedly demonstrated his personal racism and thuggism, and even then, to be sure of throwing the party’s chances in the last election he had to appear in a national TV broadcast with a bottle of Marmite, accuse his campaign manager of attempted murder, and bloody a Times reporter’s nose to prove the party had not gone soft.

Come on. Anyone who says the BNP is a real option is nuts or very naive or a party to the fraud.

And just in case the BNP got some momentum anyhow, it’s split, the BFP having the identical agenda and the identical racist baggage, i.e., Tommy Rotten Lennon or whateverhisnameis and the Anders Breivik-linked EDL.

The only question that this discussion raises that seems to me to be of any interested is whether Farage is a fake too.

The fact that those of long British descent will within a generation or two be a minority in their own country is another reason for opposing mass immigration, I suppose, but it is not the only one. And even if it were the only one, is opposing the genocide of your own people as a racial, cultural and religious entity, truly racist?

Basically, yes.

The fact that you’ve even framed it like this proves that you’re a racist. The British people are not disappearing as a distinct entity. And anyway, even if they are, they only exist as such in the minds of bigots. So it would be a good thing for this to happen, even though it actually isn’t. Understand?

@vimothy
“The fact that you’ve even framed it like this proves that you’re a racist.”

No. Your comment proves that you do not know the meaning of the word race but you like insulting people.

Race is a correct biological term referring to an interbreeding and relatively isolated population. Virtually all widely distributed species exist in more or less geographically isolated populations that constitute races that have become genetically distinct through processes of local adaptation, genetic drift and mutation.

“The British people are not disappearing as a distinct entity. And anyway, even if they are they”

i.e., you don’t know what you are talking about, but you insist on talking about it anyway and insulting anyone who questions your ignorance. Isn’t that what bigotry is all about?

An admission that you don’t know what you are talking about, i.e. the British people do not exist or if the do

I wrote a response to vimothy who seems seriously conflicted logically and otherwise, but it disappeared. Is that censorship? There were no cus words. Or did it just get lost somewhwere?

CanSpeccy,

Your irony detector is dialled too low! Either that, or mine is dialled too high.

40

‘I could go on’
Please don’t

vimothy,

Re: irony detector

Sorry to miss the point.

Your simulation of the orthodox view was well done. In particular, the repeated self-contradiction seemed compelling proof of authenticity.

CanSpeccy,

No need to apologise–I consider it a compliment ;-)

49. So Much For Subtlety

38. john b

SMFS channels the spirit of Senator McCarthy. Awesome!

McCarthyism – what the Left calls telling the truth about Communists. I was only pointing out the facts. The people demanding to know if someone else was ever a member of a legal party are all those people who think membership of the BNP ought to be some sort of lifelong Mark of Cain.

The only genuine McCarthyism here is from pretty much everyone else.

50. So Much For Subtlety

42. vimothy

The fact that you’ve even framed it like this proves that you’re a racist. The British people are not disappearing as a distinct entity. And anyway, even if they are, they only exist as such in the minds of bigots. So it would be a good thing for this to happen, even though it actually isn’t. Understand?

The way that Britishness and even more so Englishness has always been defined has had a racial component. That is regrettable, but it is a fact. The British and the English are disappearing in the traditional sense. You may welcome this, or you may mourn it, but it is a fact. Do the British only exist in the minds of bigots? I doubt it. There is such a thing as Britishness. There is such a thing as the English. Just as there used to be such a thing as the New York Dutch community. Or the Pequot for that matter. Tell me how uncontrolled immigration did nothing whatsoever to affect those communities or the Tasmanian Aboriginees for that matter. And how they are thriving today.

“The way that Britishness and even more so Englishness has always been defined has had a racial component. That is regrettable, but it is a fact.”

What’s regrettable about it? The British are one of the oldest races in existence. They have occupied the British Isles for ten thousand years. That’s several dozen times as long as Zulus have existed in South Africa. True there have been racial additions to the British gene pool from other places over the years, but according to Bryan Sykes, Oxford Professor of Human Genetics, most of those of British descent since before 1950, are also of British descent going back thousands of years. The Roman, Viking and Norman invasions changed the gene pool rather little. In comparison, the current mass migration to Britain is unprecedented.

So defining Britishness in racial terms is only a recognition of reality. There’s nothing racist about acknowledging reality, is there?

And at a time when the public is constantly urged to be concerned about biodiversity, why are efforts to preserve human biodiversity to be reviled?

But there are also cultural aspects to nationality, and anyone who advocates the destruction of the national culture through the promotion of multiculti bollocks, which many immigrants means supremacy for their culture, is an advocate of cultural genocide, just as those who hoot “racists” at the 70% of the British population who oppose mass immigration are advocates of racial genocide.

Opposing the genocide of your own people is surely a justifiable and indeed honorable thing to do. Those in Britain who decry it are either self-hating racists, or settlers intent on demoralizing the natives in the way the Tasmanians were demoralized (when they weren’t hunted and shot) by British settlers.

The fact that Britain has a record of colonialism is no reason for the Brits to commit autogenocide. For can anyone name with any certainty any people or race that has not at some time in their history engaged in aggressive war, genocide and exploitation of others?

And in fact the great majority of the British people are opposed to self-destruction through mass immigration of different ethnicities with birth rates far in excess of the sub-replacement native rate, which makes very good sense to me and is not something to be regretted in the least. That’s not to imply superiority of the British. On the contrary, they seem a rather pathetic lot, standing by contemptuous elite sets out to destroy them: much as the left wanted to destroy the hoi-poloi during the thirties, with H.G. Wells and Bernard Shaw arguing strenuously for sending the weak, the sick, the unemployed ,the lame to the gas chambers.

52. Robin Levett

@SMFS #37:

Let’s see. Your original claim was that:

Virtually all of Blair’s Cabinet except Blair himself had a background in totalitarian parties. Virtually all of them had a background in pro-Soviet politics. Many of them took money from the Soviet Union.

to which I responded:

Evidence for any of that?

Instead of saying no, which would have been the accurate answer, you dismissively replied:

Are you serious or just wasting my time? This is the Cabinet that included David Blunkett, formerly leader of the People’s Republic of Sheffield, Jack Straw, the teenage Trot, John Prescott, former official for the Communist controlled National Union of Seamen, John Reid, former member of the CPGB and its Youth League, all of which was presided over by the former activist in the Communist Youth League, Peter Mandelson.

Blunkett: He was never leader of the People’s Republic of Sheffield, but of the People’s Republic of South Yorkshire (a Tory coinage, for what it’s worth).

He was however a Labour Party member – elected councillor in the Labour interest at 22 – and never a member of any other party Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Is there any evidence of his involvement in pro-Soviet politics? You supply none.

Did he take money from the Soviet Union? – no evidence supplied.

Straw: Trotskyist? Really? Any evidence of that?

Pro-Soviet politics? No evidence offered.

Taking money from the Soviet Union? No attempt to produce any evidence.

Prescott: “the Communist controlled National Union of Seamen”. Are you serious? While Prescott was a member, the NUS was notoriously the most right-wing of unions.

Reid: He was a CPGB member for a short time while at University (although the Party wasn’t very sure of the strength of his commitment). So he is a former member of what could be called a totalitarian party; and arguably was therefore involved in pro-Soviet politics. Soviet money?

Mandelson: He was indeed a member of the Communist Youth League; but not for very long.

So we have two members of the Blair Cabinet who were student members of Communist organisations, but retreated fast from those positions. Anybody who genuinely was for any significant time pro-Soviet, or totaliarian? Do remember that “virtually all” were your words, not mine.

I have a feeling that any more evidence you provid will be like the evidence that you produced for Mandela’s Communist leanings and terrorism – namely, his speech at the Rivonia trial where he disavowed both.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Derek Oakley

    RT @libcon: Did UKIP ignore concerns about BNP? http://t.co/Ym3QDow0

  2. Phil Jones

    Did UKIP ignore member concerns about BNP infiltration, @Gawaintowler? – http://t.co/7g8xe5TM

  3. Dave Harries

    Did UKIP ignore member concerns about BNP infiltration, @Gawaintowler? – http://t.co/7g8xe5TM

  4. Max Munday

    Links btn #UKIP & #BNP? Thoughts #Sheffield? http://t.co/b19vQFsO

  5. 3AB1

    “@sunny_hundal: Did UKIP ignore member concerns about BNP infiltration, @Gawaintowler? – http://t.co/eXbr7RmE”

  6. Destroy Socialism

    RT @sunny_hundal: Did UKIP ignore member concerns about BNP infiltration – http://t.co/MHIDljmZ > BNP – Scum but not as bad as Labour.

  7. Tim Whitehouse

    RT @sunny_hundal: Did UKIP ignore member concerns about BNP infiltration – http://t.co/MHIDljmZ > BNP – Scum but not as bad as Labour.

  8. michelle maher

    Did UKIP ignore member concerns about BNP infiltration, @Gawaintowler? – http://t.co/7g8xe5TM

  9. Luther Blissett

    Did UKIP ignore member concerns about BNP infiltration, @Gawaintowler? – http://t.co/7g8xe5TM

  10. Yusef Mohammed Bell

    Did UKIP ignore member concerns about BNP infiltration, @Gawaintowler? – http://t.co/7g8xe5TM

  11. Len Day

    @crazycraig85 http://t.co/XURK2qxh





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.